Claustrophobia Would Be Very, Very Bad

The oncologist's office called this morning to say that the insurance (finally) approved the PET CT scan, and asked me to schedule it. So the surgery is delayed until the results come back from the PET CT.

So the PET CT is scheduled for next Tuesday morning. It will take approximately 2 hours. From what I've read online and from what others have told me, they will inject me with radioactive material, let me sit there for an hour, and then send me through the MRI tube.

As usual, the scheduler asked me if I had claustrophobia. I told her I had just been through the MRI two weeks (more information than she wanted, I'm sure), and that it was a good thing I wasn't claustrophobic. I could see how that would be quite frightening. I have a friend of a friend who just went through one and she's claustrophobic; thankfully, her friend (my friend) sat with her and held her hand during the entire open-air MRI. Now, that's a good friend.

The oncologist, Dr. Stern, should have the results by the next day. And, I imagine, that's when Shirley will be asked to schedule the surgery.

It looks to me like we're looking at mid to late March for the procedure.

In the meantime, I'm cleaning up around home, making lists of things, trying to get the tax prep all done before that date. And when I get the date, I'll start telling people.

I told one friend today, George, and since his wife has had multiple cancers, he had some good advice (he always has advice) and some kind words. We're working on our retiree newsletter together, and this one will be the last issue for quite awhile.

A Heavy Shadow

Medical stuff takes a long time. Have you noticed that? Due to my commitments and Dr. Stern's journey to Japan, I can't get with him face-to-face until two weeks from now. However, my regular GP, Dr. Laura Miller of Lifelong in Oakland, called me a couple of times and left messages.

This last time was Friday night, and she said she was seeing a lot of paperwork with my name on it come through with test results. On Monday morning, I promptly called her to see if she had the results of the MRI. I had been waiting weeks and had heard nothing. She did. She hesitated in revealing what was on the report, but she kept repeating that it was a topic of "great concern." Over and over. Rather than leave me there, however, she called Dr. Stern's office and practically insisted that someone in his office, one of his staff, call me and tell me the results instead of just leaving me hanging there. And so they did.

Stephanie called to tell me that the radiologist reported that there was a "mass inside the uterus...suspicious for endometrial cancer," or so it was interpreted by Stephanie when she told me over the phone today. It's too large for a fibroid, she followed.

So, what does that mean. It means.... it's time for another test! This time it's a PET scan, similar to the last MRI I just had, only with radiological material (glucose) instead of contrast material inserted into my veins.

What did we ever do without the internet? According to RadiologyInfo.org, PET stands for Positron Emission Tomography, which is "a type of nuclear medicine imaging."

Small amounts of radioactive material are injected or taken orally or inhaled as a gas, accumulate in the organ or area of the body being examined, and help in diagnosing diseases because they're able to pinpoint molecular activity within the body. Radioactive emissions from the radio tracer are detected by a special camera that produces pictures and detailed molecular information.

The PET scan seems to be quite different in how it works as opposed to the MRI. The CT produces "excellent anatomic information," while the PET scan measures "important body functions, such as blood flow, oxygen use, and sugar (glucose) metabolism, to help doctors evaluate how well organs and tissues are functioning."

Stephanie went on to tell me the PET scan will aid in identifying cancer in the uterus, specifically that mass, and whether it's spread and where.

We are now awaiting clearance from my insurance company, which takes about a week. Megan will then call me with phone numbers, etc., by which to make the appointment. I'm going to make sure this one happens soon. After all, it would be optimal if we could get all the tests done and results in by the time my appointment comes up with Dr. Stern in mid-February.

MRI vs. Mammography

Newsweek (November 3, 2008) had a small article on MRI's vs. the mammogram.

It seems that the question about whether MRI's can do a better job than mammograms in the detection of breast cancer has been coming up ever since women learned that Christina Applegate's breast cancer was discovered after her doctor ordered an MRI.

According to Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, most women will not benefit from MRI screening.

The problems with MRI's:

1. MRI's are more expensive.
2. MRI's have more false positive results than mammograms.

However, recent American Cancer Society guidelines (cancer.org) do recommend MRI, along with mammography, for women who are at the highest risk of developing the disease.

As it turns out, Applegate was in that group. She had tested positive for a genetic mutation called BRCA. Also at high risk are those women who have a close relative with the mutation and are untested.

Best bet: talk to your doctor.

Two New Articles on Cancer: Good vs. Evil

Here are two news article related to cancer. One is good news for us, and the other is bad news (although predictable).

A new cancer scanner for dense breasts has been developed, according to an Associated Press article on September 4, 2008.

“A radioactive tracer that ‘lights up’ cancer hiding inside dense breasts showed promise in its first big test against mammograms, revealing more tumors and giving fewer false alarms, doctors reported Wednesday.”

They very explicitly said that the new test would not replace mammograms for women, but would be an additional tool for higher-risk women who have dense tissue that makes tumors hard to spot on mammograms. And the new test (MBI) is less cost than an MRI, $500 versus $1,000+.


Nearly 60 percent of employers nationwide plan to curb rising health premiums by making their employees pay more, according to a survey released Thursday by Mercer consulting firm.

In an effort to reduce costs next year, 59 percent of companies surveyed said they will raise deductibles, co-payments, the share of premiums that employees pay, or out-of-pocket spending limits.