I know the lymph nodes are staying the same size—I actually went digging through my old posts to find my previous CT scan results just so I could make a proper comparison. That’s exactly why I feel like things aren't quite as dire as they seem—while the tumor mass itself has unfortunately grown, the metastatic disease hasn't spread any further. If new metastases had popped up, then we would be looking at a much more serious situation, wouldn't we? I am really hoping that the radiation therapy does the trick. 🙂
As you’ve already observed, the tumor has grown again—not by a massive amount, perhaps, but certainly enough to suggest that the current chemotherapy isn't hitting the mark. The metastases in the mediastinal lymph nodes (around the heart and the large bronchi) look roughly the same as before—if one goes by the written report, though comparing the actual scans is always much easier—which is a positive sign since they haven't significantly increased or spread into many new areas. It is also encouraging that we aren't seeing any metastasis in the bones, adrenal glands, or the liver. The rest of the findings remain unchanged from the previous reports; specifically, those scarring changes and atelectasis caused by the tumor's growth are permanent—those won't be reversed by therapy, regardless.
You will have to wait and see what the medical board decides, but they will likely pivot to a different treatment plan given that this one clearly hasn't been successful.
Please do keep a very close eye on his mental state, any headaches, or potential weakness in a single arm or leg—things like dropping items, stumbling, or difficulty articulating words—because lung tumors do have a tendency to metastasize to the brain.
He likely meant an endovascular approach—since that’s typically done under local anesthesia—but it isn't actually performed by a surgeon, but rather an interventional radiologist (though patients usually stay in the vascular surgery wing). Essentially, they go through an artery in the groin—which is where the anesthetic is administered—using a wire to reach the blocked areas in the arteries; from there, they attempt to clear the blockage and then dilate the area with a balloon, adding a stent if necessary.
Chloe Gray5 said:Since Dad was discharged to go home, we received his discharge papers along with the vascular surgeon's findings—apparently, an angiography was performed. It states there is a 2.5x2.5 aortic aneurysm, and the common iliac arteries are dilated, with what seems to be blockages in the internal iliacs too; plus, in his right leg, there are localized issues in the tibial, superficial femoral, and deep femoral arteries. And they just sent him home like that? Isn't that considered an emergency? I suppose since he's taking Marivarin, that will help prevent blood clots from forming? Or regarding those localized clots in his right leg—can they somehow be removed or dissolved? What really worries me is the mention that the internal iliacs are completely blocked... doesn't that mean the organs in the pelvic region aren't getting any blood flow?? I just don't understand how he could be at home in this state. Oh dear. After everything else he's been through, now this. I am genuinely terrified he might lose his right leg or, God forbid, his life because of those internal iliac issues😢.
The aneurysmal dilation of the abdominal aorta being described definitely isn't something requiring surgery (not even for patients who are otherwise perfectly fit and healthy); rather, it's something to monitor, as it is so subtle that it's hard to even call it an aneurysm.
If the origins of the internal iliac arteries are indeed blocked, the pelvic organs still receive blood via collateral circulation—essentially, natural bypasses that develop when certain arteries become obstructed. Nothing in his pelvic organs should be seriously threatened (though he might experience issues such as impotence, for instance)...
These localized arterial blockages in the right leg are actually very common in smokers, diabetics, and similar cases—in those instances, it's chronic, meaning it developed over a long period of time. I highly doubt this is a fresh embolism (though, admittedly, I don't know the full medical history). If the limb isn't acutely compromised at this stage, there is certainly no need for immediate intervention; once he recovers, if there is any limitation in his walking range, there is the possibility of endovascular therapy for those blockages (meaning a solution without open surgery), depending, of course, on the appearance of the arteries.
If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't let this worry me too much. While those levels are technically within the normal range, tumor markers near the breast area are notoriously unspecific—so much so that doctors often stop using them altogether because they aren't reliable enough.
Chris Howard3 said:Since I’ve spent several months visiting doctors to no avail—and I still can't figure out what's going on—I decided to start this thread to see if anyone else is facing similar issues. I have two children; my oldest son is 3, and my youngest will be 10 months old soon. Ever since I had my first child, my milk supply hasn't dried up. I haven't even nursed my younger son for over 9 months now. My prolactin levels came back at 194, which is within the normal range, and my thyroid hormones are fine—though my thyroid is visibly enlarged. I've also experienced some vision field defects and difficulty breathing; they initially thought it was asthma, but now they aren't quite sure... plus, I have about six swollen lymph nodes around my neck. If anyone could offer some advice, I would be truly grateful... Best regards,
Have you consulted with an endocrinologist yet? What kind of vision field defect are we talking about? Is the milk leaking spontaneously, or only when pressed? (Some women "express" themselves daily, which can actually artificially prolong lactation). Has an MRI of the pituitary gland been performed?
Increased milk secretion is typically seen with none breast changes, and as a rule, it tends to be bilateral.
feralridge3 said:To be honest, the radiation really scares me—I'm actually dealing with some permanent side effects from previous brain radiation, so I'd hate to add anything else to the mix. 😢 Thanks for explaining everything. 🙂 I have my appointment for a CIA scan scheduled for late August, so we'll just have to see how it goes. Back in May, I had my routine checkup and the MRI showed no tumors—I must have given it quite a scare when it didn't show anything! 😍 So, I had relatively recent images, and I went to a private clinic asking them to check if there was anything going on in my ear. The radiologist mentioned she didn't see anything unusual on the scans, but noted that those were images taken before my ear was cleaned. My ear was blocked with this sticky buildup that was incredibly difficult to clear; once they finally managed to clean it out, it turned out there actually *is* something in there. It also seems like the doctor mentioned that getting a CIA would be the better move. Thanks again—now there's nothing left to do but wait for my scheduled date. 🙄
Don't worry too much; what you were told regarding radiation was actually referring to radiotherapy. The radiation used in a CIA is at a completely different intensity level—in your specific case, it's negligible, isn't it? Truly, the benefits far outweigh any potential risks.
If that MRI from May was accurate, there might not be an urgent need to pay for a brand-new scan so soon. However, you should definitely proceed with the CIA just to get a much clearer view of the temporal bones.
feralridge3 said:Angela Wright, what do you think about this? My brain underwent radiation therapy almost exactly four years ago—if I recall correctly, one of those doctors mentioned I should avoid radiation exposure for at least five years following treatment. Right now, I'm dealing with some ear issues, and my ENT is referring me for a CIA scan of both ears. I actually asked if they could send me for an MRI instead, but he told me their standard practice is only to order MRIs for inpatient cases. So, I'm considering just paying out of pocket for the MRI myself.🤷 It shouldn't cost more than a brain MRI with spectroscopy, and honestly, after spending a thousand or two over the last four years, this seems like a negligible expense. 🙄
The main issue is my left ear—I can barely hear anything out of it (I already use a hearing aid in my right ear). After nearly four weeks of endless cleaning attempts, the doctor concluded there is "something" going on inside that left ear. 🙂 To make matters more complicated, the original tumor was located on that same left side of my head.
May I weigh in on this?
When it comes to ear-related issues, a CIA scan of the temporal bones is almost always the indicated first step. A CIA offers much better spatial resolution—especially when it comes to visualizing bone structures—making it definitively superior for analyzing the temporal bones and the vestibulocochlear apparatus.
If I were in your shoes, I would certainly advise getting the CIA done first. Then, you could opt for an MRI only if the CIA results come back inconclusive, or if further clarification regarding any detected pathology is needed at the level of the brain or brainstem. In that scenario, they would likely refer you for an MRI during a hospital appointment anyway.
Essentially, osteolysis is just the term used to describe any kind of bone breakdown caused by tumor growth.
In this specific instance, osteolysis of the pelvic bone could stem from a couple of different things—it might be due to the primary tumor spreading directly (meaning the sarcoma itself is eating away at the bone as it expands), or it could be the result of a metastasis reaching the pelvic bone.
goldenlynx91 said:Could someone please clarify what this specific sentence in the medical report actually means?
The colon appears fragmented up to the level of the hepatic flexure—and notably, the haustrations remain intact.
The imaging shows a section of the large intestine extending up to the hepatic flexure—that bend right near the liver—and from what I can see, that specific segment appears perfectly normal. Everything looks quite healthy in that area based on the current analysis.
I should probably clarify that when we talk about an intestinal passage, the primary focus is really on inspecting the small intestine. While the large intestine might show up more or less depending on how quickly the contrast moves through the system—it’s all about that transit speed, really—the data we get regarding the large intestine is somewhat limited. At most, can we say it rules out any major pathologies? Perhaps, but that is largely where the diagnostic value ends.
So, when they say the pathology points toward Leiomyosarcoma—it essentially means that certain characteristics seen on the CT scan don't quite align with the typical appearance of a standard leiomyoma, which naturally raises the suspicion of Leiomyosarcoma. This doesn't necessarily mean it is definitely Leiomyosarcoma, but it does necessitate further investigation—primarily through surgical intervention to obtain a tissue sample for PhD analysis.
An MRI actually offers superior soft tissue resolution compared to a CT; because of that, it holds the advantage when diagnosing pelvic tumors—especially regarding staging, or determining how far the disease has spread. On the other hand, a CT has its own merits due to its spatial resolution, but ultimately, all these radiological methods are complementary—meaning they work together to provide a full picture—and every single detail is weighed when deciding on the course of treatment.
The aneurysm mentioned here measures 8mm in diameter—exactly as noted in the medical report. Typically, an MCA aneurysm would measure somewhere in the 3–5mm range, wouldn't it?
The gallbladder is simply the gallbladder—the fact that it’s folded over itself doesn't actually change anything; it's really just a variation in shape. The polyp detected inside is a small growth that needs to be monitored—meaning you'll need ultrasound check-ups every 6 to 12 months.
Has anyone had a chance to check your thyroid levels yet?
Regarding those warts on your foot—you really should see a dermatologist for some cryotherapy. You’ll likely need to keep up with the treatments until they are completely gone (it simply requires some persistence over time). Yes, it can be painful, but they aren't going to just vanish on their own.🤷
You really ought to schedule an appointment with a vascular surgeon.
It’s quite simple, really—when your feet start feeling colder than usual, it’s often a sign that blood flow is being restricted by arterial issues. A specialist will likely send you in for some diagnostic testing—most probably a color Doppler ultrasound to get a clear picture of what's happening.
It is vital to address these arterial concerns immediately; after all, isn't it much easier to manage small changes before they escalate? If significant blockages develop within the arteries, surgery can very quickly become the only viable option.
By the way, if you ever find yourself feeling uncertain about radiation used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes—it really is best to consult the official websites of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
granitepilot48 said:Hi everyone! I have a question—my mother-in-law is heading in for a PET scan today (for breast cancer), and I was reading online that after the scan is finished, the patient actually emits radiation for a few hours? Is it true that they shouldn't be near children or pregnant women?
I know this is coming a bit late, but just some info for anyone wondering in the future...
A few hours following a PET scan, there is still some radionuclide present in the patient's system—so yes, they do technically emit radiation. Now, these doses are incredibly small, but as a standard precaution, it isn't recommended to be in close contact with pregnant women or young children immediately after.
There is no such thing as "transferring" the radiation via a third party; in other words, if someone does come into contact with a patient who has received a radionuclide (again, keeping in mind those doses are minimal!), that contact person doesn't start radiating themselves. In this specific scenario, a husband can absolutely hug his kids without any issues.
Once 24 hours have passed since the radionuclide application, there are absolutely no restrictions left at all.
Just a standard X-ray? You just lie down on the table, they take shots from two different angles, and the whole thing is over in about two minutes—easy as that.
Actually, the decision to administer contrast is entirely up to the radiologist performing the scan—they make that call based on the initial diagnosis and the specific findings provided in the referral.