Author Topic: Gandolinium Lawsuit Advertisement  (Read 886 times)

notaclone13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Gandolinium Lawsuit Advertisement
« on: August 15, 2018, 10:10:06 am »
Well that didn't take long.  Had the TV on in the background while doing morning chores and heard one of those advertisements for people suffering from Gandolinium Contrast Syndrome.  Listed the symptoms, brain fog, joint pain, headaches, thickened ligaments????  Then of course gave the name of the Law Firm and phone number. Just what I wanted to hear this morning as I was diagnosed 6 months ago and just had my second MRI.  Two doctors have recommended I get another MRI in 6 months, with contrast.  I asked them both if I could skip the contrast, but the neurosurgeon said that the next measurement (1 year post diagnosis) is important for determining tumor growth and that the contrast agent allows for much better visualization of the tumor and its measurement. All of us on this website are aware of the problems with gandolinium.  However, we are equally aware of the need to get an accurate assessment of tumor growth. I guess I have 6 months to think things over, but I sure hate hearing advertisements from the ambulance chasing community.   

ANSydney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
Re: Gandolinium Lawsuit Advertisement
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2018, 05:30:15 pm »
My first two MRIs were done with gadolinium contrast agent (GAD). The next two MRIs were done without. There is no problem identifying the edge of the tumor without contrast agent. Actually, it is better at defining the edge since there is no bright tumor image that makes it hard to make out the edge clearly.

My summation is that if you want to see if there is a tumor present, GAD is best. Particularly in identifying small tumors. If you want to do a measurement to determine the growth profile I actually prefer without GAD.

My unqualified opinion is to use GAD for the diagnostic MRI and then never to use it again.

In an unrelated MRI that I recently undertook, the doctor prescribed an MRI with GAD. I called back to ask if the GAD could be skipped and he said yes. According to the doctor, the radiologists prefer GAD, but can work with  it.

Cityview

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gandolinium Lawsuit Advertisement
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2018, 08:01:18 am »
When first diagnosed they want to track the rate of growth because it's so new. So they space out the MRIs about six months apart. Depending on what happens next will determine how frequent the MRIs. Because of the recent attention the issue has gotten in the press now we'll see a push back against the contrast. Some doctors will follow people without contrast. It's also a case where maybe a person can have some MRIs without it and some with it. It's good to keep a close eye on these ANs but sometimes having too many MRIs too close together is meaningless because the readings vary so much. The problem is we can have an emotional response to the readings and meanwhile six months later it can measure smaller.
I like what Dr. Haynes said on the Vanderbilt Facebook Live event...that a person could have two MRIs on the same day and it could look like there was growth just because of the way the technology works.  He also mentioned something about not needing contrast every time. (I'm summarizing)
I found that Facebook Live event very good in so many ways....very interesting.
Lots of good stuff.
5 years ww
small AN

Freelander

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Gandolinium Lawsuit Advertisement
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2018, 04:22:49 pm »
There is a lot of cautionary info online about the diagnostic value of gadolinium, a heavy metal.  Gadolinium toxicity is not something anyone needs, and everyone being asked to take it should be having a creatinine/GFR test within 30 days before your MRI.  One of the primary dangers from Gd is kidney injury or kidney disease, which is why knowing one's GFR is important before having the contrast.    Gd is suspect for causing my GFR to decrease after a couple of contrast enhanced MRIs.  I agree with ANSydney that it's essential use is for initial detection of the tumor.  Having been to several AN experts, all have concurred that Gd use in subsequent MRIs is not a medical necessity.  We should strive to avoid iatrogenic outcomes while living with our medical conditions.   Be your own best advocate. 

 


anything