From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Cat or XRay?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:29:09 -0700
Message-ID: <a6j0lh$j3$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>

"ShepArgyle" <shepargyle@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8B22BCE.4B0B%shepargyle@earthlink.net...
> in article a6hg8i$qp8$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Steve Harris at
> sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com wrote on 3/11/02 12:43 AM:
>
> > "ShepArgyle" <shepargyle@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:B8B0C478.49F8%shepargyle@earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> In following up surgery for low grade sarcoma are traditional xrays
> >> or cat scans more appropriate to check the lungs for metastases?
> >> Shep
> >
> > Wups, somebody should've had a PET scan first to see if the thing
> > showed up on that. If it did, then whole body PET scanning would be
> > the followup tool of choice.
> >
> > Anyway, why are you asking the question here instead of to the
> > oncologist?
>
> Don't have an oncologist

Okay, this is easy.  Consult an oncologist. Anybody who has a malignancy, or
might have one, needs to see an oncologist.

If your insurance won't pay, do it out of pocket. The few hundred bucks you
pay for a fresh consult from a specialist, is the best value for money
you'll get in medicine.  Don't forget to collect all reports, path included,
to take with you.

You're not ditching the surgeon, you're simply getting a second opinion, and
getting another doc in on the case, for a team approach (if you can call 2
doctors a team). If your surgeon is offended by that, too bad. No good
doctor will be, so you lose nothing.

SBH