..and easier to spot, too. 
Posted on 09/06/2004 3:59:30 PM PDT by neverdem
For a prime example of medical screening that has proliferated beyond reason, consider the alarming case of full-body computed tomography scans to detect cancer, cardiovascular disease and other conditions. Narrowly targeted C.T. scans aimed at particular organs are undeniably valuable when used by doctors to pin down a diagnosis in sick patients. But full-body scans to screen healthy individuals for hidden disease have never been shown to be effective, and now there is evidence that the scans may be harmful. A new study finds that the scans impart radiation doses comparable to those received by atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing a small but significant increase in the risk of cancer.
Nobody seems quite sure how many Americans get the full-body scans each year. The number is believed to mount into the tens of thousands or conceivably hundreds of thousands. The scans are performed mostly at freestanding clinics that have sprung up to promote the procedure. They can cost more than $1,000 and are seldom covered by insurance, so the clients are presumably affluent or so concerned about hidden disease that they will pay.
The scans are supposed to detect early signs of lung cancer, colon cancer and coronary artery disease, among other ailments, thus allowing for timely treatment. But the evidence that they are effective is mostly anecdotal. No scientific studies have yet shown a health or life-saving benefit, and there is controversy among experts over a high false-positive rate that forces patients to undergo needless further tests. The Food and Drug Administration and the American College of Radiology, among other expert groups, oppose full-body scans in people who have no symptoms of disease
A study published in May by Yale University researchers found that radiologists and emergency room physicians were largely unaware of how much radiation the scans delivered, and now a study by Columbia University researchers highlights the risk of dying from radiation-induced cancer. A single full-body scan delivers a radiation dose nearly 100 times that of a screening mammogram and only slightly lower than the dose received by atomic bomb survivors a mile and a half from the burst sites. That's not a huge added risk (only a 1-in-1,250 risk of dying from cancer), but people worried about hidden disease would presumably want repeated, regular screenings. Full-body scans administered annually for 30 years starting at age 45 could cause one cancer death in every 50 patients, the new study estimates. That is a disturbingly high risk for a procedure of dubious benefit.
ping
When every person has a right to health care, there will be (are?) MANY procedures of dubious benefit performed on many who want to exercise their right.
When every person has a right to health care, you'll find it getting rationed.
Effective at what? Finding diseases that aren't there? By definition healthy people don't have diseases, so what effectiveness are they measuring.
Is it reckless to find out that you are disease free? And if you are, would you really need annual screenings of this type? I doubt it. For those who have legitimate concnerns this could be an excellent diagnostic to relive their anxieties.
CT does involve exposure to radiation in the form of x-rays, but the benefit of an accurate diagnosis far outweighs the risk. The effective radiation dose from this procedure is about 10 mSv, which is about the same as the average person receives from background radiation in three years.
If this amount of 'life dose' scares you, then don't fly in commercial aircraft. ;-)
Some homes' foundations are more highly radioactive than this.
Certianly you not want a CAT/CAT (computed tomography) full-body scan on a quarterly basis, but it can be a lot more useful and revealing than your typical physical.
try this from the national cancer institute
http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/5_2.htm
I don't know enough to make a judgement yet on the benefits of full-body scanning, but my B.S. detector starts beeping wheneever an author starts likening a procedure with something like atomic-blast radiation. It smascks of alarmism -- the author clearly wants you to believe the worst, and the worst we can think of is something like an atomic blast. It's emotionalism, and it does nothing to convince me of anything, except that the author is trying his best to sell me on something.
I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time reading this article with by BS detector going off this loudly. How about 'some' range of numbers as to the exposure? Typically, these measurements are made in rads? The exposure intensity, time, and the type of radiation make a huge difference.
When someone makes as ignorant a statement as given above, I question not only thier 'facts', but their intelligence on the subject. The subject is not all that complicated ( Source ), and getting baseline numbers should be relatively simple, as these machines are required to specify how much, and what type of radiation are exposed to the patient.
Two minds with a single thought! Or, at least, a single B.S. detector....
I have to disagree with the NY Times, the medical establishment and you.
The medical establishment is one of the biggest sufferers of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome of all time. Read up on the history of how ulcers came to be found to be an infectious disease instead of a reaction to stress, for a glaring example of this.
The medical establishment is trying to preserve their own power. The Times is just going along with them.
Insurance companies are against scans because they find serious conditions early enough to be treated (at great expense). The dirtiest little secret in the whole medical skeleton closet is that insurance companies would rather have you die than find a serious illness when there is still time to treat it. If they can get you to 65 without discovering anything major, they pass you on to medicare. If you find a problem sooner they are stuck for the treatment cost.
Hey I thought they used body scanning on Star Trek?
One of the criticisms that I have about the article is: There is no quantitative data (in the article) regarding the level of radiation dose. If the effective dose is about 10 mSv (1 REM old style of notation), it is doubtful that any statistical effect could be observed.
Why?
1. The magnitude of such an effect would be below the level of resolution for epidemiological studies. It would take observing millions of subjects, to determine if any increase did occur. In other words, the costs associated with such a study would be prohibitive.
2. There is also some evidence, which suggests low effective doses of radiation (in the magnitude of 1 mSv) may depress the the incidence of cancer. This effect is known as hormesis, but it is very difficult to 'prove' for the very same reason. However, this does not suggests that frequently repeated doses of 1 mSV would be safe.
3. My biggest concern with the procedure, is that it will be done frequently, when it is not necessary. I believe that some 'cost/benefit' justification is needed, instead of frivolous use of the procedure.
****
Some of the evidence about 'hormesis':
High background level areas in the world
A. Guaparaj, Brazil
B. Kerala Province, India
C. Ramsar, Iran
Curly --
I have to agree and disagree with you at the same time. I agreed with you before I disagreed witu you/ How JFK-ish ;-)
Chronic care is 80% of direct healthcare costs. Next on the list are Emergency and Intensive Care. Actually Payers are not against scans - they are against scans outside of accepted protocols. They would MUCH rather pay for a scan to accurately catch your illness early, prevent it, or cure your conditoin (regardless of how "serious" it is) as opposed to letting you fall into a chronic care category.
Chronic care is also something directly associated with aging. We all want to age well. Payers included. They and the "establishment" do not wish anyone to just die.
..and easier to spot, too.
This is actually something that I have experience with. My husband's boss had a full body scan at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas and he had a tiny lung cancer. It was found so early that he didn't have to have chemo or radiation. (he never smoked a day in his life) Another friend had bone cancer found in his hip but he did have a history of cancer of the kidney. I myself had thyroid cancer, which was found at the Cooper Clinic. There is no cancer in my family and I've never been exposed to any kind of radiation.
I would think that a full body scan would come up with some problem in just about anyone. I am from the old school....if it an't broke, don't fix it!
If I get enough of these things, maybe I can turn into Mr. Fantastic or the Human Torch. Being the Invisible Girl might be cool, too, but I don't want to undergo the necessary trans-gender surgery.
I have no interest in being The Thing, so there is a calculated risk.
What they are talking about is a P.E.T.(Positron Emission Tomography) Scan. It costs $5000 and I had one done when I was diagnosed with squamos cell carcinoma. It was worth every penny to know that the cancer had not metasized. I had seven weeks of radiation therapy and have been cancer free for 29 months.
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.