New Focus on Dangers of CT Scans

(CBS)  There were about 70 million CT scans performed in United States in 2007 - up from just 3 million in 1980. The scans, also known as CAT scans can help doctors identify tumors and internal injuries among many other uses.

But they rely on dangerous radiation to get the job done and the harms may be greater than previously thought, reports CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook.

After Alabama school teacher Becky Coudert had a brain CT scan in September her hair started to fall out and, according to a lawyer, "She developed a broad band of baldness from one temple to the other, from around the back of the head."

Her lawyer says she received a higher than normal radiation dose. Two other patients have come forward with similar stories. In Los Angeles, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is being investigated for giving excess radiation to more than 250 patients during their CT scans.

Read more about CT scans from WebMD

The problem of too much radiation during CT scans may be more widespread than anyone thought.

"The doses are actually higher than are generally reported," said Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California San Francisco

New research out today found a wide variation in radiation dose for the most common CT scans, like abdomen, pelvis and chest. A survey of four hospitals found some patients received 13 times more radiation than others for the same type of scan.

"Depending on where a particular patient is sent - hospital one or hospital two - or if he goes in the evening, the dose that the patient received would have been profoundly different and that degree of variation is what was so surprising," Smith-Bindman said.

And just how dangerous is the extra radiation?

"The risk is not huge but it's definitely real," she said.

Radiation is a known carcinogen, even in the relatively small amounts used with most CT's. There are a number of uncertainties involved in predicting cancer risk. But a second study today estimates that about 29,000 future cancers might be caused by the 72 million CT scans done in 2007.

"If a ct scan is truly indicated, patients should proceed with that scan," said Dr. Jim Brink. "But be sure to choose an accredited facility that could be relied upon to control dose and make it as low as possible."

The FDA is investigating the type of brain scan that went wrong in California and Alabama hospitals. Experts are calling for regulations to standardize how all CT scans are performed.

Lawsuits involving CT radiation

[Gramjen]

Wow, this isn't like getting some <a href="http://j-lcoolingtowersinc.com">cooling tower maintenance</a> done, when people go in for medical procedures, they are expecting their best interests to be looked out for and getting a higher than normal dose of radiation would be really disconcerting as well as potentially detrimental to their health.

[rd3_sred]

great information

I wonder how much is spent on research or development in this field annually

[Dave_Fisher]

Media coverage of the two recent studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, claiming increases in cancer due to use of computed tomography (CT), raises vital public policy issues that must be considered.

First, it?s important to understand that medical imaging manufacturers have made incredible strides in innovating advanced equipment that minimizes radiation dose. In fact, new medical imaging technologies and systems introduced during the past 20 years have significantly reduced radiation dose.

Even with this progress, manufactures continuously explore the next frontiers of innovative medical imaging technology that will exponentially reduce radiation exposure while exponentially increasing the capability and quality of the images it delivers -- allowing physicians to save more lives. To that end, we believe policymakers should encourage technologic development so that companies can continue to innovate and produce diagnostic equipment that reduces radiation dose and improves patient outcomes.

Next, while nobody disputes the effectiveness of CT scans, the assertion that CT scans are overused is an outdated perception. In fact, an analysis of Medicare claims data from 1998-2007 demonstrates that beginning in 2007, spending on advanced diagnostic equipment decreased by 19.2 percent while volume grew by a modest 1.9 percent. Any claims that the use of CT is rapidly growing is false.

Imaging manufacturers believe that the way to continue driving proper use of CT, as well as other diagnostic equipment, is to ensure physicians have access to, and are relying on, evidenced-based guidelines at the point of care to determine which diagnostic test should be ordered (or not ordered). That?s why MITA strongly endorses a robust build-out of appropriateness criteria in the Medicare program, and research supports this approach. This is the best way to drive proper utilization while ensuring patients have access to the diagnostic procedures they need.

Lastly, it?s important to point out that medical imaging, when used appropriately, minimizes other risks that more invasive procedures present to patients, and enables doctors and patients to more effectively tackle the very real and very deadly diseases they already have. We must preserve access to these scans while smartly fostering the development of new technologies and ensuring their proper use.

Dave Fisher
Managing Director
Medical Imaging &#38; Technology Alliance (MITA)

[mcapek]

"Appropriateness criteria" do not protect ER physicians from malpractice lawsuits and therefore will do little to alleviate the problem. We have a legal, not medical problem, on our hands, that drives unnecessary tests. And politicians are affraid to tackle it. So more of the same old...

[yarnplay]

And of course there are no statistics provided on the number of lives that were prolonged as a result of the CT scans identifying cancers and other ailments early enough to allow for treatments. Interesting filtering of the information.

[newsterl]

"But be sure to choose an accredited facility that could be relied upon to control dose and make it as low as possible."

You mean like Cedars-Sinai did?

[mcapek]

"If a ct scan is truly indicated, patients should proceed with that scan," said Dr. Jim Brink. "But be sure to choose an accredited facility that could be relied upon to control dose and make it as low as possible."" --- What a bunch of RIDICULOUS statements. How would a laymen know if the CT scan is really indicated? On basis of what education and experience? How would laymen know what is accredited facility? Accredited and supervised by the state? Accredited by ACR? By other agencies? Laymen would not even know what ACR is, much less whether he can depend whether the accreditation is worth anything, how often the site is recertified or supervised. How would laymen possibly ever know if facility could be "relied upon to control dose and to make it as low as possible"? You can be the dose real real small by not doing any scanning at all. There, you minimized your dose!

[fedupwithlies2]

This is such a government farce. Not that radation isn't harmful in my opinion. But CT, MRI have been her a long while. X-rays have been here forever. The one that is the most harmful is the x-ray; and it is the cheapest.
These reports from the gov. about CT,MRI(no harm) and mammograms have only came out after this gov.supposedly health reform.....! Doctors have been shoving mammograms down women's throat for years and years. Women did not want them. The doctors told them they would die if they didn't get them. The gov. is such a farce. It is all Obama the Deceiver. he wants to take over our governemnt and bring us Communism and Marxist. That is why there is all these gov. reports suddenly; so we are now frightened to use them; because the price is too high. How dispicable! Obama is such a liar to just say on the spot to manipulate to get whatever he wants at the time. Wake up Please American. Obama is a Communist and is destorying our freedom. The Democrats are the ones who nominated him without verifiying he was a natural born citizen. Impeach Obama. He is a de-facto pres.from Kenya.

[crowtrob]

first half of your post makes sense. then the typical right wing diatribe against obama. the mammogram report was by a commission established under bush. and, if you did about 15 seconds of research you would find the massive fallacy in your "kenya" argument. all of the couterfiet "kenya" birth certificates, as well as any claim i can find states that obama was born in mombasa, kenya in 1961. the massive flaw in these forgeries and made up lies people are perpetuating is simple. and for the slow people out there, i will scream it in caps so it is clear. MOMBASA WAS NOT PART OF KENYA IN 1961. IT WAS PART OF THE STATE OF ZANZIBAR, UNDER THE GOVERNANCE OF TANZANIA. MOMBASA WAS NOT INCORPORATED INTO KENYA UNTIL 1963. IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE FOR OBAMA TO BE BORN IN MOMBASA, KENYA IN 1961. IT DID NOT EXIST.

thank you orly taitz, for making the argument sooo easy.

[laisamine]

is it such a look like a such a danger in this image,


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19421190/Enhanced-Kre-Alkalyn---Review-and-Free-Trial

[laisamine]

is it look like such a very danger, in this image,

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19421190/Enhanced-Kre-Alkalyn---Review-and-Free-Trial

[chicarelli]

Tonight's report mentioned abdominal scans that have been done with too high of dosages. My wife received an abdominal CT as an out-patient at Cedars Sinai's Mark Taper Imaging Center in spring of '07. Is that facility a subject of the investigation for that time period?