[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does CT lung cancer screening LOWER lung cancer risk?
But they do make good press.
--- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Yes, John,
> Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer and every
> day I help patients kick
> that adrenalin fix.
>
> As Otto points out also, the small numbers don't
> evidence much here.
>
> Howard Long
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
> To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>; "John
> Jacobus"
> <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>; "Keith Welch"
> <welch@jlab.org>;
> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Does CT lung cancer screening LOWER
> lung cancer risk?
>
>
> > Howard,
> > I would say that since the differences between
> actual
> > and expected cancers is so small, neither a
> > detrimental or beneficial effect can be
> demonstrated.
> >
> > I would say stop smoking would provide a greater
> > benefit than any supposed CT radiation dosage. As
> a
> > physician, wouldn't you agree?
> >
> > --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > "4,687 non-leukemic cancer deaths occurred in
> 50,115
> > > [exposed] survivors
> > > where we estimated 4,306 would have occurred,
> had
> > > they not been exposed [to
> > > 1 to 10 cSv or rads]." (ref below). Indeed, that
> > > would suggest a slight
> > > INCREASE in cancer deaths from CT, (c 1 rad).
> > >
> > > However, the small difference (8%) might be
> > > explained by many variables.
> > >
> > > Mostly I doubt the conclusion because it is
> > > inconsistent with other data:
> > > The Breast Cancer Incidence Among Atomic Bomb
> > > Survivors (Land CE, McGrgor
> > > DH, JNatl Cancer Inst 1979 Jan;62(1):17-21 table
> 2
> > > shows "average tissue
> > > dose, rads Observed 109 vs Expected 127.8
> p,0.0001",
> > > but broken down,
> > > rads 1-9, Observed 34 breast cancers, Expected
> 42.3
> > > breast cancers!
> > >
> > > Thus for that dosage, there is evidence that 1-9
> rad
> > > acute exposure may
> > > LOWER breast cancer risk. I abandoned design for
> a
> > > study using mammography
> > > and CT
> > > because the 1 rad acute from the CT would lower
> the
> > > power to detect
> > > significant differences, since it would have
> much
> > > the same benefit as the
> > > exposure (no good placebo). This is much the
> same
> > > problem as drug companies
> > > are having with placebo in anti depressants
> (Wall St
> > > Journal, 6/18/04).
> > >
> > > I think CT may LOWER lung cancer risk.
> > >
> > > Howard Long
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
> > > To: "Keith Welch" <welch@jlab.org>;
> > > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening
> raises
> > > lung cancer risk
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Radiation Effects Research Foundation show
> 63
> > > > deaths (2% of 3391 cancer deaths) between 5
> mSv
> > > and
> > > > 200 mSv
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/radefx/late/cancrisk.htm
> > > >
> > > > Of course I have not read any of the reports
> which
> > > > might have more current information. However,
> it
> > > > appears to be a bit of data mining
> > > (word-smithing?) to
> > > > enhance the risk value.
> > > >
> > > > Keith, the HPS position paper I think you are
> > > > referring to is at
> > > > http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf
> > > >
> > > > --- Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org> wrote:
> > > > > Is this really right? Are the bomb survivor
> > > > > statistics correct? How does the cancer
> risk in
> > > the
> > > > > atomic bomb cohort reconcile with the HPS
> > > position
> > > > > paper on "radiation risk in perspective"
> which
> > > > > states that quantitative risk estimates
> should
> > > not
> > > > > be used below 10 rem? (coincidentally, it
> seems
> > > > > that position paper is no longer on the HPS
> > > website.
> > > > > Is it under revision?)
> > > > >
> > > > > "For example, 10 low-dose CT lung screening
> > > > > examinations would produce lung doses in the
> > > range
> > > > > of
> > > > > 25 to 90 mGy," he wrote. "Among
> approximately
> > > 30,000
> > > > > individuals in the cancer incidence cohort
> of
> > > atomic
> > > > > bomb survivors who received doses between 5
> and
> > > 100
> > > > > mSv (mean dose, 29 mSv), there was a
> > > statistically
> > > > > significant increase in cancer risk (77
> excess
> > > > > cancers, p = 0.05) compared to that in the
> > > control
> > > > > population."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keith Welch
>
>
************************************************************************
> 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/
>
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful."
Edward R. Murrow
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
************************************************************************
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/