Aa
MRI vs Ultrasound
Which is better? In my understanding MRI will be more detailed.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Best Answer
1 Comments
AFP is poor marker for diagnosis, many hbv people has increased AFP, but it's good for monitoring hcc therapy.
Is MRI so often safe in the context of magnetic field radiation ?
Of course the best would be to catch hcc when it's very small so it can be removed and person may avoid chemotherapy which is very toxic for the whole body.
Is MRI so often safe in the context of magnetic field radiation ?
Of course the best would be to catch hcc when it's very small so it can be removed and person may avoid chemotherapy which is very toxic for the whole body.
I read in previous post, as well as doctors advice. I was thinking maybe that aduiski might have some other insight. I want to hear or read it all. I am finding others with hbv, sharing their experiences and knowledge very interesting and educational.
Can fibroscan replace ultrasound or mri, for screening for hcc? Anybody know the percentage of getting hcc after or around the age of forty? My doctor tells me or comforts of bs s me that majority chronic hbv people won't get hcc, and it's at a later in life if so. People under 50 getting hcc with hbv with treatment is slim? Stress and worry level going up now. How unlucky would it be to be chb, get hcc, and die before 60. Strike 1,2,3! Yikes
yes my doctor said that womens risk for hcc starts around age 60 and it equals to a male natural borns carrier risk at age 35. they think it has something to do with male testosterone but not sure, just guesses at this time why hcc risk is higher in male than females.
i see my doctor 4 times a year 2 ultrasounds 4 blood test. we only do mri is something suspect is found. i wonder what is the statistic on hcc being discovered after ultrasound and afp report negative findings.
i see my doctor 4 times a year 2 ultrasounds 4 blood test. we only do mri is something suspect is found. i wonder what is the statistic on hcc being discovered after ultrasound and afp report negative findings.
my doctor always order ultrasound then 6 months later an MRI. We do this every year. so every year, we do an ultrasound then an MRI. He told me ultrasound does not catch all hcc.
Good point, i had an MRI couple of times before but never thought about the possible side effects of the contrast. Thanks!
No radiation...you must not have any sensitive metallic implants though.
I think the only known side-effects can come from a contrast that you receive prior/during your scan (you get injection of the contrast fluid). Extremely rare cases of dangerous allergic reactions to the contrast fluid have been reported...but this is extremely rare (i forgot exact numbers but i think it is 1 out of 100.000 or even smaller). Make sure to drink lots of fluid in the first 12-24 hours after the test, so as to make sure the contrast fluid gets out of you (your kidneys) sooner.
I think the only known side-effects can come from a contrast that you receive prior/during your scan (you get injection of the contrast fluid). Extremely rare cases of dangerous allergic reactions to the contrast fluid have been reported...but this is extremely rare (i forgot exact numbers but i think it is 1 out of 100.000 or even smaller). Make sure to drink lots of fluid in the first 12-24 hours after the test, so as to make sure the contrast fluid gets out of you (your kidneys) sooner.
As far as i know MRI should be completely safe. There is no radiation, just the magnetic waves but could they be harmful in any way? Good question.
first sentence of my latest post would be more accurate when written like this:
HCC starts to be a REALISTIC concern in hep b infected white males when one reaches age of 40, a concern which starts to sharply raise for white males at age 45 (extremely rare for one to get it before age of 35). For females hep b carriers HCC's are much less prevalent.
Just wanted to make this clear. In my opinion white males should be optimally (for preventative reasons) screened for HCC starting at age 35-36, even though HCC starts to really raise at age of 40, with a more faster raise from age of 45.
Exceptions to this would be people with totally inactive hepatitis b or those who were infected at older age...as for these HCC risks is lower..so they could start screening at age of 40 (again this is for white males).
HCC starts to be a REALISTIC concern in hep b infected white males when one reaches age of 40, a concern which starts to sharply raise for white males at age 45 (extremely rare for one to get it before age of 35). For females hep b carriers HCC's are much less prevalent.
Just wanted to make this clear. In my opinion white males should be optimally (for preventative reasons) screened for HCC starting at age 35-36, even though HCC starts to really raise at age of 40, with a more faster raise from age of 45.
Exceptions to this would be people with totally inactive hepatitis b or those who were infected at older age...as for these HCC risks is lower..so they could start screening at age of 40 (again this is for white males).
HCC starts to be a concern in hep b infected white males when one reaches age of 40, a concern which starts to sharply raise for white males at age 45 (extremely rare for one to get it before age of 35). For females hep b carriers HCC's are much less prevalent.
For asians and especially africans hcc concerns starts earlier then in white people.
For asians and especially africans hcc concerns starts earlier then in white people.
I guess it would be good to do an MRI every other time, i have to check with my insurance how often both of these would be covered and what would be my left over balance as MRIs are very expensive. I wouldn't be able to pay for them outside of my insurance coverage. I'm aware of the CT radiation and never use it for screening.
Thank you!
Thank you!
I usually do the AFP along with the rest of my blood tests, haven't done an MRI or an Ultrasound in a while so wasn't sure which one to ask for. It makes sense to go with the ultrasound since AFP has been normal. Thank you.
For monitoring HCC, I used to take AFP but my doctor orders it no longer. When I asked the reason, he said now it is not required by guideline for monitoring HCC. Could you still take this test in US.
Mri is more accurate that ultrasound, but ultra sound is more cost efficient. when we monitor for hcc we use AFP and US. When we detect something out of the ordinary we move to MRI w/contrast and w/o.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis B Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
A meta-analysis (analysis of existing research studies) concluded that doing both Ultrasound+AFP can catch 70% of HCC cancers, whereas ultrasound or AFP alone catch on average 60% of HCC.
These numbers vary quite a bit, as the experience of the person doing the ultrasound can significantly influence the above numbers.
Generally, this means that ultrasound and/or AFP miss smaller HCC cancers, those that are easy to operate.
This leads to the point that (results of another research study) those who do REGULAR 6-monthly ultrasound+AFP (both of these tests) have close to 55% of chance of survival once the cancer is discovered...as for 45% surgery at this point would be inefficient.
So why do some of the guidelines doctor incorporate AFP and others don't? Those that chose not to include AFP do so for the following reasons: 1) to save governments money, 2) AFP can give false-positive results which then can lead to lots of unnecessary stress.
Those that chose to include AFP, chose so as to be able to catch 70% instead of 60% of HCCs.
The far superior mode of cancer screening is indeed MRI. MRI together with AFP in my estimate (I forgot the exact numbers) would be able to catch at least 85% if not more of HCC. This would enable more HCC patients to have better timed HCC surgeries as MRI would definitely recognise more HCC.
There are two drawbacks to MRI however, the major one being its high costs - the goverments for sure won't be wanting to cover so many MRI's. The other potential drawback of MRI is that sometimes it will discover something else in your abdomen, something which is not that significant, yet it will give you lots of worries and stress (stress leads to drop of immune system) as in these cases they usually send you for further analysis and/or repeat of MRI in 3 months of time (to make sure that something isn't growing - isn't cancer). However, countering this second drawback of MRI is the fact that MRI would also be able to catch other (non-liver) cancers on time.
I myself chose to go for the following:
Ultrasound+AFP, then 4 months later MRI+AFP, then 6 months after that Ultrasound+AFP, then 4 months after MRI+AFP, and so on...
I pay for MRI out of my own pocket as insurance won't cover it for screening purposes.
No doubt that those who are rich which are under the supervision of great doctors completely replace ultrasound with MRI when screening for HCCs, and do it maybe even more frequently then every 6 months.
P.s. Don't go for CT screening as it produces lots of radiation.