This refers to full body scans and radiation as shown on the American Cancer
website.
Clearly the part about the radiation being equal to some of the survivors
at Hirshoima and Nagasaki is not very comforting.
Maria
()
People who opt for a full-body CT scan as a way to screen for cancer may be
getting a bigger dose of radiation than they bargained for.
Full-Body CT Scans: Too Much Radiation? Study Finds High Potential Doses, but Other Scan Dangers Likely Worse Article date: 2004/09/03
Those full-body CT scans advertised at some health care centers may be
delivering as much radiation as a low-dose atomic bomb, according to a new study.
And that means people who get them could be raising their cancer risk,
researchers from Columbia University report in the journal Radiology (Vol. 232, No.
3:735-738).
"The radiation dose from a full-body CT scan is comparable to the doses
received by some of the atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where
there is clear evidence of increased cancer risk," said David J. Brenner,
PhD, D.Sc, lead author of the study and professor of radiation oncology and
public health at Columbia University in New York.
Scans Not Suitable Screening Tool
The study is sure to add fuel to the already hot controversy over full-body
computed tomography scans.
The scans are marketed as a way for healthy people to find diseases like
lung cancer or colon cancer before symptoms become apparent. But many experts
say there's little evidence the scans actually work as a screening tool. No
studies have been done to determine whether screening for disease in this way
actually saves lives or improves people's outcomes.
"Leading scientific and medical organizations not only do not endorse
full-body CT screening, but also caution against use of this test," said Robert
Smith, PhD, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society.
For one thing, the scans may show a person has nothing wrong when in fact
there is disease present. Because the patient thinks he's healthy, he may not
get other screening tests that could find his disease early.
Another problem: The scans may wrongly identify normal areas as suspicious.
To know for sure, though, the patient must undergo costly and potentially
risky invasive procedures to get a definitive diagnosis.
"The risk-benefit equation changes dramatically for adults who are referred
for CT scans for medical diagnosis," Brenner said. "Diagnostic benefits far
outweigh the risks."
