Color doppler - is it effective?

[Dwight]

I had color doppler before my surgery, and it found the 1cm node I was
diagnosed with, and missed the .5cm node found in the post op biopsy.
I wouldn't think that .5cm is "too small to be detected".

I mentioned that the color doppler didn't seem to be useful, whereas
the nurse said "It did show that the cancer had not spread." Except
the doctor doing the imaging couldn't determine that it had not
spread. And if the mets were .5cm, it might not see them anyway.

So, just wondering if ANY imaging is effective at finding the tumors.
I was offered MRSI, but nixed it because I didn't want to possibly
impact my already delicate system with the contrasting agent they use.

[Alan Meyer]

Dwight wrote:
> I had color doppler before my surgery, and it found the 1cm
> node I was diagnosed with, and missed the .5cm node found in
> the post op biopsy. I wouldn't think that .5cm is "too small
> to be detected".
>
> I mentioned that the color doppler didn't seem to be useful,
> whereas the nurse said "It did show that the cancer had not
> spread." Except the doctor doing the imaging couldn't
> determine that it had not spread. And if the mets were .5cm,
> it might not see them anyway.
>
> So, just wondering if ANY imaging is effective at finding the
> tumors. ...

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that the
imaging techniques that we have are not specific for cancer. In
other words tumor cells are not detected because they are tumor
cells. They are detected because they are a little more dense
with respect to the imaging signals than the similar but
non-cancerous tissue. In other words, they deflect or absorb
x-rays, or sound waves, or magnetic fields, a little more than
non-cancerous tissue.

However, in addition to the problem of the resolution of the
signals (typically related to the signal wave-length), there is
also the problem that not all cancers are the same density, and
not all denser than normal tissue is cancer.

I'm not an expert in any of this, but I suspect that there is a
certain amount of uncertainty in most of these imaging
techniques, and probably a lot of experience required to
correctly interpret them.

Alan

[Dwight]

On Aug 25, 9:39*am, Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dwight wrote:
>
> *> I had color doppler before my surgery, and it found the 1cm
> *> node I was diagnosed with, and missed the .5cm node found in
> *> the post op biopsy. *I wouldn't think that .5cm is "too small
> *> to be detected".
> *>
> *> I mentioned that the color doppler didn't seem to be useful,
> *> whereas the nurse said "It did show that the cancer had not
> *> spread." *Except the doctor doing the imaging couldn't
> *> determine that it had not spread. *And if the mets were .5cm,
> *> it might not see them anyway.
> *>
> *> So, just wondering if ANY imaging is effective at finding the
> *> tumors. *...
>
> I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that the
> imaging techniques that we have are not specific for cancer. *In
> other words tumor cells are not detected because they are tumor
> cells. *They are detected because they are a little more dense
> with respect to the imaging signals than the similar but
> non-cancerous tissue. *In other words, they deflect or absorb
> x-rays, or sound waves, or magnetic fields, a little more than
> non-cancerous tissue.
>
> However, in addition to the problem of the resolution of the
> signals (typically related to the signal wave-length), there is
> also the problem that not all cancers are the same density, and
> not all denser than normal tissue is cancer.
>
> I'm not an expert in any of this, but I suspect that there is a
> certain amount of uncertainty in most of these imaging
> techniques, and probably a lot of experience required to
> correctly interpret them.
>
> * * *Alan

Color doppler looks for hypervacularization that can tumors produce.
MRSI looks for the relative prevalence of two chemical produced
(creatine, I think, and another that starts with a 'c'). Ultra-sound
in and of itself probably looks at density only. How Color Doppler
and US are linked, I don't know, but CD is an adjunct to US.

[Steve Jordan]

On August 25, Dwight wrote:

> Color doppler looks for hypervacularization that can tumors produce.
> MRSI looks for the relative prevalence of two chemical produced
> (creatine, I think, and another that starts with a 'c'). Ultra-sound
> in and of itself probably looks at density only. How Color Doppler
> and US are linked, I don't know, but CD is an adjunct to US.

One of the best and brightest in the field is Duke K. Bahn, MD.

His site is: http://www.pioa.org/bahn.html

Regards,

Steve J