My scans for the end of cycle 3 were good, and I have started cycle 4. No new metastatic disease, and the lymph node remains in the stable category.
Had a new, very minor side effect during each of the last two Nivolumab infusions. Towards the end each time, I got a hay fever attack. Each one faded an hour or two later. Being twice in a row now, they'll have me try some Benadryl next time.
I have not had an MRI since January. The thinking is to not find out anything that could jeopoardize my trial status. It's a risky proposition either way, but I'm not pushing for a scan.
The table below is my attempt to track the tumor size from cycle to cycle. It does look to me like the drug is probably slowing things down.
The measurements are from the radiology reports (not really what the trial doctor goes by). Each report is written by any of a group of radiologists. The * sizes are "past comparisons," having been re-read 2 months later by a different radiologist, for comparison to the new scan.
Scan Date Size (cm)
-------- ---------------
9/02/14 4.6 x 3.6 x 3.5
7/08/14 4.9 x 3.3 x 3.3 *past comparison
7/08/14 5.0 x 3.3 x 3.2
5/12/14 4.7 x 3.3 x 3.2 *past comparison
5/12/14 ??? x 3.3 x 3.2
3/13/14 ??? x 3.0 x 2.4 *past comparison
3/13/14 ??? x 3.0 x 2.4
1/14/14 ??? x 1.8 x ???
Especially confusing to me is that 3 dimensions are given on the most recent reports, but only 2 are in some earlier ones, and only 1 in the original UCSF report from January. However, comparing the two different measurements from the 5/12 scan, it looks like the longest dimension is left off the original report -- but is present in the later comparison. Which makes no sense to me. I will ask someone to try and explain why dimensions are sometimes left off earlier reports.
Had a new, very minor side effect during each of the last two Nivolumab infusions. Towards the end each time, I got a hay fever attack. Each one faded an hour or two later. Being twice in a row now, they'll have me try some Benadryl next time.
I have not had an MRI since January. The thinking is to not find out anything that could jeopoardize my trial status. It's a risky proposition either way, but I'm not pushing for a scan.
The table below is my attempt to track the tumor size from cycle to cycle. It does look to me like the drug is probably slowing things down.
The measurements are from the radiology reports (not really what the trial doctor goes by). Each report is written by any of a group of radiologists. The * sizes are "past comparisons," having been re-read 2 months later by a different radiologist, for comparison to the new scan.
Scan Date Size (cm)
-------- ---------------
9/02/14 4.6 x 3.6 x 3.5
7/08/14 4.9 x 3.3 x 3.3 *past comparison
7/08/14 5.0 x 3.3 x 3.2
5/12/14 4.7 x 3.3 x 3.2 *past comparison
5/12/14 ??? x 3.3 x 3.2
3/13/14 ??? x 3.0 x 2.4 *past comparison
3/13/14 ??? x 3.0 x 2.4
1/14/14 ??? x 1.8 x ???
Especially confusing to me is that 3 dimensions are given on the most recent reports, but only 2 are in some earlier ones, and only 1 in the original UCSF report from January. However, comparing the two different measurements from the 5/12 scan, it looks like the longest dimension is left off the original report -- but is present in the later comparison. Which makes no sense to me. I will ask someone to try and explain why dimensions are sometimes left off earlier reports.
Comments
Post a Comment