Re: The dangers of CT scans

[Guest guest]

When I had a CT scan done my platelets dropped and never recovered. My

Oncologist said that the CT scan had nothing to do with it but I read

different.

He had my CT scan from another Oncologist that I go to but wanted to

have one done for him so I had two done in 6 months time. I won't let

them do another in the future unless they provide sufficient evidence

it is necessary.

My Oncologist tells me a number of things that are opposite from what I

read. I think he lies to me for his own convenience.

[Guest guest]

I have had about 6 CT-Scans since December 2000 ( re so far successful colon

cancer surgery and intermittent chemo post- surgery). I was to have another

CT Scan in about 2003, but refused after several discussions with my

oncologist regarding MY concerns about excessive radiation exposure. Since

I already had a quiet Stage 0 CLL, I worried about what another Scan would

do to it --- wake it up to become aggressive perhaps? Now my oncologist(s)

are talking about it being time for another Scan, either CT Scan or

PET-Scan. I've asked this question before, but ---- is one type Scan less

risky re radiation than the other ? I welcome any and all information on

this topic. Are there any radiology docs out there reading this?

--Thanks,

----Bill, dx'd CLL 1996

The dangers of CT scans

>I agree that CT scans can expose the patient to

> substantial levels of radiation. An abdominal CT

> scan, for example, is the equivalent of 400 chest

> X-rays, or 333 round-trip flights from LA to New York,

> all in a few seconds.

>

> However, sometimes they are medically necessary.

> However, doctors need to know the dangers, and

> certainly the patient must be informed of the risks

> and benefits.

>

> I've avoided most CT scans, though I had one (turned

> out to be unnecessary after the fact) when a chest

> X-ray showed a spot on my lung.

>

> --- minolfa <rapaccini.carlo@...> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>>

>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545569?src=mp

>>

>>

>>

>> From The Hastings Center Report

>>

>> Carcinogenic Diagnosis

>> Posted 10/18/2006

>>

>> e Fugh-Berman

>>

>> " If a diagnostic procedure increases cancer risk,

>> should patients be

>> informed of that risk? Apparently not, at least for

>> one procedure

>> performed more than 150,000 times a day in the

>> United States.[1] CT

>> scans use multiple x-rays to create

>> three-dimensional images that

>> are diagnostically useful but expose people to far

>> more radiation

>> than conventional x-rays. In fact, one CT scan

>> exposes a patient to

>> the lower range of radiation received by some

>> Nagasaki bombing

>> survivors. Up to one in a thousand patients will

>> develop cancer from

>> this exposure.[2] Sixty million CT scans a year will

>> thus cause

>> cancer in thousands of people. Yet most consent

>> forms are silent

>> about this.

>>

>> The cancer-causing effects of CT scans are routinely

>> discussed in

>> the medical literature, and some researchers have

>> worried about the

>> long-term effects, especially in children, who have

>> more dividing

>> cells to disrupt and more time to develop cancer.

>> Others trivialize

>> the risk, arguing that the benefits are worth it.

>> Yet patients

>> undergoing CT scans are informed of the much rarer

>> risks of serious

>> complications and deaths (one in 400,000) caused by

>> injection of

>> iodinated contrast material. Serious allergic

>> reactions are dramatic

>> and almost immediate, but most people will survive

>> even severe

>> allergic reactions, especially when they take place

>> in a health care

>> facility. Cancers may take decades to manifest, but

>> can be

>> devastating. And that an effect is delayed is hardly

>> justification

>> for not mentioning it; informed consent for cancer

>> treatment

>> includes discussion of the long-term risks of

>> inducing new cancers. "

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

> Groups

> (http://)

>

>

>

> Let's keep the list UNCLUTTERED!!!

>

> To do ANY HOUSEKEEPING business such as changing the way you get mail,

> please go to mygoups or mail me at

> scott_fs@....

>

[Guest guest]

Bill,

Tell them you want a MRI scan instead of CT or PET scan. I did just that. The

MRI scan was scheduled, but when I showed up at the Imaging Center they were

still trying to persuade me to do a CT scan instead. They set up a conference

call with my PCP, onc and radiologist while I was lying on the MRI platform! I

stuck to my guns and finally they gave up and did the MRI.

After all this hassle, the MRI gave a good picture of my lymph nodes, spleen and

liver. They didn't even have to bother to apply a contrast agent.

What one has to keep in mind is that medical decisions aren't always dictated by

the patient's benefit. Sometimes convention and the doctor's convenience are

given higher priority. If you've done your homework and know what you're doing,

don't be afraid to be hardnosed!

Andy

The dangers of CT scans

>I agree that CT scans can expose the patient to

> substantial levels of radiation. An abdominal CT

> scan, for example, is the equivalent of 400 chest

> X-rays, or 333 round-trip flights from LA to New York,

> all in a few seconds.

>

> However, sometimes they are medically necessary.

> However, doctors need to know the dangers, and

> certainly the patient must be informed of the risks

> and benefits.

>

> I've avoided most CT scans, though I had one (turned

> out to be unnecessary after the fact) when a chest

> X-ray showed a spot on my lung.

>

> --- minolfa <rapaccini.carlo@...> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>>

>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545569?src=mp

>>

>>

>>

>> From The Hastings Center Report

>>

>> Carcinogenic Diagnosis

>> Posted 10/18/2006

>>

>> e Fugh-Berman

>>

>> " If a diagnostic procedure increases cancer risk,

>> should patients be

>> informed of that risk? Apparently not, at least for

>> one procedure

>> performed more than 150,000 times a day in the

>> United States.[1] CT

>> scans use multiple x-rays to create

>> three-dimensional images that

>> are diagnostically useful but expose people to far

>> more radiation

>> than conventional x-rays. In fact, one CT scan

>> exposes a patient to

>> the lower range of radiation received by some

>> Nagasaki bombing

>> survivors. Up to one in a thousand patients will

>> develop cancer from

>> this exposure.[2] Sixty million CT scans a year will

>> thus cause

>> cancer in thousands of people. Yet most consent

>> forms are silent

>> about this.

>>

>> The cancer-causing effects of CT scans are routinely

>> discussed in

>> the medical literature, and some researchers have

>> worried about the

>> long-term effects, especially in children, who have

>> more dividing

>> cells to disrupt and more time to develop cancer.

>> Others trivialize

>> the risk, arguing that the benefits are worth it.

>> Yet patients

>> undergoing CT scans are informed of the much rarer

>> risks of serious

>> complications and deaths (one in 400,000) caused by

>> injection of

>> iodinated contrast material. Serious allergic

>> reactions are dramatic

>> and almost immediate, but most people will survive

>> even severe

>> allergic reactions, especially when they take place

>> in a health care

>> facility. Cancers may take decades to manifest, but

>> can be

>> devastating. And that an effect is delayed is hardly

>> justification

>> for not mentioning it; informed consent for cancer

>> treatment

>> includes discussion of the long-term risks of

>> inducing new cancers. "

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

> __________________________________________________________

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

> Groups

> (http://)

>

>

>

> Let's keep the list UNCLUTTERED!!!

>

> To do ANY HOUSEKEEPING business such as changing the way you get mail,

> please go to mygoups or mail me at

> scott_fs@....

>

[Guest guest]

Congratulations on you becoming part of your own

health care.

I've demanded (and received) MRIs instead of CT scans

for CLL-related abdominal scans. I was concerned with

enlarging abdominal nodes, so I had an MRI twice in

2006.

The pathologist apparently had absolutely no problems

detecting node location and size.

I'd ask your oncologist and/or radiologist if you

could have an MRI instead of a CT scan. PET scans may

also be a possibility. This type of scan looks for

higher-than-usual glucose metabolism, thus spotting

areas of fast growth, such as cancer. I don't know if

it is as good for understanding tumor location and

size.

Things to ask your oncologist.

CT scans are sometimes necessary, such is acute trauma

cases. For some reason, CT scans are easier to do and

the machines are more available. I had to make an

appointment for my scan.

To be honest, I would pay out of my own pocket the

difference in cost, if any, just to protect my own

body.

My opinion is that routine CT scans at diagnosis

(which I unfortunately had) is not justified at all,

and the risks outweigh the benefits.

--- O'Donnell <wodonnell1@...> wrote:

> I have had about 6 CT-Scans since December 2000 ( re

> so far successful colon

> cancer surgery and intermittent chemo post-

> surgery). I was to have another

> CT Scan in about 2003, but refused after several

> discussions with my

> oncologist regarding MY concerns about excessive

> radiation exposure. Since

> I already had a quiet Stage 0 CLL, I worried about

> what another Scan would

> do to it --- wake it up to become aggressive

> perhaps? Now my oncologist(s)

> are talking about it being time for another Scan,

> either CT Scan or

> PET-Scan. I've asked this question before, but ----

> is one type Scan less

> risky re radiation than the other ? I welcome any

> and all information on

> this topic. Are there any radiology docs out there

> reading this?

> --Thanks,

> ----Bill, dx'd CLL 1996

> The dangers of CT scans

>

>

> >I agree that CT scans can expose the patient to

> > substantial levels of radiation. An abdominal CT

> > scan, for example, is the equivalent of 400 chest

> > X-rays, or 333 round-trip flights from LA to New

> York,

> > all in a few seconds.

> >

> > However, sometimes they are medically necessary.

> > However, doctors need to know the dangers, and

> > certainly the patient must be informed of the

> risks

> > and benefits.

> >

> > I've avoided most CT scans, though I had one

> (turned

> > out to be unnecessary after the fact) when a chest

> > X-ray showed a spot on my lung.

> >

> > --- minolfa <rapaccini.carlo@...> wrote:

> >

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545569?src=mp

> >>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates

(http://voice.)

[Guest guest]

If you believe your oncologist is lying to you, you

might confront him/her on this, or find an oncologist

you have confidence in.

--- twosteprav <twosteprav@...> wrote:

> When I had a CT scan done my platelets dropped and

> never recovered. My

> Oncologist said that the CT scan had nothing to do

> with it but I read

> different.

>

> He had my CT scan from another Oncologist that I go

> to but wanted to

> have one done for him so I had two done in 6 months

> time. I won't let

> them do another in the future unless they provide

> sufficient evidence

> it is necessary.

>

> My Oncologist tells me a number of things that are

> opposite from what I

> read. I think he lies to me for his own convenience.

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited

(http://music./unlimited)

[Guest guest]

I agree that everybody needs to become part of your own health care. For the

vaccine trial that is currently starting with Genitope, they will not allow a

MRI for some reason. I asked them to change, but will not. My only recourse is

to get the first CT scan on intro to the study and then withdraw before they

finish since they want another one at the end of the study.

There is a very good book out there that I am sure some of you have read.

" The Patient from Hell " . This group is also very helpful in this as well.

" S. " <scott_fs@...> wrote:

Congratulations on you becoming part of your own

health care.

I've demanded (and received) MRIs instead of CT scans

for CLL-related abdominal scans. I was concerned with

enlarging abdominal nodes, so I had an MRI twice in

2006.

The pathologist apparently had absolutely no problems

detecting node location and size.

I'd ask your oncologist and/or radiologist if you

could have an MRI instead of a CT scan. PET scans may

also be a possibility. This type of scan looks for

higher-than-usual glucose metabolism, thus spotting

areas of fast growth, such as cancer. I don't know if

it is as good for understanding tumor location and

size.

Things to ask your oncologist.

CT scans are sometimes necessary, such is acute trauma

cases. For some reason, CT scans are easier to do and

the machines are more available. I had to make an

appointment for my scan.

To be honest, I would pay out of my own pocket the

difference in cost, if any, just to protect my own

body.

My opinion is that routine CT scans at diagnosis

(which I unfortunately had) is not justified at all,

and the risks outweigh the benefits.

--- O'Donnell <wodonnell1@...> wrote:

> I have had about 6 CT-Scans since December 2000 ( re

> so far successful colon

> cancer surgery and intermittent chemo post-

> surgery). I was to have another

> CT Scan in about 2003, but refused after several

> discussions with my

> oncologist regarding MY concerns about excessive

> radiation exposure. Since

> I already had a quiet Stage 0 CLL, I worried about

> what another Scan would

> do to it --- wake it up to become aggressive

> perhaps? Now my oncologist(s)

> are talking about it being time for another Scan,

> either CT Scan or

> PET-Scan. I've asked this question before, but ----

> is one type Scan less

> risky re radiation than the other ? I welcome any

> and all information on

> this topic. Are there any radiology docs out there

> reading this?

> --Thanks,

> ----Bill, dx'd CLL 1996

> The dangers of CT scans

>

>

> >I agree that CT scans can expose the patient to

> > substantial levels of radiation. An abdominal CT

> > scan, for example, is the equivalent of 400 chest

> > X-rays, or 333 round-trip flights from LA to New

> York,

> > all in a few seconds.

> >

> > However, sometimes they are medically necessary.

> > However, doctors need to know the dangers, and

> > certainly the patient must be informed of the

> risks

> > and benefits.

> >

> > I've avoided most CT scans, though I had one

> (turned

> > out to be unnecessary after the fact) when a chest

> > X-ray showed a spot on my lung.

> >

> > --- minolfa <rapaccini.carlo@...> wrote:

> >

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545569?src=mp

> >>

__________________________________________________________

Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates

(http://voice.)

---------------------------------

Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited Try it today.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Risks of CT may not be trivial, but they can be overstated.

For one perspective on this, see:

http://www.lymphomation.org/ct.htm#risks

~ Karl

The dangers of CT scans

>

>

> >I agree that CT scans can expose the patient to

> > substantial levels of radiation. An abdominal CT

> > scan, for example, is the equivalent of 400 chest

> > X-rays, or 333 round-trip flights from LA to New

> York,

> > all in a few seconds.

> >

> > However, sometimes they are medically necessary.

> > However, doctors need to know the dangers, and

> > certainly the patient must be informed of the

> risks

> > and benefits.

> >

> > I've avoided most CT scans, though I had one

> (turned

> > out to be unnecessary after the fact) when a chest

> > X-ray showed a spot on my lung.

> >

> > --- minolfa <rapaccini.carlo@...> wrote:

> >

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545569?src=mp

> >>

__________________________________________________________

Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates

(http://voice.)

---------------------------------

Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited Try it today.

[Guest guest]

In a purely technical sense, there is no safe dose of radiation. So-

called background radition can trigger cancers. CT scans have been

linked conclusively with a small, but very real risk of cancer in

patients.

The commonsense message to take home, IMO is to evaluate every

proposal to use ionizing radiation on you (these are high-energy

sources of electro-magnetic radiation, including X-rays and other

radiation used for diagnostic purposes), and make a decision with

your doctor on safe alternatives that may be available.

These would include MRIs and ultrasounds.

I DO WANT TO STRESS, that sometimes CT scans and X-rays are vital to

your health, and MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE!

Just be aware, and consult with the doctor. I've argued with a

number of doctors, and I've avoided MOST CT scans. However, with my

latest lung cancer scare, I gave the go-ahead for a CT scan since I

was in the middle of immunosuppresive chemotherapy, and I didn't

want to continue with that therapy if it was going to affect another

cancer.

Just be aware and knowledgeable, folks.

PS, it is your body, and they CANNOT perform any medical procedure

on you if you are able to make an informed and rational contribution

to your own care.

>

> Hi ,

>

> Risks of CT may not be trivial, but they can be overstated.

> For one perspective on this, see:

> http://www.lymphomation.org/ct.htm#risks

>

> ~ Karl

>

[Guest guest]

At 06:14 PM 10/31/06, " S. " wrote:

>However, with my

>latest lung cancer scare, I gave the go-ahead for a CT scan since I

>was in the middle of immunosuppresive chemotherapy, and I didn't

>want to continue with that therapy if it was going to affect another cancer.

A recent CME Medscape article on the importance of CT scans in lung

cancer survival reviewed results of a large collaborative study in

the October 26 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. See the

link below.

Lung Cancer Survival Improved Dramatically With CT Scanning CME/CE

News Author: Zosia Chustecka

CME Author: Vega, MD, FAAFP

Release Date: October 26, 2006

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546661?src=mp

SNIP........

" The current study suggests that treatment of lung cancers discovered

by screening CT scans in high-risk, asymptomatic adults can

significantly increase the survival rate following cancer diagnosis.

Survival was augmented by prompt surgical resection among patients

with stage I lung cancer. "

Al Janski

[Guest guest]

Thanks for bringing this up. It's a good question.

I don't know if the study contrasted CT scans with MRIs or other

screening tests.

Let's just say that only a CT scan can do the job. The authors

propose only involving those patients who have 'risk factors' for

lung cancer (former or current smokers, etc.) in an annual CT scan.

Each patient would have to make a decision if they wanted to have a

CT scan to catch lung cancer early. The benefits are clear; catch

the cancer early, when it is small and resectable, then you have a

very good chance of surviving your cancer.

I just wonder if an MRI wouldn't work as well. I'd gladly pay the

difference in the cost of the scans to protect myself from the annual

dose of radiation.

However, if I had one or more risk factors, it is likely that the

possibility of getting lung cancer is greater than by the annual

exposure.

On balance, I'd say, get the scan if you and your doc agree that it

would be worth it. I'd still explore the possibility that an MRI

would work as well or even better.

> >However, with my

> >latest lung cancer scare, I gave the go-ahead for a CT scan since I

> >was in the middle of immunosuppresive chemotherapy, and I didn't

> >want to continue with that therapy if it was going to affect

another cancer.

>

> A recent CME Medscape article on the importance of CT scans in lung

> cancer survival reviewed results of a large collaborative study in

> the October 26 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. See

the

> link below.

>

> Lung Cancer Survival Improved Dramatically With CT Scanning CME/CE

> News Author: Zosia Chustecka

> CME Author: Vega, MD, FAAFP

> Release Date: October 26, 2006

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546661?src=mp

>

> SNIP........

>

> " The current study suggests that treatment of lung cancers

discovered

> by screening CT scans in high-risk, asymptomatic adults can

> significantly increase the survival rate following cancer

diagnosis.

> Survival was augmented by prompt surgical resection among patients

> with stage I lung cancer. "

>

> Al Janski

>

[Guest guest]

My CT scan showed my lung has a cyst in the same spot I get pain when I

am feeling ill. I guess if you have any chest pain it is best to get it

checked out as it probably means something.

I listen to my body before I listen to doctors. Before I was dianosed

with CLL I told my doctor I thought there was something wrong with my

immune system and he disagreed. A few months later the Emergeny Room

found out I had CLL.

The Diabetes clinic thought for sure I had cancer but couldn't figure

out what kind. They thought they had discovered a new type. They gave

up and never sent me to an Oncologist. When I did see an oncologist he

said he could tell from my blood tests that I had had CLL for over 10

years. That is VA hospitals for you.