Received the results of my CT scan taken June 13, 2007 and results were ambiguous.
The largest nodule increased from 13 mm to 20 mm compared to scan on taken Feb 3, 2007, which translates to a doubling rate of 70 days versus 33 days in previous scans. Click here for calculator to determine the doubling rate.
Looking for the silver lining, there were also NO NEW metastases found.
The largest nodule was doubling in size every 33 days based on my last PET scan taken Jan 29, 2007 so the largest nodule should now be 32 mm in size, versus the measured size of 20 mm, if I had done no intervention. The doubling rate is based on the growth of the nodule between two scan dates, but I started taking LDN on Feb 12th, 9 days after my last CT scan.
Dr. Bihari’s clinical studies show that LDN needs around 6 months to begin seriously impacting the growth of many cancers so I think the fact that the largest nodule was only 20 mm instead of the expected 32 mm over the 4 months, represents a 50% reduction in the doubling time (from 33 days to 70 days).
So if LDN started slowing the growth, then it would be a gradual effect as we’re dealing with human tissue and immune systems not poisons, so it won’t happen overnight. Taking this reality into account and assuming that any reduction must be gradual, I have created a model of what probably happened and the resulting effect it would have on the expected doubling rate.
From my model, based on the actual beginning and end points of the nodule growth, the largest nodule growth slowed or stopped.
If LDN has limited the nodule growth, when I take a follow-up scan in Aug 2007 (before I go on summer holiday, curious to know if slowing is real), I would expect the doubling rate will then have increased to greater than 230 days based on my model, if the same nodule growth increases by only 1 mm. I’m not expecting a reduction in the tumor size, but if that occurs, all the better.
Dee
