[ RadSafe ] Therapeutic CT

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Ahmad, 

If they have Ca already, then there is no point in 
screening them, so that can't possibly be correct.

-Gary Isenhower



On 7 Nov 2010 at 19:54, Ahmad Al-Ani wrote:

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



      
_________________________________________
______
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