Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 BlankHi folks, There have been several postings regarding the MRI versus CT-Scan issue by Kurt Grayson and others, indicating that approval of the MS-325 contrast agent by the FDA is pending. Can anyone tell me if MS-325 has been actually approved? My onc is pushing me to do a CT-Scan (which I flatly refuse). The question is if MS-325 hasn't been approved yet, is there an acceptable contrast agent that can be used for MRI to check lymph-nodes, spleen and other CLL-related problems? If you know of an article on the web regarding this issue, please send the URL to me. Thanks for any help. Andy (75, dx 12/05, unmutated, w & w) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 , It was my understanding that MRI with MS-325is now available, but I will double check that. Give me a day or two. Also even if it is available most cities won't have it yet simply because it may be a whole new machine.....OR hopefully it's just a new contrast that works with the old MRI machines all testing centers have now. An excellent question and something we need to know. Meanwhile, Ultra Sound does show most abnormalities within the body, Ultra Sound doesn't lie, in fact it's very accurate and has no radiation. However, it is hard for our docs and especially hard for us to read, but the trained docs that read Ultra Sound for a living are very adept at reading them and they always provide a report with each test. Doctors rely on this report no matter what the test is you are getting. I know Ultra Sound is good because I had this test and it revealed that I had tumors inside both my liver and spleen. Thats pretty definitive testing. It of course doesn't tell you what kind of tumor it is but not even Cat Scan can tell you what it is. So, if Ultra Sound can tell me whats there why do I need a CT-Scan, just so my doctor or I can have an easier time reading it ourselves? The associated danger is too much for me to go ahead just for my docs convenience or my curiosity. Also, the techs at the radiology lab (where they do Ultra Sounds even though they have no radiology) the techs told me that if and when I decided to have a biopsy to determine the origin and makeup of the tumors that I could also use Ultra Sound guided biopsy procedure. In fact they recommended it over CT-Scan. So, at least at the moment it seems pretty clear to me that safe procedures are available. Remember, that in most cases all they are going to determine is that something is there, ie a lymph node and it's size. If Ultra Sound can tell you this, why would you have a CT-Scan? Sometimes it's difficult, well it's always difficult to argue or differ with a doctor as they are used to having their way, especially with a patient. I am going to do some more checking and I think each of you that is concerned or in need of tests should also check with your local Radiology departments and see what they tell you. Also pool our resources and check on the internet and anywhere else you can think of, lets see if we can't narrow this question down a little or even a lot by going after the actual facts rather than just by asking our docs, who may not know or even care themselves. Thanks, Kurt -------------- Original message -------------- From: " Gach " <unclewolf@...> BlankHi folks, There have been several postings regarding the MRI versus CT-Scan issue by Kurt Grayson and others, indicating that approval of the MS-325 contrast agent by the FDA is pending. Can anyone tell me if MS-325 has been actually approved? My onc is pushing me to do a CT-Scan (which I flatly refuse). The question is if MS-325 hasn't been approved yet, is there an acceptable contrast agent that can be used for MRI to check lymph-nodes, spleen and other CLL-related problems? If you know of an article on the web regarding this issue, please send the URL to me. Thanks for any help. Andy (75, dx 12/05, unmutated, w & w) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Thanks, Kurt, you're very right about some doctors being used to pulling the strings. There are a few things most physicians are defficient in, competents as they may be in their specialties, - like listening, communicating and paying interest to nutrition! I did some Google search on MS-325, but the best I saw was that it's expected to be approved by the FDA, - apparently it hasn't happened yet, unless I overlooked something. I imagine, the same old MRI machines will work fine with MS-325, it'll just enable them to produce better pictures. None of the articles I saw said anything about modifying MRIs. As to availability, it may be a little while after approval to produce enough of the MS-325 to supply every facility in the country. I'll mention ultrasound to my onc but I have the feeling I'll hit resistence. He's probably experienced in evaluating CT Scan output and won't like it if he has to rely on radiologists to interpret it for him. Andy Re: Question: MS-325 status > , > It was my understanding that MRI with MS-325is now available, but I will > double check that. Give me a day or two. Also even if it is available > most cities won't have it yet simply because it may be a whole new > machine.....OR hopefully it's just a new contrast that works with the old > MRI machines all testing centers have now. An excellent question and > something we need to know. > > Meanwhile, Ultra Sound does show most abnormalities within the body, > Ultra Sound doesn't lie, in fact it's very accurate and has no radiation. > However, it is hard for our docs and especially hard for us to read, but > the trained docs that read Ultra Sound for a living are very adept at > reading them and they always provide a report with each test. Doctors > rely on this report no matter what the test is you are getting. > > I know Ultra Sound is good because I had this test and it revealed that I > had tumors inside both my liver and spleen. Thats pretty definitive > testing. It of course doesn't tell you what kind of tumor it is but not > even Cat Scan can tell you what it is. So, if Ultra Sound can tell me > whats there why do I need a CT-Scan, just so my doctor or I can have an > easier time reading it ourselves? > > The associated danger is too much for me to go ahead just for my docs > convenience or my curiosity. Also, the techs at the radiology lab > (where they do Ultra Sounds even though they have no radiology) the techs > told me that if and when I decided to have a biopsy to determine the > origin and makeup of the tumors that I could also use Ultra Sound guided > biopsy procedure. In fact they recommended it over CT-Scan. > > So, at least at the moment it seems pretty clear to me that safe > procedures are available. Remember, that in most cases all they are > going to determine is that something is there, ie a lymph node and it's > size. If Ultra Sound can tell you this, why would you have a CT-Scan? > > Sometimes it's difficult, well it's always difficult to argue or differ > with a doctor as they are used to having their way, especially with a > patient. I am going to do some more checking and I think each of you that > is concerned or in need of tests should also check with your local > Radiology departments and see what they tell you. Also pool our resources > and check on the internet and anywhere else you can think of, lets see if > we can't narrow this question down a little or even a lot by going after > the actual facts rather than just by asking our docs, who may not know or > even care themselves. > > Thanks, Kurt > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: " Gach " <unclewolf@...> > BlankHi folks, > > There have been several postings regarding the MRI versus CT-Scan issue by > Kurt Grayson and others, indicating that approval of the MS-325 contrast > agent by the FDA is pending. > > Can anyone tell me if MS-325 has been actually approved? My onc is > pushing me to do a CT-Scan (which I flatly refuse). The question is if > MS-325 hasn't been approved yet, is there an acceptable contrast agent > that can be used for MRI to check lymph-nodes, spleen and other > CLL-related problems? > > If you know of an article on the web regarding this issue, please send the > URL to me. > > Thanks for any help. > > Andy (75, dx 12/05, unmutated, w & w) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Andy, It is a rare thing when an MD other than a radiologist reads his patients' films. Most,MOST, read the report written by the radiologist and never look at the film. Good health, Dan Hill Re: Question: MS-325 status > , > It was my understanding that MRI with MS-325is now available, but I will > double check that. Give me a day or two. Also even if it is available > most cities won't have it yet simply because it may be a whole new > machine.....OR hopefully it's just a new contrast that works with the old > MRI machines all testing centers have now. An excellent question and > something we need to know. > > Meanwhile, Ultra Sound does show most abnormalities within the body, > Ultra Sound doesn't lie, in fact it's very accurate and has no radiation. > However, it is hard for our docs and especially hard for us to read, but > the trained docs that read Ultra Sound for a living are very adept at > reading them and they always provide a report with each test. Doctors > rely on this report no matter what the test is you are getting. > > I know Ultra Sound is good because I had this test and it revealed that I > had tumors inside both my liver and spleen. Thats pretty definitive > testing. It of course doesn't tell you what kind of tumor it is but not > even Cat Scan can tell you what it is. So, if Ultra Sound can tell me > whats there why do I need a CT-Scan, just so my doctor or I can have an > easier time reading it ourselves? > > The associated danger is too much for me to go ahead just for my docs > convenience or my curiosity. Also, the techs at the radiology lab > (where they do Ultra Sounds even though they have no radiology) the techs > told me that if and when I decided to have a biopsy to determine the > origin and makeup of the tumors that I could also use Ultra Sound guided > biopsy procedure. In fact they recommended it over CT-Scan. > > So, at least at the moment it seems pretty clear to me that safe > procedures are available. Remember, that in most cases all they are > going to determine is that something is there, ie a lymph node and it's > size. If Ultra Sound can tell you this, why would you have a CT-Scan? > > Sometimes it's difficult, well it's always difficult to argue or differ > with a doctor as they are used to having their way, especially with a > patient. I am going to do some more checking and I think each of you that > is concerned or in need of tests should also check with your local > Radiology departments and see what they tell you. Also pool our resources > and check on the internet and anywhere else you can think of, lets see if > we can't narrow this question down a little or even a lot by going after > the actual facts rather than just by asking our docs, who may not know or > even care themselves. > > Thanks, Kurt > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: " Gach " <unclewolf@...> > BlankHi folks, > > There have been several postings regarding the MRI versus CT-Scan issue by > Kurt Grayson and others, indicating that approval of the MS-325 contrast > agent by the FDA is pending. > > Can anyone tell me if MS-325 has been actually approved? My onc is > pushing me to do a CT-Scan (which I flatly refuse). The question is if > MS-325 hasn't been approved yet, is there an acceptable contrast agent > that can be used for MRI to check lymph-nodes, spleen and other > CLL-related problems? > > If you know of an article on the web regarding this issue, please send the > URL to me. > > Thanks for any help. > > Andy (75, dx 12/05, unmutated, w & w) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Probably you're right, Dan, I was only speculating. I'll see my onc next week, we'll see what he says. Andy Re: Question: MS-325 status > > > > , > > It was my understanding that MRI with MS-325is now available, but I > will > > double check that. Give me a day or two. Also even if it is available > > most cities won't have it yet simply because it may be a whole new > > machine.....OR hopefully it's just a new contrast that works with the > old > > MRI machines all testing centers have now. An excellent question and > > something we need to know. > > > > Meanwhile, Ultra Sound does show most abnormalities within the body, > > Ultra Sound doesn't lie, in fact it's very accurate and has no > radiation. > > However, it is hard for our docs and especially hard for us to read, > but > > the trained docs that read Ultra Sound for a living are very adept at > > reading them and they always provide a report with each test. Doctors > > rely on this report no matter what the test is you are getting. > > > > I know Ultra Sound is good because I had this test and it revealed that > I > > had tumors inside both my liver and spleen. Thats pretty definitive > > testing. It of course doesn't tell you what kind of tumor it is but > not > > even Cat Scan can tell you what it is. So, if Ultra Sound can tell me > > whats there why do I need a CT-Scan, just so my doctor or I can have an > > easier time reading it ourselves? > > > > The associated danger is too much for me to go ahead just for my docs > > convenience or my curiosity. Also, the techs at the radiology lab > > (where they do Ultra Sounds even though they have no radiology) the > techs > > told me that if and when I decided to have a biopsy to determine the > > origin and makeup of the tumors that I could also use Ultra Sound > guided > > biopsy procedure. In fact they recommended it over CT-Scan. > > > > So, at least at the moment it seems pretty clear to me that safe > > procedures are available. Remember, that in most cases all they are > > going to determine is that something is there, ie a lymph node and it's > > size. If Ultra Sound can tell you this, why would you have a CT-Scan? > > > > Sometimes it's difficult, well it's always difficult to argue or differ > > with a doctor as they are used to having their way, especially with a > > patient. I am going to do some more checking and I think each of you > that > > is concerned or in need of tests should also check with your local > > Radiology departments and see what they tell you. Also pool our > resources > > and check on the internet and anywhere else you can think of, lets see > if > > we can't narrow this question down a little or even a lot by going > after > > the actual facts rather than just by asking our docs, who may not know > or > > even care themselves. > > > > Thanks, Kurt > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: " Gach " <unclewolf@...> > > BlankHi folks, > > > > There have been several postings regarding the MRI versus CT-Scan issue > by > > Kurt Grayson and others, indicating that approval of the MS-325 > contrast > > agent by the FDA is pending. > > > > Can anyone tell me if MS-325 has been actually approved? My onc is > > pushing me to do a CT-Scan (which I flatly refuse). The question is if > > MS-325 hasn't been approved yet, is there an acceptable contrast agent > > that can be used for MRI to check lymph-nodes, spleen and other > > CLL-related problems? > > > > If you know of an article on the web regarding this issue, please send > the > > URL to me. > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > Andy (75, dx 12/05, unmutated, w & w) > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Andy and Dan, Dan is right of course, although as he says some docs do read the films themselves but very few. Actually this is one of the reasons that I am so perplexed that most docs insist on CT-Scans. Lets make a hypothetical situation, which actually may be the real truth in this situation. When docs are so busy, time becomes a very valuable asset. So, when they order an Ultra Sound if it doesn't show everything clearly on the film, then they have to re-order to a Cat-Scan or MRI. So in their minds why would they order an Ultra Sound or MRI in the first place? Makes perfect logical sense when you are considering time and being able to have the information without delay or without question as to the result. However, it is like anything in life that we do as habitual creatures. CT-Scans were developed along with all radiological tests at a time when the exposure to those Scans and X-Rays was not a question of safety, it wasn't considered dangerous. Now that we know better, again like anything and everything else in life that is a habit,...... it is difficult to change for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is insurance costs or insurance refusal to pay if the Ultra Sound doesn't work and a CT-Scan must be ordered. Also, the millions of dollars worth of equipment, much of it new all across the country and the world that will have to be replaced. Also, to pinpoint the exact amount of radiation that is truly attributable to causing cancer is not definitely isolated at this time, yet those studies from show what those tests generate and the third BIER VII Study does name that radiation as a cause of secondary cancer. It's truly the writing on the wall and in time it will all change and most of us will live to see the time a CT-Scan is obsolete and discussions of the old dangerous radiology CT-Scan testing that causes cancer becomes old hat. Sort of like our modern view of estrogen at one time being the best treatment against Breast Cancer..... or heart disease never being different for a woman than a man and how long ago was it that low fat diets apparently proved that they were essential to combat every kind of body malady. So on it goes and we continue to learn every day. But, this time unfortunately the results are devastating, if you are fighting cancer now, who is their right mind wants to fight cancer again 10 or 20 years down the line when we are much older and life is more dear. Especially when we don't have to subject ourselves to those dangers now! That third study that I posted here from at CLL Research was based upon a first rate, highly advertised and heavily funded study called the BIER VII Study. This is not just some guy hollaring the sky is falling ! These are facts concerning radioactivity and the results of all that radiology being administered to all of us through the years. If you are a person that disagrees with the idea of CT-Scans being dangerous, you owe it to your own health and well being as well as to your life to read those three study's and reports again or for the first time, all from at CLL Research, gathered by him from very legitimate sources, all named in the reports. Sure it's inconvenient and it a pain in the butt, but what is even more of a pain in the butt is the fact that our doctors are ignoring the evidence that is clearly available. How is it possible for a doctor to say to any one of us " Yes one CT-Scan is equal to 400 chest X-Rays " and actually not be concerned about that fact. How is it possible that doctors actually encourage you to have a CT-Scan every 6 months etc. Good lord, I guess doctors are human after all and actually can make mistakes. Good luck to all of you and it will be interesting to see how all this information and evidence gathers steam. I truly pray to all the Gods above that all this evidence is wrong. I truly hope that later I can say, wow I was sure wrong about that one! Simply because I hate to think of the alternative. Kurt -------------- Original message -------------- From: " Dan Hill " <hvwk95a@...> Andy, It is a rare thing when an MD other than a radiologist reads his patients' films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.