CT scans and cancer risks news

[Crohn's 35]

Just thought I would share this news clip from a doctor in Toronto, because sooner or later we worry...gosh I have lost count over the years how many I have had...

Feb 18, 2011

CT Scans and Cancer

I've repeatedly warned readers of the dangers associated with radiation. Now a report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal provides further evidence that doctors should always weigh the pros and cons of whether to subject patients to low ionizing radiation when making a diagnosis. And consider the possibility of a diagnosis by non-radiation procedures.

Researchers at McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal looked at the data of 82,861 patients. These patients had received low ionizing radiation for CT angiography and nuclear scans on one or more ocassions. Researchers discovered 12,020 incidental cancers in this group and concluded there's mounting evidence that low dose ionizing radiation is associsated with an increased risk of cancer.

The study also showed a greater chance of being subjected to these radiation procedures if your doctor was a cardiologist rather than a family doctor.

They also suggested what I've stressed for years that everyone should have a radiation card to keep track of ionizing radiation exposure over a life time.

 

[Zalanicht]

How do you get this so called radiation card? I've had 7 x-rays and 2 ct scans I think is a lot for my age.

 

[jessupann]

As if there wasn't enough to worry about. I've had two CT scans this month and then several X-rays at one time when they were (unsuccessfully) trying to locate my terminal ileum in a small bowel follow through. I would have to guess that there was about twelve X-rays that day. And now I have another CT scan this week since the small bowel follow through was unproductive.

Thank you for sharing this article. It's the kind of thing that was already lurking in the back of my mind.

 

[HeatherMN]

Here's a great resource about xray/radiation exposure and its risks and benefits. They have a great FAQ secion and there is also a calculator feature on there you can use to figure out your radiation dose.

www.xrayrisk.com

The website is sponsored by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists (I am a member, as a Radiology Tech and Mammographer) so you know it is from a good source, not some random googled site.

There is no "medically proven" link between cancer and radiation exposure, but there is also no level at which radiation exposure is considered safe. What you need to consider is the risk vs. benefit angle of being x-rayed or scanned. If there is a clear diagnostic benefit to having the imaging done vs. not having it, it's worth the risk. Basically you and your doctor need to discuss and decide whether the imaging study is worth the risk of the radiation exposure.

There are always MRIs or ultrasounds, as they don't use radiation for the images (magnetic field/radio waves for MRI and sound waves for ultrasound), but they can be expensive and not all insurance companies will pay for them if they can do x-rays or CT's for less. Or, they aren't always the best modalities to use for certain studies. They can be limited as to what they can be used for, especially ultrasound.

Also keep in mind, you get radiated on a daily basis, whether from the sun/outer space (cosmic radiation), the ground below your feet (radon gas) or from various other sources of natural radiation. Medical imaging represents a small portion of the radiation you will recieve over your lifetime. It's also part of my job (or any radiology professional's job) to keep a patient's radiation dose to a minimum, while still obtaining good, diagnostic images. It's part of our training.

Hope this helps!