CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › wanderingcobra76 › Posts

Posts by wanderingcobra76

138 posts shown.

Abdominal CT Scan! in Health ·
stormyhound13 said:The instructions for the scan mention that I'll need to bend or move on command every now and then, which pretty much confirms what you were saying earlier about this being a dynamic CT scan...

Anyway, my main question was really more about whether there's any difference in risk when using contrast media if I'm drinking it versus getting it through an IV ?

When you drink it, the likelihood of any adverse reactions is significantly lower.
Generally speaking, with iodine-based contrast agents, one might expect anything from a mild reaction to a more severe allergic response.
However, thanks to the newer generations of contrast media being used today, that risk has been reduced to an absolute minimum.
When the contrast is ingested, it’s much more diluted—only about 1-2% actually gets absorbed through the intestines into the bloodstream—so there is a very slim chance of any reaction occurring, even for individuals with known iodine allergies.
MRI Scan Results in Health ·
David White2 said:I’m building on the point made above. I have noticed during some of my own Microsoft scans—and several colleagues of mine share this observation—that different radiologists tend to fall back on the exact same templates when they have a previous report sitting right in front of them. Because of this, my advice is simple: do not bring your old reports with you if you are getting scans of the same area. The entire purpose of seeking a second opinion is to get an independent perspective, not to have a radiologist simply glance at someone else's diagnosis and then parrot it back or "tweak" it to match. Furthermore, the scans themselves clearly indicate where they were performed, so there is always a risk that the interpreting radiologist knows the original doctor. Even though doctors always tell you to bring your medical history and all relevant documentation,

In my experience, I’ve had joint MRIs done at Cleveland Clinic, where the reading was handled by Dr. Matej Mustapić, a radiology specialist from Mass General Hospital. I can certainly recommend him; he is highly experienced and widely regarded as a top-tier diagnostician. I also went to St. Catherine, where the renowned expert Dr. Borić practices. Their MRI machine is specifically optimized for imaging joint structures, utilizing specialized software that provides exceptional clarity for joints, particularly regarding cartilage condition. They even conduct clinical trials there involving stem cell regeneration for cartilage and joint tissues using Lipogems, so their equipment is specifically tailored for that level of detail.

The next time I need one, I’ll head to Quest Diagnostics. They’ve recently acquired a new 3T machine, and I make it a point not to bring any prior documentation or even mention my previous MRI results. Up until now, I’ve mostly used insurance referrals, though I did pay out-of-pocket once during a promotion when the price was dropped from $533 down to what I believe was $300.


By following that logic, you are only hurting yourself.
Of course, everyone uses similar templates—they are describing the same anatomical structures, after all! In medicine, there is actually a push toward structured reporting, where changes are described using standardized language specifically so everything is clearer to everyone involved.
The other factor is disease progression—which is absolutely vital when establishing a diagnosis.
For instance, when reviewing a CT scan or a chest X-ray, if a suspicious shadow appears that might suggest a tumor, it is incredibly important to see previous images if they exist. Why? Because seeing whether that change was already present and how it has evolved allows doctors to determine much more accurately what kind of tumor we are dealing with.
Bringing your medical history is just as essential because a diagnosis isn't made solely based on images—while that can happen sometimes, the results are far higher quality if the radiologist understands the patient's full context, including their symptoms and history.

I have previously had joint MRIs done in Tel Aviv, where the reading was handled by Dr. Matthew Mustapić, a specialist in radiology from Mercy Hospital. I can certainly recommend him; he is highly experienced and truly a renowned diagnostician.

That is true, he is excellent. He moved to Sweden.

Laura Cox5 said:But again, that's just my two cents—don't forget, everything is interconnected nowadays, so there's really no point in lugging around physical CDs anyway.

Not everyone is networked. Even hospitals within the Medicare system aren't fully integrated, let alone private clinics. Sure, you can send images via telemedicine from one hospital to another, but that requires contacting another institution, and those transfers fail more often than you'd think...
That is why it is much safer to just bring everything with you.
I couldn't agree more—it’s as if the anxiety attacks themselves get an "upgrade" when those physical symptoms start kicking in.
My mother is exactly the same way—she's probably convinced herself she was having a heart attack at least 200 times by now.
But in reality, it’s just an anxiety attack manifesting as chest tightness.
Then, once the mental side of the problem ramps up, everything else follows suit—her left arm starts going numb, the pain radiates toward her jaw, and so on.
Abdominal ultrasound: What to expect? in Health ·
Michelle Ortiz said:Could someone please provide some insight regarding how reliable an intestinal ultrasound actually is? To be specific—due to ongoing abdominal pain and some consistency issues with bowel movements—an ultrasound picked up a hypoechoic mass in the terminal ileum area. I have a colonoscopy and ileoscopy scheduled next. Has anyone here experienced a situation where the ultrasound showed something concerning, yet the endoscopic results turned out to be completely normal?

An ultrasound isn't exactly the gold standard when it comes to analyzing the intestines—it just isn't quite that precise. While a scan can certainly raise a red flag or suggest something might be wrong, it’s really just a starting point to justify more definitive testing through other diagnostic methods.
ruggedfox11 said:The CTA scan results just arrived:

LDH dropped down to 203 from nearly 290.

I’m a bit confused... what exactly is the omentum? The first CTA report didn't mention any lymph nodes except for the one in the abdomen—and that isn't mentioned here either. Could they be referring to the same thing?

As for those pesky little nodules in the lungs, they haven't moved at all. Not even a tiny bit. Could that be something else entirely? Does the fact that they haven't changed mean those cells within the lungs have developed some kind of resistance? Or perhaps it's just scarring? Or maybe inflammation?

What should they do regarding that adenoma?

Now, I’m going to be a little "mathematically precise" here—if we look at dimensions as length x width x height (depth), it looks like it has shrunk significantly in length, but by about 2 cm in terms of width and depth...

What should I ask his doctor tomorrow? We are heading into the fifth round of chemo...

And honestly, he’s been incredibly cranky lately—we’ve been bickering over the most trivial things for two days now.

Based on the abdominal CTA findings, there is a good response to the chemotherapy, so the current treatment plan will continue.
The omentum is simply the abdominal lining.
Regarding the adrenal adenoma, no action is taken because those are benign enlargements.
Even if we weren't talking about benign adenomas but rather metastases, nothing would be done right now because the overall response to the therapy is considered satisfactory.

One shouldn't expect miracles; a response to chemo is usually a gradual process. You should be encouraged that the tumor is reacting, and try not to stress too much over the specific dimensions of every single little nodule—after all, medicine isn't quite as exact as mathematics.
Robin Diaz4 said:I'd be furious if I hadn't asked them to scan his head too.
Though, I suspect his confusion is just a side effect of the chemo—he seemed much more himself this afternoon, even if he was a bit foggy this morning. Yesterday, though? Honestly, he acted as if he were intoxicated—maybe even drunk.

Sent from my B1-770 using Twitter

Just keep in mind that if the referral doesn't explicitly call for a General Electric head CT, and the patient hasn't been cleared for one, the staff simply can't perform that extra scan.
No one is allowed to run a test that hasn't been specifically ordered—that is, requested by the attending physician overseeing the patient's care.
stormyfalcon68 said:I wasn't quite sure where to ask, but since this thread seems to be the most active one, I thought I'd check here—does anyone know about this?
Breast Ultrasound Results:

The skin and subcutaneous fatty tissue appear normal.
Given her age (37), the glandular parenchyma is reduced to a thin strip, showing significant fatty replacement.
On the right side, near the upper quadrants, there is an elongated cystogenic zone, primarily indicating ductal ectasia.
No pathological lymph node enlargement was found in the axillae.
Involutive type
BI-RADS 2
Follow up with a mammogram in the near future.

Is there any reason to panic?


No, based on the description, these are benign changes. It should be perfectly fine to just schedule a follow-up in 6 months.
MRI Angiogram: What to expect? in Health ·
A very tidy finding, indeed.
Chest CT scan results/questions in Health ·
Nicholas Doyle91 said:Hey there,

I was wondering if it’s actually possible to get a lung CT scan without using any contrast dye—basically, can doctors still spot potential issues in the lungs if they don't inject the stuff?

About five months ago, I had a PET/CT scan that flagged some tiny nodules in my lungs, so now I need to go back in for a follow-up CT to see how things look. The big headache is that I had a massive, nasty reaction to the contrast last time, so I am dying to avoid getting injected with it again. I'm specifically talking about that IV contrast they pump in at the end of the scan.

Thanks a ton!

If those nodules are located strictly within the lung tissue itself, then yes—you can certainly proceed without any contrast.
Contrast is primarily utilized to provide better differentiation of structures in the mediastinum—think things like identifying lymph nodes or centrally located tumors, for instance.

After experiencing such a bad reaction to contrast, who could blame you for wanting to avoid it entirely?
Justin Brown6 said:Hello everyone. I was diagnosed with testicular cancer and have finished three cycles of chemotherapy—so far, so good! No metastases were found initially, and my first follow-up went perfectly. However, during the second check-up, my AFP levels spiked slightly before dropping back down on a repeat test. Now, due to a few unpredictable circumstances, my oncologist is insisting I undergo a chest CT scan to rule out any issues. Personally, I’ve always been a proponent of using an MRI instead, simply because there's no radiation involved. Do I actually have the right to request an MRI and proceed with that instead of following her specific recommendation? When I asked about the risks of a CT scan—especially since certain things can be identified through other methods or combinations of less harmful tests—my response was essentially that a CT wouldn't hurt me and there was no reason to worry. What should I do? Honestly, I'm just feeling mentally exhausted...

A chest CT is actually much more reliable for spotting metastases than an MRI would be.
An MRI of the chest basically looks at the soft tissue structures in the mid-chest area—think heart, major blood vessels, and lymph nodes—but it isn't quite up to the task of detecting potential metastases or other changes within the lungs themselves.
Since testicular cancers are known to frequently metastasize specifically to the lungs, a CT is definitely the more valuable diagnostic tool here.
Epiphyseal cyst: What should I know? in Health ·
An epidermoid cyst is actually quite common—it shows up as an incidental finding in about 5% of brain MRIs, and during autopsies, we see it in roughly 20-40% of people.
Most of the time, these don't cause any symptoms at all, which means there is absolutely no need for surgery.
Surgery is only considered if the cyst begins to grow large enough to cause actual issues.
Once an MRI confirms that it is just a standard cyst, further monitoring isn't even strictly necessary, provided the patient remains symptom-free.
As for alternative treatments? There simply aren't any.
Performing a liver puncture or biopsy—or indeed any biopsy of an organ within the abdominal cavity under ultrasound or CT guidance—is simply not an outpatient procedure.
Because of this, one cannot merely schedule such a service through a standard referral from a primary care physician.
The patient must be formally admitted to the hospital—whether that be oncology, surgery, or gastroenterology, depending entirely on which specialist is managing their care—and then the attending physician coordinates directly with an interventional radiologist to arrange the actual puncture or biopsy.
Following the procedure, the patient remains hospitalized overnight to allow for close monitoring of their condition.
Nothing out of the ordinary here—all my results came back within the normal physiological range😉
MSCT scan in Health ·
Based on the description, it unfortunately seems to be primarily about metastases. Does the report mention anything regarding how the lesions behave after the contrast agent is administered?

Generally speaking, patients with newly discovered liver metastases are often referred to a gastroenterologist first—who then coordinates the follow-up to pinpoint the primary tumor and confirm if those changes are truly metastatic—but waiting two months is simply far too long.
In principle, these patients really ought to be admitted to a hospital for a full workup as soon as possible.
Lump in breast (men) in Health ·
It is most likely gynecomastia—which is essentially just the development of breast tissue in men.
It tends to pop up during your age group, though you see it in older men quite often too.
Sometimes it happens for no clear reason at all, but other times it can be triggered by a hormonal imbalance.
In many cases, it actually resolves on its own.

I would suggest heading to your primary care physician; they will likely order a breast ultrasound—which is necessary just to confirm we are dealing with glandular tissue rather than a tumor—and they might refer you to an endocrinologist as well.
Angela Wright said:They apply this little bit of purple liquid—I can't quite recall the specific name right now—but the radiology techs will know exactly what I'm talking about.

gentian violet
Jamie Barnes15 said:I just can't seem to find any info online—do enlarged lymph nodes in the retroperitoneum always signal something bad, or could they just show up like that for no reason?

Typically, retroperitoneal lymph nodes are considered normal if they stay within the 8-10mm range.

If someone has a history of malignancy, any enlargement in those nodes naturally raises concerns about potential metastasis (for instance, with testicular cancer, we're usually looking at the paraaortic nodes).
Given that your measurements are right on that borderline, it's really important to monitor them closely—just so you can react quickly if things actually do change.
That being said, it's certainly possible they are perfectly fine—it's crucial to compare your current CT scans with previous ones to see how they looked before. Right now, their size alone isn't specific enough to draw any definitive conclusions, is it?
Steven Smith2 said:So, is it actually possible for new metastases to develop while undergoing chemotherapy—specifically in the liver in this case? And is there even an option for surgery to remove liver metastases? I'd assume they would have to be quite small if they just appeared...

It is indeed possible for them to emerge during chemo.
Theoretically, surgeons can remove them—though, from what I understand, it becomes much more complicated if there are more than five or if they are spread across both lobes of the liver (I am not entirely certain on those specific medical details).
However, given how widespread the disease seems to be here—with involvement in the brain, the adrenal glands, and the liver—I unfortunately doubt that surgically removing the liver lesions would make much sense at this stage.

Steven Smith2 said:Disease stage: T3N0M1b

Metastasis to the liver and adrenal glands
Multiple brain metastases; status post brain radiation
Status following chemotherapy (Stage IV)
Status post cervical carcinoma radiation approximately 20 years ago
Secondary anemia

Liver and adrenal gland metastases
Brain metastases—following brain radiation treatment
Status after receiving chemotherapy
Status following cervical cancer radiation twenty years ago
Anemia resulting from the treatments administered
driftingcrane27 said:Thanks so much for the reply! 🙂
Is there anything one could actually do—perhaps for prevention or just some general support—regarding those potential blood clots?

Not really during home care. Typically, anticoagulants are only introduced if a patient is hospitalized and facing an increased risk of thrombosis—for instance, following a surgical procedure. Otherwise, there is always the risk that such medications could lead to uncontrolled bleeding, so they aren't administered routinely outside of a clinical setting.
While this won't negatively impact metastases, we have to keep in mind that patients dealing with extensive metastatic disease are at a higher risk for developing venous blood clots.
These clots can potentially lead to deep vein thrombosis—which usually shows up as leg swelling and pain—but there is a real danger here: if you attempt a massage, those tiny clots could dislodge, traveling through the bloodstream straight to the lungs where they might cause a life-threatening pulmonary embolism.