Earlier Detection Value of PET Scan in CCA compare to CT and MRI
Discussion Board › Forums › Radiation Treatments & Options › Earlier Detection Value of PET Scan in CCA compare to CT and MRI
- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by mcwgoat.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm #75252mcwgoatSpectator
I have Aetna and they’ve always paid for my PET scans. Maybe it depends on the type of coverage plan you have.
Mary
September 5, 2013 at 6:50 pm #75251gavinModeratorThanks for that Percy.
September 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm #75250marionsModeratorI made sure to print out pertinent information (such as the one Percy posted) and presented to the physician and forward to Insurance Company, if procedure was denied. The problem with our disease is that Insurance companies are rigid with their adherence to the “very few” standards set by their Industry. Obtaining one of their caseworkers at onset of diagnoses helps tremendously with all aspects of insurance claims.
As we all know, in comparison to other cancers, we are a minute group hence, in order to make pertinent changes, we have to fight for everything not considered “standard” of care for Cholangiocarcinoma.
Hugs,
MarionSeptember 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm #75249willowSpectatorLove to you all too! I’ve believed the same all along about PET scans and wondered why they’re not used regularly to monitor cancer activity (rapid uptake of glucose), not just measuring the tumor size as CT and MRI’s do… especially when we’ve heard cases where there the tumor bulk is remaining but upon surgical inspection its found to be dead as a door-nail!
Insurance dictates the treatment/diagnostics rather than “standard of care”. Obviously, Most people don’t have the resources to pay for regular scans out of pocket.
XO
WillowSeptember 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm #75248willowSpectatorLove to you all too!
September 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm #75247willowSpectatorLove to you all too!
September 5, 2013 at 2:30 pm #75246lainySpectatorHi Kris, Percy and Lisa. Way back when…it seemed Teddy’s Insurance denied every other PET and he was getting them every 6 months. Then when the ONC stepped up to bat for him they always said yes. BTW on one of his last PETS I was feeling they were NOT going to come through so started hunting around and found an Imaging Center that did PETS for about 1500.00. I can’t believe that just 2 days ago I read where PETS are still the best for detecting Cancer but sorry can’t remember where or when! AS ALWAYS ‘LOVE’ YOU ALL!
September 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm #75245pcl1029MemberHi,Lisa and Kris,
I am sorry to hear that, I live in the States too, but may be our insurance are different. I have no problem with the insurance company. Or may be it is not an uncommon practice around the oncologist group practice that I go to.
I got a CT scan and shown 2 lesions ,one with foci and the other not. Then the doctor ordered a PET to follow, within 7 days ,and discovered another soft issue foci developed in one of the lymph node nearby, (1.9×0.8cm);small enough to give me more option to decide on treatments. CCA is a “relative slow growth CA”
So your oncologist or health provider and health insurance may say no .In my case, I verified above what the article stated and that is my intention .
God bless.September 5, 2013 at 10:53 am #75244kris00jSpectatorThanks Percy. Unfortunately, here in the States anyway, PET scans are not acceptable options for cc patients. My previous onc and I had to fight AETNA like crazy to get approval for ONE PET scan!
September 5, 2013 at 5:17 am #75243lisacraineSpectatorPercy,
Thank you, my last PET scan was denied coverage and I have another scan coming up in September.
Hugs
LisaSeptember 4, 2013 at 7:01 pm #8852pcl1029MemberHi, everyone,
PET is in general a better method in detecting EARLIER metastases outside og the liver for CCA comparing to CT and MRI. (under cholangiocarcinmoma section in the link)
http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.11.6995
God bless.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Radiation Treatments & Options’ is closed to new topics and replies.