I guess it's not a support question, it's a medical/scientific question.
 I don't think anyone here really feels qualified to comment. You could
try sci.med.diseases.cancer.

Presumably you are asking about the relative advantages of PET versus
CAT scans to check for the presence of asymptomatic mets.

I'm not a medical professional, and my knowledge probably isn't current,
but here's my unqualified amateur opinion, because I'm the sort of guy
who usually has one.

PET is favoured by some sites, mainly those who have the equipment,
because it has higher resolution, detects more cancers, and they can
charge more for it.  On the other hand it has a higher false-positive
rate, is more expensive, available at less sites, and involves a bigger
radiation dose to the patient.

Some would still say that doing scans at this stage at all is pretty
pointless because in most cases, if mets happen, there is little benefit
in treating them until they become symptomatic.  But that is becoming a
little less true, and that attitude is becoming less prevalent.  This
school would prescribe a baseline CAT scan after surgery, and then only
do comparison scans if the patient presented with symptoms that could
not be diagnosed as anything else.

Tim Jackson

"AKA gray asphalt"  wrote :

As Tim said, most of us here are not medical experts.  However I could
throw in that after my 3 week recovery from my mastectomy the oncologist
I was referred to scheduled an appointment for a discussion of the protocol
and both CAT and PET.  It's "seemed" by their matter-of-fact attitude that
it was a normal sequence of events.  However since my surgeries (a second
primary cancer was found and removed) I have only had follow-up CATs,
no PETs.

Marsha