Answers to Common Questions About the Use and Safety of CT Scans.

Articles in the scientific literature and lay press over the past several years have implied that computed tomography (CT) may cause cancer and that physicians and patients must exercise caution in its use. Although there is broad agreement on the latter point--unnecessary medical tests of any type should always be avoided--there is considerable controversy surrounding the question of whether, or to what extent, CT scans can lead to future cancers. Although the doses used in CT are higher than those used in conventional radiographic examinations, they are still 10 to 100 times lower than the dose levels that have been reported to increase the risk of cancer. Despite the fact that at the low doses associated with a CT scan the risk either is too low to be convincingly demonstrated or does not exist, the magnitude of the concern among patients and some medical professionals that CT scans increase cancer risk remains unreasonably high. In this article, common questions about CT scanning and radiation are answered to provide physicians with accurate information on which to base their medical decisions and respond to patient questions.

[1]  G. Howe Lung cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with lung cancer mortality in the Atomic Bomb survivors study. , 1995, Radiation research.

[2]  J. Bushberg Eleventh annual Warren K. Sinclair keynote address-science, radiation protection and NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future. , 2015, Health physics.

[3]  Michael F McNitt-Gray,et al.  AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[4]  C. Claussen,et al.  Erratum to: Risk of cancer incidence before the age of 15 years after exposure to ionising radiation from computed tomography: results from a German cohort study , 2015, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[5]  G. Steele,et al.  Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[6]  S. Yilmaz,et al.  Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi , 1999, European Radiology.

[7]  Yukiko Shimizu,et al.  Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases , 2012, Radiation research.

[8]  H. Sugiyama,et al.  The Incidence of Leukemia, Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma among Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1950–2001 , 2013, Radiation research.

[9]  C. McCollough,et al.  How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk? , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  B. Psaty,et al.  Assessment and Control for Confounding by Indication in Observational Studies , 1999, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[11]  R C Smith,et al.  Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Katsuyuki Taguchi,et al.  Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. , 2012, Radiology.

[13]  W. Eckelman,et al.  NCRP report no. 93: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland (1987). US$15.00 , 1988 .

[14]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[15]  K E Applegate,et al.  Impact in the emergency department of unenhanced CT on diagnostic confidence and therapeutic efficacy in patients with suspected renal colic: a prospective survey. 2000 ARRS President's Award. American Roentgen Ray Society. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  R. Morin,et al.  Utilization strategies for cumulative dose estimates: a review and rational assessment. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[17]  A. B. Brill,et al.  NCRP Report No. 116, Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation National Council on Radiation Protection, Bethesda, MD, 88 pages, $22.50 , 1994 .

[18]  Adrian K. Dixon,et al.  Benefits and costs, an eternal balance , 2007 .

[19]  Richard Wakeford,et al.  Risks from CT scans—what do recent studies tell us? , 2014, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[20]  R. Wakeford Nuclear worker studies: promise and pitfalls , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[21]  C R Muirhead,et al.  Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[22]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Modern Epidemiology 3rd edition , 1986 .

[23]  J. Mathews,et al.  Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians , 2013, BMJ.

[24]  M. Kalra,et al.  Patients with testicular cancer undergoing CT surveillance demonstrate a pitfall of radiation-induced cancer risk estimates: the timing paradox. , 2013, Radiology.

[25]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[26]  J. Mullins,et al.  A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. , 1999, The Journal of urology.

[27]  A. Einstein,et al.  Impact of reduced patient life expectancy on potential cancer risks from radiologic imaging. , 2011, Radiology.

[28]  Jonathan D. Eisenberg,et al.  Falling prey to the sunk cost bias: a potential harm of patient radiation dose histories. , 2012, Radiology.

[29]  Division on Earth Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 , 2006 .

[30]  Natalie N. Braun,et al.  Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the torso. , 2012, Radiology.

[31]  E. Cardis CURRENT STATUS AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH NEEDS FOR ACHIEVING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT , 2007, Health physics.

[32]  William R Hendee Policy statement of the International Organization for Medical Physics. , 2013, Radiology.

[33]  C E Land,et al.  Estimating cancer risks from low doses of ionizing radiation. , 1980, Science.

[34]  M. Goske,et al.  An amazing accomplishment—CT manufacturers deserve our thanks , 2012, Pediatric Radiology.

[35]  F. G. Sommer,et al.  Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: incidence of associated urinary tract findings. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[36]  William R. Hendee Policy Statement of the International Organization for Medical Physics , 2013 .

[37]  L. Zablotska,et al.  A reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear workers (1956–1994) based on revised exposure and cohort data , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[38]  M. Chen,et al.  Can noncontrast helical computed tomography replace intravenous urography for evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic? , 1999, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[39]  J. Strzelczyk The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging , 2003 .

[40]  M. Marx NCRP Report No. 116 Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation , 1995 .

[41]  C. Claussen,et al.  Risk of cancer incidence before the age of 15 years after exposure to ionising radiation from computed tomography: results from a German cohort study , 2015, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[42]  J. Boice,et al.  Low-Dose-Rate Epidemiology of High Background Radiation Areas , 2010, Radiation research.

[43]  J. Boone,et al.  CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. , 2011, Radiology.

[44]  D. L. Preston,et al.  Solid Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–1998 , 2007, Radiation research.

[45]  R. P. Guillerman,et al.  Don't let radiation scare trump patient care: 10 ways you can harm your patients by fear of radiation-induced cancer from diagnostic imaging , 2014, Thorax.

[46]  S. Sourtzis,et al.  Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[47]  Stella K Kang,et al.  Journal club: How radiation exposure histories influence physician imaging decisions: a multicenter radiologist survey study. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[48]  James H Thrall,et al.  Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. , 2009, Radiology.

[49]  Per Hall,et al.  Thyroid cancer risk after thyroid examination with 131I: A population‐based cohort study in Sweden , 2003, International journal of cancer.

[50]  K. P. Kim,et al.  Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study , 2012, The Lancet.

[51]  H. Brisse,et al.  Comment on: Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[52]  Jim Thurston,et al.  NCRP Report No. 160: Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States , 2010 .

[53]  Bob Liu,et al.  Body CT scanning in young adults: examination indications, patient outcomes, and risk of radiation-induced cancer. , 2013, Radiology.