[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mammography Doses
RE>>Mammography Doses 11/8/94
I agree whole heartedly that the benefit-to-risk ratio is extremely high for
diagnostic x-rays. However, I believe that we must make every effort to fully
answer patients concerns about radiation exposure and risk. The "don't worry
about it" attitude we used since the 1940's is exactly why we are now spending
billions to clean superfund and other sites to less than background levels.
Rob Forrest
UPENN
Just my thoughts and nobody else's.
--------------------------------------
Date: 11/7/94 9:03 PM
To: ROB FORREST
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Received: by rsomacserver.rso.upenn.edu with SMTP;7 Nov 1994 21:03:02 U
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by vixen.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA04825
(5.67b/IDA-1.5 for <rob_forrest@rsomacserver.rso.upenn.edu>); Mon, 7 Nov 1994
20:02:08 -0600
Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
id AA00280; Mon, 7 Nov 94 20:02:01 -0600
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 20:02:01 -0600
Message-Id: <199411080031.AA07320@wugate.wustl.edu>
Errors-To: mandel@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Barry Siegel" <siegelb@mirlink.wustl.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: RE: Mammography Doses
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Radiation Safety Distribution List
After reading much of this chatter today, I've decided that someone has to
stand up for the use of diagnostic radiation exposure in the practice of
medicine. The benefit-to-risk ratio for most such exposures is sufficiently
high that long discussions about dose with patients simply are not worth the
time it would take for technologists and most radiologists to memorize the
numbers for each examination. Moreover, the discussion of stochastic radiation
effects with most patients will lead either to bewilderment or unnecessary fear
(this audience, in particular, knows just how much trouble most people have
understanding relative risks), and will consume large amounts of technologist
and/or radiologist time for which insurance companies have no intention of
paying. [How much extra would these patients be willing to pay out of pocket
for this extra information, if there were a charge for providing it?] I am not
surprised that most technologists cannot cite the radiation dose ranges for
particular examinations, but would be surprised if most radiologists could not
FIND (find, but not recall directly from memory) the information if it were
requested.
At what dose level should a patient refuse a clinically indicated diagnostic
examination because of the concern about radiation exposure? [With regard to
the patient mentioned below, I would have given him information regarding
expected radiation exposure from his chest radiograph, but would have asked him
to seek his medical care elsewhere before I would have provided a film badge
for this diagnostic study.] I wonder if these same individuals ask for
detailed risk analyses each time they are given a prescription or undergo a
laboratory test (e.g., what is the probability that a false-positive result
will lead to the wrong treatment which win turn will cause a fatal adverse
reaction?
Barry A. Siegel, M.D.
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu on 7 Nov 1994 17:34
Subject: Re: Mammography Doses
To: Multiple recipients of list
I am also curious about whether men get different handling from the
technologists if the question about dose is asked by a man.
Looking forward to my further education,
Sue Dupre/Health Physicist/Princeton University
Sue, Regarding your question above on the dose from obviously
gender-specific mammography, males do run into similar problems.
Some years ago, a male friend of mine refused to take a chest
x-ray for TB (a requirement for State employment). He said
unless he knew the dose to be delivered, he preferred a skin
test. Rather than argue (or acquiesce), the radiology folks
eventually allowed him to wear a film badge during the x-ray so
he'd have an idea of the dose. This process took days to iron
out and made for some hard feelings, but the radiology people
never were able to really say much about the expected exposure
until after the film was developed.
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by MIRLink.wustl.edu with SMTP;7 Nov 1994 17:34:06 -0600
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by vixen.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA09227
(5.67b/IDA-1.5); Mon, 7 Nov 1994 17:09:53 -0600
Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
id AA29064; Mon, 7 Nov 94 17:09:45 -0600
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 17:09:45 -0600
Message-Id: <9410077842.AA784249601@ccgate.songs.sce.com>
Errors-To: mandel@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "GOLDIN, ERIC" <goldinem@songs.sce.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Mammography Doses
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Radiation Safety Distribution List