[ RadSafe ] Therapeutic CT

[Ahmad Al-Ani]

Jerry Wrote:

"Assuming the reduced Ca incidence in CT recipients results from the increased 
radiation dose"

But that was not ever mentioned in the study, correct me if I missed it. It rather says this:

"Screening smokers and ex-smokers with high-tech CT scans has been shown for the first time to significantly cut deaths from lung cancer"

The way I understood it is that these patients have lung cancer already, and the CT study was able to detect and localize the tumor better than the classic chest x-ray. Hence earlier detection and precise localization resulted in less death on an already cancer patients, not reducing the rate of cancer incidence.

Whole body CT scan as a routine check up procedure is not new. Actually it started about 10 years ago for people older than 45. The first question was not about the dose, but how the quality of life change of a patient, if medical problem was detected, or ignored, in particular to slow growing diseases. 

Ahmad

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:25 AST Jerry Cohen wrote:

>Assuming the reduced Ca incidence in CT recipients results from the increased 
>radiation dose, it is somewhat silly to suggest use CT for CA prevention.An 
>ancient rumor on how man came to eat roasted meat relates that ages ago, a man's 
>home burned down with his pig inside. The burnt meat tasted better than the raw 
>meat  they had previously consumed and so the practice of burning one's home 
>with livestock inside became a widespread practice. In time, simpler methods of 
>cooking meat evolved
>CT's are rather expensive and cumbersome. Accordingly, It might be much less 
>expensive and easier to administer prophylacic radiation via xray or isotope 
>irradiation.
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: "Perle, Sandy" <SPerle at mirion.com>
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing  List 
><radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>Sent: Sun, November 7, 2010 3:40:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] CT vs. X-Ray for reduction of Cancer Death
>
>Jerry and others,
>
>My primary premise is that assuming the 20% reduction is due to better 
>detection, and I believe that is the case, I don't believe that we should go out 
>and give everyone a CT scan, not only to detect other cases, but to provide a 
>benefit to the radiation dose.
>
>I recognize Ed's references. I don't know that one can simply extrapolate the 
>results of some studies and statistics to what benefit there would be if we 
>exposed a significant % of the population.
>
>If it were an absolute conclusion that the need for any dose reduction was not 
>prudent, then all of us in the radiation protection field have wasted a lot of 
>time and effort.
>
>Note that the NRC is evaluating lowering the regulatory dose limits to be 
>consistent with the majority of other counties. I see no need in that and 
>believe current regulatory limits are adequate enough. Perhaps the limits could 
>even be relaxed a bit.
>
>Regards,
>
>Sandy Perle
>Sent from my Windows phone from AT&T
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu