RE: News Article: Patients, Physicians Unaware of CT Radiation Exposure

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

The problem is that CT scans do not necessarily small

doses like in plane film radiology.  For example, a PA

chest x-ray may be only 0.02 mSv, while a CT Chest may

be 8 mSv avearge, ranging from 2.4 to 16 mSv. (Wall

and Hart, Brit. J. Rad, 70 (1997), 437-439). Also,

patient frequently are getting multiple scans over

several days.  It would not be uncommon for a patient

to get more than 50 mSv (5 rem).  



As far as I know, there is no debate about DECREASED

risk of cancer in the medical profession.  It only

appears on this list server.



--- "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca> wrote:

> Thanks John, this is interesting.

> 

> Regarding the statement, 

> "Given the current debate about the possible

> increased cancer risk

> associated with diagnostic CT scans,...... we

> believe that it is important

> that the radiology community make current

> information regarding CT radiation

> dose more widely available."

> 

> I thought the "current debate" was about the

> possible DECREASED cancer risk

> associated with low dose radiation ?

> (they seems to be talking about a debate 20 to 40

> years ago....)

> 

> Regarding,

> "Nearly half the radiologists (47%) believed that a

> CT scan increased the

> lifetime risk of cancer"

> 

> ....seems to suggest that there might be a problem

> if these radiologists are

> asked to "make current information regarding

> radiation widely available...."

> 

> Jaro 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM]

> Sent: Friday May 07, 2004 9:59 AM

> To: radsafe; know_nukes

> Subject: News Article: Patients, Physicians Unaware

> of CT Radiation

> Exposure

> 

> 

> Another story about radiation risks in medicine. 

> There have been so many, I am not even sure if this

> is

> a new story or not.

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Automatic digest processor

> [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU]

> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:09 AM

> To: Recipients of MEDPHYS digests

> . . .

> 

> Date:    Thu, 6 May 2004 17:32:25 -1000

> From:    Scott DUBE <sdube@QUEENS.ORG>

> Subject: 

> The press loves to hate radiation.

> 

>

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

> 

> Patients, Physicians Unaware of CT Radiation

> Exposure

> 

> By Will Boggs, MD

> 

> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) May 05 - Patients and

> their

> physicians are unaware of the radiation dose and

> possible risks associated with diagnostic CT scans,

> according to a report in the May issue of Radiology.

> 

> The radiation dose associated with one abdominal CT

> scan has been estimated to be equivalent to 100 to

> 250

> chest X-rays, the authors explain, and one

> controversial study attributed 2500 deaths annually

> to

> CT examinations in the United States.

> 

> Dr. Howard P. Forman and colleagues from Yale

> University, New Haven, Connecticut surveyed

> patients,

> emergency department (ED) physicians, and

> radiologists

> to determine the awareness level concerning

> radiation

> dose and possible risks associated with CT scans.

> 

> Only 5 of 76 patients (7%) reported being informed

> of

> the risks and benefits before their CT scan, the

> authors report, and only 10 of 45 ED (22%)

> physicians

> reported explaining those risks and benefits to

> their

> patients.

> 

> Nearly half the radiologists (47%) believed that a

> CT

> scan increased the lifetime risk of cancer, the

> results indicate, but a similar belief was reported

> by

> only 3% of patients and 9% of ED physicians.

> 

> Ninety-two percent of patients estimated the

> radiation

> dose of one CT scan to be no more than 10 chest

> X-rays, the researchers note, as did 51% of ED

> physicians and 61% of radiologists. Only 22% of ED

> physicians and 13% of radiologists (and none of the

> patients) had dose estimates in the accurate range.

> 

> "Given the current debate about the possible

> increased

> cancer risk associated with diagnostic CT scans,"

> the

> investigators write, "we believe that it is

> important

> that the radiology community make current

> information

> regarding CT radiation dose more widely available."

> 

> Physicians are not adequately prepared to answer

> questions their patients should be asking about the

> risks and benefits of imaging studies, Dr. Forman

> told

> Reuters Health. "We must empower our patients to ask

> questions, and our physicians (both referring and

> providing) must become better prepared to answer

> these

> important questions."

> 

> "Not all imaging is necessary," Dr. Forman

> concluded,

> "and unnecessary imaging, with its attendant risk,

> is

> bad medicine. On the other hand, I would not want to

> frighten patients from having necessary studies

> performed; they should be informed, though."

> 

> Radiology 2004;231:393-398

> 





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"We cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads."

-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





	

		

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/