3,361,596 members
12,339,752 petition signatures
$17,571,785,510 diverted from Big Pharma
CT Scans Linked To Cancer
The risk of cancer associated with popular CT scans appears to be greater than previously believed, according to two new studies published Monday. The findings support caution against the overuse of CT scans and other medical technologies that use radiation. The studies also bolstered the rationale behind controversial new breast-cancer screening guidelines, which pushed back the recommended age for annual mammograms to 50 from 40. Mammograms also use radiation, but in smaller doses. Analyzed data from several databases estimated that 29,000 future cancers could be related to CT scans received in 2007.
An imaging specialist looks on as a patient, behind window, undergoes a CT scan Aug. 6 at Falmouth Hospital in Falmouth, Mass.
.The CT — short for computerized tomography scan — can detect injuries and tumors. Its use has tripled in the U.S. since the early 1990s to more than 70 million in 2007. Though it has long been known that radiation increases a person’s chance of getting cancer, the exact risk of these scans wasn’t clear.
One of the studies, which examined more than 1,000 adult patients at four hospitals, projected that the dose of radiation received in a single heart scan at age 40 would later result in cancer in 1 in 270 women and 1 in 600 men.
Risks were lower for those who received a head CT scan: 1 in 8,100 women and 1 in 11,080 men would likely develop cancer from the radiation, the study said.
Doses of radiation from the scans varied wildly, according to the study, even within the same procedure at the same hospital.
Some patients got only one-tenth the radiation that others got, according to Rebecca Smith-Bindman, the first author on the study and a professor of radiology and biomedical imaging and epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco.
.The findings raise questions about why radiation doses differ, and whether the variation is acceptable. “These are doses we should be concerned about,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They don’t have to be this high.”
The variation in radiation exposure for any particular CT procedure is likely due to such factors as a lack of standardized settings, and differences in how the radiologists and technologists use the technology for different patients, according to Dr. Smith-Bindman.
A radiation dose that is too low, for example, could yield a picture that isn’t clear enough to reveal abnormalities.
The second study analyzed data from several databases and estimated that 29,000 future cancers could be related to CT scans received in 2007, with the greatest number of cancers projected in the abdomen and pelvis.
The cancer risk was greatest for young patients, this study found. For instance, a female who received an abdominal scan at age 3 had a 1 in 500 chance of developing cancer because of the radiation from that scan. That figure dropped to 1 in 1,000 by age 30, and 1 in 3,333 at age 70.
Overuse of radiation-based tests is a concern when they are performed to diagnose patients who have a known abnormality. But the concern is even greater when they are performed for screening purposes, said Amy Berrington, an investigator at the National Cancer Institute and an author on both papers. “You’re exposing a lot of healthy people” to radiation,” she said.
The doses of radiation received from mammograms are much smaller than from CT scans, yet the small cancer risk should be weighed when deciding whether to undergo routine breast-cancer screening, Dr. Berrington said.
In loosening the mammogram guidelines last month, a federally funded task force of physicians cited, among other factors, the potential harm from testing.
Despite these concerns, CT scans provide “great medical benefit,” she said. “On an individual basis, if the scan is justified, then the benefits should outweigh the risks.”
This type of article is completely useless without references. I have been telling students that these scans, especially the whole body scans, are dangerous for many years. To have this type of article without references to the exact journal article research that is being claimed, makes us look completely unscientific. PLEASE GIVE YOUR REFERENCES
[Reply]
vermont Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You will find a link to the original article at the bottom of each post. If the information is not listed, it wasn’t available at the original posting
[Reply]
Any system that either chips away or blasts away at the immune system should be suspect when considering cancer. After all, we are defended, naturally, thanks to our own built-in mechanism, a.k.a. immune system. It’s modern science that seems to feel it knows better than Nature. And that’s where the whole system gets messed up. If people would eliminate the god complex and simply look at the whole subject/patient, likely we could better equip ourselves to deal with whatever Nature hands us. (“If it ain’t broke…” )
[Reply]
Why do we not hear anything about thermography? It is safe and effective. It even detects cancer before mammogram does.
[Reply]
WOW !! This really shook me up I just went for CAT SCAN few weeks ago for tumor on my head and I remember vividly the feelings I had and what I saw while the scan took place. All the hair on my arms felt very static and I could see red beams of light shooting thru me from my waist to my head and I definitely felt something I NEVER felt before all over my head and shoulders !!! The results were very clear I sure hope it doesnt mean that I got strong dose of radiation !!
[Reply]
When my daughter was 3 (now 27) I had a pediatric neurosurgeon and his nurse INSIST that I agree to 2 cat scans–one enhanced–for seizures. I didn’t trust it even then and I was ASSURED that it would not increase her risk of cancer at age 30. I could kick myself.
Turns out that she had parasites that were causing the seizures and Cat scans don’t tell you that. It was basically useless. What a SCAM–CAT SCAM!
[Reply]
tracy Reply:
January 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Patricia,
did your daughter ever develop cancer from the CT scan? I’m going for a scan very soon, and am nervous about the long term effects.
[Reply]
I’m terrified! Had a matastisized breast cancer and couldn’t afford treatment so agreed to research study. Was doing CAT scans every 2 mo. for 2 yrs. I guess I’m cooked. Started the study in 2006
[Reply]
both untasound and thermography have been around for many years, both approved by the FDA not that this approval means anything, both are completely safe, more effective and cost less. It’s a no brainer. There is more concern by the establishment for money than there is for health.
[Reply]
my daughter has a ewing sarcoma metastisis in her right lung that was removed…she has had 3 CT’s in the last year. i have told her docs we didn’t want any more CT scans but they INSIST that is the ONLY way to know what is going on inside her…i will re-enforce my demand/decision to her docs. if they push i will pull her from their care
[Reply]
Read the article, and found the replies more interesting in some ways, as tests were mentioned I’d never heard of.
Am of a “certain age” where I used to get sent reminders to get my yearly dose of radiation commonly know as a mammogram. Thanks but no thanks. I haven’t had one in two years,and have no desire to get another one. I am fairly healthy, and see no need to support an industry that actually promotes disease over health. It should be called “the sickness promotion industry,” not the “health care industry.”
[Reply]