CT scans in one year cause 29,000 cases of cancer

"A separate study published Monday in the same journal and conducted by National Cancer Institute researchers estimated that radiation from the more than 70 million CT scans performed in the United States in 2007 will ultimately cause some 29,000 cases of cancer. Researchers said that could lead to 15,000 deaths."

"While the risk associated with getting cancer from a CT is routinely quoted as around 1 in 1,000, Smith-Bindman said the study found that the risk of getting certain cancers is as high as 1 in 80 for some patients."
http://www.sfgate.co.../BAMM1B4MCS.DTL

" Every day, more than 19 500 CT scans are performed in the United States, subjecting each patient to the equivalent of 30 to 442 chest radiographs per scan... ..The number of CT scans is remarkable: a recent study of nearly 1 million nonelderly adults showed that 70% received CT scans during the 3-year period of study (2005-2007). There were an estimated 72 million CT scans conducted in 2007 alone... ... In addition, it is certain that a significant number of CT scans are not appropriate. A recent Government Accountability Office report on medical imaging, for example, found an 8-fold variation between states on expenditures for in-office medical imaging; given the lack of data indicating that patients do better in states with more imaging and given the highly profitable nature of diagnostic imaging, the wide variation suggests that there may be significant overuse in parts of the country. For example, a pilot study found that only 66% of nuclear scans were appropriate using American College of Cardiology criteria—the remainder were inappropriate or uncertain."
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/f...69/22/2049?home

This likely just the top of the iceberg. Likely the massive radiation dose and damage from CTs cause general pro-aging effects with increased mortality and morbidity from all the common aging diseases (CVDs, neurological diseases, general decreased efficieny, etc) depending on the organs most exposed to the radiation.

But as long as you don't land in the emergency room you will (almost) never have the need to undergo a CT, right? Although, I can imagine that it is pretty overused in the ER as a general diagnostic tool... oh, let's CT basically everyone just to be 'safe'!

But as long as you don't land in the emergency room you will (almost) never have the need to undergo a CT, right? Although, I can imagine that it is pretty overused in the ER as a general diagnostic tool... oh, let's CT basically everyone just to be 'safe'!

I think that particularly in the US a doctor is often likely to do a CT for anything unclear, as one of the first steps, to avoid lawsuit problems. Including for complaints such a unclear stomach aches, headaches, or general tiredness. The doctor does not have to worry about a cancer appearing in 5-10 years due to a CT scan with a signed release form. But he does have to worry if he misses anything that might potentially have been detected by a CT.

Edited by Blue, 16 December 2009 - 06:54 PM.

I agree with Blue (at least for US people), if you have a general complaint, don't be surprised if your doc recommends a CT scan as the first type of test given. It's not just an ER thing.

I have experienced that directly, when I complained of stomach pains to one of my docs, and had also lost some weight between doctor visits. First thing she recommended was a CT scan of stomach. I declined, and went with the ultrasound instead. In many cases I think doctors are ignorant of actual radiation dosages from CT scans. MRIs or ultrasounds are much safer tests, but for whatever reason they aren't always the first choice.

I agree with Blue (at least for US people), if you have a general complaint, don't be surprised if your doc recommends a CT scan as the first type of test given. It's not just an ER thing.

I have experienced that directly, when I complained of stomach pains to one of my docs, and had also lost some weight between doctor visits. First thing she recommended was a CT scan of stomach. I declined, and went with the ultrasound instead. In many cases I think doctors are ignorant of actual radiation dosages from CT scans. MRIs or ultrasounds are much safer tests, but for whatever reason they aren't always the first choice.

Ultrasound = often poorer resolution and detection The doctor is screwed if the patient has any disease that could have been detected by a CT and he recommends ultrasound. Again, a later cancer is not a problem.

MIR = Various possible immediate damages such as from metal implants, slower which may be problematic for patients such as children and those with any claustrophobia, more expensive, and especially from a lawsuit perspective worse at detecting solid tumors in the trunk and skeletal diseases. Whether the very strong magnetic field and the weird contrast agents are safe is also very unclear but seems unlikely that they could be as damaging as CT.

Edited by Blue, 16 December 2009 - 07:15 PM.

Yeah, there are of course reasons why a CT scan is preferred over an ultrasound or MRI. It's just that quite often docs don't even seem to consider alternatives, and go right for the CT scan instead. I believe companies are working on ways to lower radiation from CT equipment, at least, so maybe in the future it won't be as big of an issue.

It's just that quite often docs don't even seem to consider alternatives, and go right for the CT scan instead.

The US tradition of sueing the fuck out off people is absolute madness and really needs to stop. I couldn't get a CT even if I wanted one in Austria (hopefully I can get it if I need one, but that's another issue). A CT for general complaints... seriously WTF's wrong over there?

Most of the problems about MRI are non-issues. It's more expensive, that's it. I am surprised about the tumour thing? AFAIK MRI is basically unrivaled as to its resolution, but not as good at imaging calcification, which may be the reason it's no good for breast cancer screening; but why would it be inferior for tumours in general?

It's just that quite often docs don't even seem to consider alternatives, and go right for the CT scan instead.

The US tradition of sueing the fuck out off people is absolute madness and really needs to stop. I couldn't get a CT even if I wanted one in Austria (hopefully I can get it if I need one, but that's another issue). A CT for general complaints... seriously WTF's wrong over there?

Most of the problems about MRI are non-issues. It's more expensive, that's it. I am surprised about the tumour thing? AFAIK MRI is basically unrivaled as to its resolution, but not as good at imaging calcification, which may be the reason it's no good for breast cancer screening; but why would it be inferior for tumours in general?

For one thing the slow scanning means that people move and breath which causes artifacts in the trunk. Maybe this is less of a problem with newer models.