Ultrasound vs MRI

My wife gyn called with recommendations after conversation with MRI ragiologyst. She insists that MRI is more accurate and leans that the reason of sickness is hemorrhage cyst. She suggests to wait and watch for 4-6 weeks and then to repeat pelvic ultrasound.

After the first (generic) ultrasound she was almost ready to set up laporascopy. When the second (pelvic) ultrasound came with recommendation to conduct MRI, she was a bit surprised claming that it as unusual, but finally aggreed. And now she decided to wait. She waived the result of CA 125 as not conclusive in general and suggested that nausea/lightheading are caused "by virus".

In contrast to her the physisian suggested to do laporascopy from the first ultrasound and still supports her opinion, though partially addresses nausea and lightheading to anxiety and nervousness.

My wife is not complaining person. In this type of situation anyone gets nervous. But seems nausea and lightheading and sometimes upset stomak increasingly bother her for the last 3 weeks.

It was the reason to contact another gyn surgeon by phone. He recommended to take CA125. So far my wife was talking to doctors on her own conveying me the results. In the mid of next week we together should see the second gyn with all results.

In our country of origin it was almost "professional ethic" to deliver bad news to relatives shielding the patient.

Is it something in results and symptoms of my wife that may prevent doctors to be open with her? Should I try to contact them myself? Or it is just variety of opinions?

[vkk]

The opinions are from the physician and gyn. They saw my wife and the results of ultrasounds, mri and ca125. Though that's true they DID NOT analyzed films themselves at the best discussing them with radiologyst by phone.

Definetely it is time to consolidate all info in hands of ONE person who has specific knowledge and experience.

Thanks for response.