MRF-Logo2019-Horizontal-RGB
Tumors with no FDG uptake on Pet Scans?
REGISTER
The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Content within the patient forum is user-generated and has not been reviewed by medical professionals. Other sections of the Melanoma Research Foundation website include information that has been reviewed by medical professionals as appropriate. All medical decisions should be made in consultation with your doctor or other qualified medical professional.

Tumors with no FDG uptake on Pet Scans?

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Tumors with no FDG uptake on Pet Scans?

  • Post
    • April 10, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    BrianP
    Participant

      On my last CT scan I had some thickening of the small bowel (site of previous disease) which was "concerning for worsening metastatic disease."  I did a petscan a few days ago and the scan showed no FDG uptake at the area of concern in the small bowel.  Of course that was a huge relief!  The other part of the report that I found very encouraging was that the two original nodules continue to be stable but more interestingly show no FDG uptake.  A small nodule in my lung shrank from 5mm to 2mm in 3 weeks and also shows no FDG uptake.  Essentially there was no FDG uptake anywhere.  Has anyone experienced anything like this with petscan reports before.  Can any assumptions be made about the tumors at this point?  Of course I would like to assume they are "dead" but I'm not sure you can make that assumption at this point.  Any similar experience or knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

      Brian

    Viewing 11 reply threads
    • Replies
        • April 10, 2014 at 5:26 pm
        Mat
        Participant

          Brian, so glad to hear that this turned out to be a non-event.

          • April 10, 2014 at 5:26 pm
          Mat
          Participant

            Brian, so glad to hear that this turned out to be a non-event.

            • April 10, 2014 at 5:26 pm
            Mat
            Participant

              Brian, so glad to hear that this turned out to be a non-event.

              • April 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm
              kpcollins31
              Participant

                Congrats, Brian. I would call that a pretty successful result.

                Kevin

                 

                • April 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm
                kpcollins31
                Participant

                  Congrats, Brian. I would call that a pretty successful result.

                  Kevin

                   

                  • April 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm
                  kpcollins31
                  Participant

                    Congrats, Brian. I would call that a pretty successful result.

                    Kevin

                     

                    • April 11, 2014 at 2:22 am
                    Tina D
                    Participant

                      Brian,

                      I can't say for certain either, but would also make the same assumption … any input from the Dr? My Doc said he feels it is likely I have no ACTIVE disease at this point, though some areas still show on scan… he said this may be verified by PET in future. I would guess that no uptake would mean NO activity there. Sounds very encouraging!! I am very curious to know what they tell you about this

                      Tina

                      • April 11, 2014 at 2:22 am
                      Tina D
                      Participant

                        Brian,

                        I can't say for certain either, but would also make the same assumption … any input from the Dr? My Doc said he feels it is likely I have no ACTIVE disease at this point, though some areas still show on scan… he said this may be verified by PET in future. I would guess that no uptake would mean NO activity there. Sounds very encouraging!! I am very curious to know what they tell you about this

                        Tina

                        • April 11, 2014 at 2:22 am
                        Tina D
                        Participant

                          Brian,

                          I can't say for certain either, but would also make the same assumption … any input from the Dr? My Doc said he feels it is likely I have no ACTIVE disease at this point, though some areas still show on scan… he said this may be verified by PET in future. I would guess that no uptake would mean NO activity there. Sounds very encouraging!! I am very curious to know what they tell you about this

                          Tina

                          • April 11, 2014 at 9:12 am
                          Johnfdc7
                          Participant

                            Brian,

                            I have had similiar outcomes on PET scans for lung nodules in the past (2-7mm) despite them being clearly present on successive previous CT scans. The report stating no FDG uptake has always come with a disclaimer regarding limits of detection etc. My oncologist has always taken the cautious approach and continued to assume that they are active tumours that cannot be detected by PET due to small size. 

                            • April 11, 2014 at 9:12 am
                            Johnfdc7
                            Participant

                              Brian,

                              I have had similiar outcomes on PET scans for lung nodules in the past (2-7mm) despite them being clearly present on successive previous CT scans. The report stating no FDG uptake has always come with a disclaimer regarding limits of detection etc. My oncologist has always taken the cautious approach and continued to assume that they are active tumours that cannot be detected by PET due to small size. 

                              • April 11, 2014 at 9:12 am
                              Johnfdc7
                              Participant

                                Brian,

                                I have had similiar outcomes on PET scans for lung nodules in the past (2-7mm) despite them being clearly present on successive previous CT scans. The report stating no FDG uptake has always come with a disclaimer regarding limits of detection etc. My oncologist has always taken the cautious approach and continued to assume that they are active tumours that cannot be detected by PET due to small size. 

                                  • April 11, 2014 at 9:32 pm
                                  BrianP
                                  Participant

                                    Thanks all.

                                    Thanks for the info John.  I have heard that mets smaller than about 4mm may not light up on pets even if they are active.  Not sure how true that is.  I probably won't get anything more than a classification of a "inactive met" from my Dr.'s for the two original mets.  They are about 2.5 cm now (originally around 4 – 4.5 cm).  I was curious if anyone has had these kind of mets for years or if they become active again after a while.  It may be something we start to see more often with the immunotherapy treatments.

                                    Brian

                                    • April 11, 2014 at 9:32 pm
                                    BrianP
                                    Participant

                                      Thanks all.

                                      Thanks for the info John.  I have heard that mets smaller than about 4mm may not light up on pets even if they are active.  Not sure how true that is.  I probably won't get anything more than a classification of a "inactive met" from my Dr.'s for the two original mets.  They are about 2.5 cm now (originally around 4 – 4.5 cm).  I was curious if anyone has had these kind of mets for years or if they become active again after a while.  It may be something we start to see more often with the immunotherapy treatments.

                                      Brian

                                      • April 11, 2014 at 9:32 pm
                                      BrianP
                                      Participant

                                        Thanks all.

                                        Thanks for the info John.  I have heard that mets smaller than about 4mm may not light up on pets even if they are active.  Not sure how true that is.  I probably won't get anything more than a classification of a "inactive met" from my Dr.'s for the two original mets.  They are about 2.5 cm now (originally around 4 – 4.5 cm).  I was curious if anyone has had these kind of mets for years or if they become active again after a while.  It may be something we start to see more often with the immunotherapy treatments.

                                        Brian

                                  Viewing 11 reply threads
                                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
                                  About the MRF Patient Forum

                                  The MRF Patient Forum is the oldest and largest online community of people affected by melanoma. It is designed to provide peer support and information to caregivers, patients, family and friends. There is no better place to discuss different parts of your journey with this cancer and find the friends and support resources to make that journey more bearable.

                                  The information on the forum is open and accessible to everyone. To add a new topic or to post a reply, you must be a registered user. Please note that you will be able to post both topics and replies anonymously even though you are logged in. All posts must abide by MRF posting policies.

                                  Popular Topics