Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Full-body CT scans increase cancer death risk
ANI ^ | 31 August 2004

Posted on 08/31/2004 9:16:22 AM PDT by Hal1950

WASHINGTON: A new study has revealed that a full- body computed tomography (CT) scan, could increase the risk of cancer mortality.

According to the study, published in the journal Radiology, the increasing popularity of full-body CT screening has raised concerns regarding the radiation-related cancer mortality risk associated with full-body CT radiation exposure.

"Our research provides definitive evidence that radiation risk is associated with full-body CT scans. The radiation dose from a full-body CT scan is comparable to the doses received by some of the atomic-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where there is clear evidence of increased cancer risk," said David J. Brenner, Ph.D., D.Sc., lead author of the study and professor of radiation oncology and public health at Columbia University in New York City.

The study found that a 45-year-old person who underwent one full-body CT screening would have an estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk of approximately 0.08 percent, which would produce cancer in one in 1,200 people. However, a 45-year-old who has annual full-body CT scans for 30 years would accrue an estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk of about 1.9 percent or almost one in 50.

"The risk-benefit equation changes dramatically for adults who are referred for CT exams for medical diagnosis. Diagnostic benefits far outweigh the risks," Dr. Brenner said.

"In addition to the radiation risks demonstrated in this report, elective full-body CT may provide false-positive findings when no disease exists. This typically involves more extensive testing, which is costly and stressful," Dr. Brenner added.

Researchers said that the risk from ongoing, elective CT screenings could be reduced by increasing the time between scans or by starting at a later age.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: cancer; ct; ctscan; fullbodyscans; health

1 posted on 08/31/2004 9:16:25 AM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
So the CT scans I have to do every 6 months to make sure my kidney cancer is not recurred could give me cancer...


Hmmmmm....
2 posted on 08/31/2004 9:22:53 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs ("Making Al Gore regret inventing the internet, one post at a time")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950; bonesmccoy
The radiation dose from a full-body CT scan is comparable to the doses received by some of the atomic-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

OK, but what does that mean? People 100 feet from ground zero? 1,000 yards? 100 miles? Can anyone express the dose in something the layman can understand like "the same as n,nnn chest x-rays"? Are they talking about the equipment in use now or the earliest models? Is there a different way of getting a full body scan? is there a method we should be asking for? or a method we should be refusing?

3 posted on 08/31/2004 9:23:26 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Kerry was in the Senate???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ping


4 posted on 08/31/2004 9:23:39 AM PDT by Born Conservative (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Grain of salt time.

Doctors absolutely hate the advent of shopping mall CT scans. It reduces their product to a mere commodity (in a shopping mall! Next to the Orange Julius!) and gives consumers control of their own medical investigation.

5 posted on 08/31/2004 9:23:58 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

> ... full- body computed tomography (CT) scan,
> could increase the risk of cancer mortality.

OK, so why not get a full-body MRI instead?

And why doesn't the article mention this?


6 posted on 08/31/2004 9:24:08 AM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Do you have FULL BODY CT scans every 6 months to check for recurrence of your kidney cancer?


7 posted on 08/31/2004 9:24:41 AM PDT by Born Conservative (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

The medical-industrial complex is more insidious than the "military-industrial complex".


8 posted on 08/31/2004 9:25:08 AM PDT by lightman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Is the associated cancer incidents due to more effective searches or due to the CT procedures itself?

I would propose the success of CT tests are more the reality.


9 posted on 08/31/2004 9:27:33 AM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
However, a 45-year-old who has annual full-body CT scans for 30 years would accrue an estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk of about 1.9 percent or almost one in 50.

But if it saves just ONE life it's worth it. right?

Huh! That theory only applies to banning guns?

Never mind. (/sarcasm)

10 posted on 08/31/2004 9:28:58 AM PDT by elbucko (A Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

And I'm scheduled to get one next week. That sucks.


11 posted on 08/31/2004 9:29:34 AM PDT by Marie (John Kerry: Working For Nixon Before Nixon Was Working!! Cambodia, Christmas 1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: prion
We agree.

;^)

12 posted on 08/31/2004 9:31:43 AM PDT by elbucko (A Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

I've got my suspicions too. All the ads about these go on about the extremely low doses involved.


13 posted on 08/31/2004 9:38:55 AM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
No. I get chest, abdomen and pelvic.. close enough, I wager. So at least my head and legs are safe? Or is the amount of radiation increased by the % of your body that is scanned?

Regardless, I won't be worrying too much unless I see more proof of this. Still, I thought it ironic that the scans I am told to have done by my oncologist to make sure I don't have cancer (recurring) could be giving me cancer.
14 posted on 08/31/2004 9:40:07 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs ("Making Al Gore regret inventing the internet, one post at a time")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Just terrific. I've had 3.


15 posted on 08/31/2004 9:45:50 AM PDT by Peach (The Clinton's pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
I had a couple of torso scans for a kidney problem, I had always suspected that this would be the case.
16 posted on 08/31/2004 9:59:04 AM PDT by Paradox (Occam was probably right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Wow. I know. Just had another one in July. I sure didn't have any scans prior to discovering I had cancer.


17 posted on 08/31/2004 10:36:52 AM PDT by OpusatFR (President Bush will win 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud

"Is the associated cancer incidents due to more effective searches or due to the CT procedures itself? I would propose the success of CT tests are more the reality."


It appears that the mortality (not incidence) increase is just an estimate of future mortality based on the radiation exposure. This makes sense, since screening full-body CT scans have not been done long enough to acutally track any change in cancer incidence or mortality. BTW, these are called "full-body scams" by many radiologists, who realize the inappropriateness of the procedure.


18 posted on 08/31/2004 11:57:35 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson