Curious about Scans for early detection...familial link? - Cancer: Lung Message Board

ladyj2 · 10-25-2006, 10:04 PM

Hi all,
I know that this board is really for people who have already been diagnosed, but I was wondering if anyone has info on the CT or Pet Scans used for early detection and which is best, anything to look for in a facility or stay away from. Are some facilities and scans better than others? Is there a national listing for such scan facilities?

Also, how many of you have had other relatives with lung cancer? There are five in my extended family!

My mom had small cell oat cell carcinoma. Does anyone know if this type is strictly a smoking variety or is it genetic as well?

Thanks in advance!

Kimslos · 10-25-2006, 10:13 PM

Hi-
I can only help you out with one question and that is the SCLC. It is not strictly for smokers, and infact, I don't think there is really a lung cancer that only pertains to smokers.
My husband has SCLC and never smoked in his life and is only 52. (diagnosed at 51) His mom is fine, but her mom died of liver cancer at 51, but it was in Poland and so many years ago so they believe it was lung cancer and she also did not smoke. Makes you think....but given our air quality today I think whether you smoke or not you should be aware of any changes in your body.
I hope someone else can help you out with the other questions. Sorry I could not be of more help, but this is the most I can share at this time.
Kim

DaveInVA · 10-26-2006, 09:30 AM

The lung cancer I was diagnosed with was a type not caused by smoking and I am a non smoker. There are about 20 different types of lung cancer and some are associated with smoking and some are not even though a non smoker can still get one of those from envoirnment or 2nd hand smoke etc.
PET scans are usually used after a cancer has already been diagnosed and is used to see if the cancer has spread to other parts of the body or if there are other yet unknown cancer(s) going on that need to be addressed. From this info they can help stage the cancer.
CT scans are usually used if your doctor suspects cancer and/or a chest Xray shows something suspicious. Using a CT scan for early detection when there is no suspicion of cancer is a mixed blessing. CT Scans subject you to fairly high doses of radiation. A chest CT is equivelent to about 500 standard chest XRays (average 800 millirem). Radiation to the body is accumulitive. Depending on what study you read you have anywhere from a 1 in 1000 to a 1 in 2000 chance of getting a fatal cancer from a single CT scan and it gets worse each time you have another. Also, exposure to lots of radiation can in some cases cause birth defects. A PET scan is about 900 millirem of radiation. I was exposed to a total of 3.7 rem from all the scans I had during my diagnoses and followups and I am concerned about that and have requested MRI instead for the rest of my followups. 3.7 rem is about 10 times the radiation you get from nature in a year. I would ask your doc if he feels a MRI would be ok instead (some like it some don't). MRI has no known bad side effects. Also, you cannot rely on standard chest XRays for early detection as they will not show cancer thats hidden behind structures or in bone. My mothers lung cancer (she was a smoker) was not caught until it was to late even though her chest xrays had been clean.

Dave

Janmarie2 · 10-26-2006, 10:07 AM

My mom is a nonsmoker with NSCLC Adenocarcinoma. She does not have a family history of lung cancer. She was 80 when we discovered the lung cancer. Her mother was a smoker but lived to be 103 ( and her identical twin lived to 105). Her father died of a heart attack in his 80's.Mom's only sister died of Ovarian cancer in her 70's.

As for the use of CT's for early detection of lung cancer I just saw the thing about the study done on that on the news. It worries me that now lots of people will flock to have a CT done.

I myself have worries about it as Dave said that is alot of radiation to have especially if you had it done every year ( and if you are female don't forget you already get radiation from mammograms so this would mean even more) Also I think you could get a clean CT and develope lung cancer a month or so after so be walking around with a false sense that you are safe. My mom has a CT done for shortness of breath 4 years before we learned she had cancer and that CT came back clear with no signs of there being anything wrong yet 4 yrs later she had advanced Stage IV NSCLC with mets to the liver and NSCLC is suppose to be the slow growing one. They have even looked at that scan again and indeed they see nothing so it was not a misread scan.

Xrays miss alot of lung cancers so that is not the answer either and once again there is radiation involved with it.

I just feel that putting yourself at the risk of the radiation and getting a false sense that you are safe when in fact you could be setting yourself up for cancer from the radiation seems a bit too much. I think they need to keep working on other tests for lung cancer. I read that the trained dogs sniffing breath are 97% accurate with lung cancer. Don't know how you find the dogs but I think I would lean more towards that then yearly CT's as it would not put added risk to my health. JanMarie

ladyj2 · 11-02-2006, 02:13 PM

Hi everyone,

Thank-you all for responding. I feel I am in such a dilemna because I am at high risk and in my mid 40's. My mother was diagnosed in her early 50's so i do not know if I should take the approach of getting screenings as do people who have a high incidence of breast, prostate or colorectal cancers in their family history. I agree that it's an awful lot of radiation. Would an MRI be as accurate as the spiral CT that keeps showing up in the news?
I loved the dog sniffing idea and looked it up, unfortunately it is only in the study phase.
My mom died 22 years ago and I kept hearing how a cure was right around the corner..... as I approach her age with no cure in sight, it's pretty scary!