Different measurements for MRI

[kathy g]

When I got my 3 month post MRI report from the lab, they said my AN was the same.

The doctor who did my GK said that it had decreased slightly.

Got a call from the House clinic today that said they think it has increased quite a lot.

Does anyone know how I can find out the reality?  I am in LA, is there a facility that I could get another opinion?

Thanks,
Kathy

[edhayes]

I would not worry about the 3 month evaluation of increase or decrease in size.
It could take 6 - 12 moths before an accurate measurement can be made to qualify what the 3 different people told you.
Mine didn't change after 3 months and now 9 months out, just yesterday my MRI showed dramatic decrease in volume.

Hang in there and we'll all keep our fingers crossed for you.

[leapyrtwins]

Kathy -

I'm with Ed.  I didn't have GK, but I've read plenty of posts on the forum about swelling post radiation and 3 months isn't a lot of time. 

Ed -

congratulations on the dramatic decrease in volume.  Very good news! 

Jan

[ppearl214]

Kathy

going to throw out my 2 cents (take how you want).

head MRI's have a "total margin of error" of +/- 2mm.  If measurements made of the AN, post treatment, fall within the +/-2mm from the measurements given pre-treatment, it's pretty much deemed same size, which in the case of a radio-treated patient is fine.  The goal of the radio-treatments is to kill the core DNA of the AN to stop it from growing anymore.  Example, if the original AN size was 7mm x 4mm... and the post-treatment read showed as 12mm x 10mm.... then, there is reason for concern.

Please keep in mind that different people will read the films and give different interpretations.  They actually measure differently (ie: corner to corner or across straight across, etc).  Different MRI machine technologies may come into play and most importantly, the MRI "slices" may be different as well.

My CK team will read my films... my neuro-onc is always guaranteed to read my MRI differently than my radio-onc... and they are on the same team!  So, for me, I take the averages of what they say and deem it as my size.

The key is this... if there is no enhanced growth... and if we are lucky... if some shrinkage does occur (not the goal of any radio-treatment but great if it happens!), then you are in good shape.

Again, just my 2 cents.  May there be no enhanced growth, may you stay healthy... and may I stop overloading on coffee so early in the am!

Hang in there!
Phyl

[HeadCase2]

Hi Kathy,
  I can see where the differing opinions of AN size on MRI's can be disconcerting.   One thing you can do is look at the MRI's yourself.  They are usually available from the the MRI center's records department.  They come on a CD that you can use on your PC or laptop computer.  The display program usually comes with a measurement tool that you can use to measure how wide someting on the MRI is.
Regards,
  Rob

[mk]

I will concur with everyone else. There are many different ways to report measurements, so consistency is the key.  In my case, depending on who read the MRI the measurements varied from 2.5 to 3.5 cm (when including the portion extending in the IAC). This is probably what the House is doing too. Surgeons will tend to report the longest measurement, which includes the tiny bit extending in the IAC. Radiation oncologists and radiologists reading the MRI usually report the diameter of the portion on the spherical portion on the CPA. This can cause huge discrepancies in the reported measurements. For all practical purposes for radiation planning and evaluation of the results, the diameter of the spherical portion is what counts.

I also agree with Rob's suggestion. The best way to not go nuts with all this is to look at the scans yourself. This way you can really tell if there is a differences (you can tell even by looking at it and comparing with previous scans). What I do is I have printed the older scans and compare with the new ones.

Marianna