|
|
|
I’ve been doing a little numerical analysis on the tumor in my lung. I probably wouldn’t be doing this if the results weren’t promising.
I did a little searching on the internet and found a formula for calculating the volume of an ellipsoid. That’s sort of like an egg shape. I’m using that shape as a model for my analysis.
When they do a CT scan they give the size the reader sees. I’m not sure the human body is very dimensionally stable. From day to day my ring is easier or harder to slip off my finger. Since I doubt the gold is changing dimensions very much, I presuming it’s my finger that is getting smaller or larger.
In addition, I think the CT scanner takes a slice every 10mm. So different scans “might” show different sizes, depending if they happen to scan the maximum size or not.
That all said, I am not the one reading the images, the CT guy is. I will presume for my analysis that his readings are accurate.
What I’ve done in the attached chart is show the whole volume of the tumor in cc’s (cubic centimeters or milliliters). I don’t have any reports on the width on the 10/5/05 scan so I used the 12/16/05 scan’s width and calculated the aspect ratio and applied it to the 10/5/05 scan. From these data points I calculated the total volume of the tumor.
|
|
Length |
Width |
Vol (cc) |
Prior Change |
Total Change |
|
10/5/05 |
4.2 |
2.9 |
18.5 |
|
|
|
12/16/05 |
3.4 |
2.4 |
10.3 |
45% |
45% |
|
2/17/06 |
2.6 |
1.9 |
4.9 |
52% |
73% |
You can see that on 12/06/05 scan the tumor shrank in volume 45%. On the 2/17/05 scan the tumor had shrunk another 52%.
Taking the 12/16/05 and the 2/17/06 scans together; you can see the total volume of the tumor has shrunk 73%.
I rate that as encouraging.
The 2/17/06 scan shows lager shrinkage than the 12/16/05 scan. From my own mind, I find this unremarkable. As the tumor shrinks, it has more surface area per volume. That’s just how the numbers work out. With more surface area per volume, I would expect the tumor to get hit a little harder.
Now the 45% to 52% is not a large change difference and could very well be within the error of this analysis. Both changes might be 50%.
Either way, I’ll take what I can get.
Posted by The Vorlon at March 8, 2006 12:50 PMThe bottom line is that everything is getting smaller, not getting larger.
Posted by: Reb Orrell at March 8, 2006 1:26 PMYour numbers are very impressive. Keep up the good work. We are very happy for you.
Posted by: Mother at March 8, 2006 4:51 PMYou need to change the 2/17 date on the chart from /05 to /06
Posted by: Reb Orrell at March 9, 2006 7:22 AM