MUGA OR Echo

[Yorkiegirl]

Ok I have a question. Which is better the MUGA or the Echo?

I had an Echo before I started Herceptin the end August and my score was 65.
Today I had follow -up Echo to make sure Herceptin wasn't causing a heart problem for me. My score was 63 today.


Thanks for any input.

Vicki

[Yorkiegirl]

Oh I did forget to mention that Echo that is done is me is Doppler Echocaridogram. If this makes a difference.


Vicki

[Christine]

Vickie,

I have never had a MUGA scan but have had my heart measured using the Echo several times and have measured in the 60 - 65% range.

I prefer the Echo because there is no radiation involved.

Hugs
Christine

[Becky]

I agree with Christine and I have only had Echos. I asked my onco about it recently since it seems alot of folks on this site get mugas (and Sloan - my occassional second opinion Dr - uses muga).


Muga is more accurate (according to my onco) but it does use radiation. However, it is a completely objective test with an exact score. An echo is read and interpreted by a doctor and has a subjective side to it. This is why the LVEF is given in a range (as Christine wrote "60-65"). Therefore, my onco said that if it was an older or sick person, he would do a muga so he could make the best opinion on therapy for that person but in general, an echo is sufficient.

Hope this helps

Becky

[snoopy]

I've only had Echo with Dopplers which when I challenged my Consultant about was "best". He felt ECHO was better than MUGA , Cynic in me says he would say that as he was doing ECHO however he qualified the response by saying echo allowed other things to be looked at - size of heart wall for example which could be useful measurements to have in some clinical circumstances. LIke other responses I'm happy to avoid the 3 monthly doses of radiation the MUGA would entail.

[janet/FL]

I was happy to read this thread. My first MUGA was 61 and my second was 62 so maybe I will ask for an ECHO and skip the rads. It does seems strange to worry about them after how many I had for the breast cancer!
Janet

[JoyMiller]

I had a Muga first, then a follow-up with echo 3 months later. I didn't ask, but it seems as tho the Muga set the benchmark and the echo is reliable for follow-ups?

I started herceptin in June and have had echos every 2-3 months. When I discussed the difference bewtween the echo and the Muga with my onc., she said the echo is just as reliable and less intrusive. None of the oncs. in that office ( there are 6) use Muga.
Carol

[margaret]

I definitely would choose echo over muga. I'll share my experience with muga scans as I have before: ' My first muga scan reading was 49. Drs. weren't sure if they would give me herceptin. I did 4 rounds of A/C and then had another muga. It then read a 58. So according to these readings, the 3 months of harsh A/C actually improved my heart significantly. My oncologist laughed at the results. Obviously there is a large margin of error in these muga scans. '
I believe the hospitals invest a lot of money in these 'muga scan's and sometimes I think there's a financial reason why some tests are used more often then others. Just my opinion. It makes sense to me to use the least intrusive test that gives you the most information.
Margaret

[Gina]

I have used them both...main thing is just to be sure to watch heart function while on herceptin...especially if you have had Adriamycin in the past...fyi, Gina