Re: Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends

[Guest guest]

As far as I'm concerned...it doesn't suprise me a bit that a radiologist is the one saying it's all OK. I think it's all about money & egos. One side says it's bad for you... & the other side (that might lose some money from fewer tests) says it's not bad. Plus, the Radiologists don't want to come off sounding like cancer causing / patient killers. Blah...Blah...Blah. It's just another round of doctors flip-flopping "opinions". Wow, I think it's past my bedtime. Sorry for the cranky rant

.........Kathy

P.S I agree with that it all adds up over time.

From: linda.racine@... <linda.racine@...>Subject: [ ] Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

It's important to remember that many scoliosis patients, especially us older folk, have had a lifetime of high dose radiation radiographs, radiation from fluoroscopy in surgery, and radiation from fluroscopy during injections. It all adds up.>> CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends> By Alan Mozes> HealthDay Reporter by Alan Mozes> healthday Reporter Wed Dec 1, 11:48 pm ET> > WEDNESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of developing cancer as a result of radiation exposure from CT scans may be lower than previously thought, new research suggests.> > That finding, scheduled to be presented Wednesday at

the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago, is based on an eight-year analysis of Medicare records covering nearly 11 million patients.> > "What we found is that overall between two and four out of every 10,000 patients who undergo a CT scan are at risk for developing secondary cancers as a result of that radiation exposure," said Aabed Meer, an M.D. candidate in the department of radiology at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.> > "And that risk, I would say, is lower than we expected it to be," said Meer.> > As a result, patients who need a CT scan should not be fearful of the consequences, Meer stated.> > "If you have a stroke and need a CT scan of the head, the benefits of that scan at that moment outweigh the very minor possibility of developing a cancer as a result of the scan itself," he explained. "CT scans do amazing things in terms of diagnosis. Yes,

there is some radiation risk. But that small risk should always be put in context."> > The authors set out to quantify that risk by sifting through the medical records of elderly patients covered by Medicare between 1998 and 2005.> > The researchers separated the data into two periods: 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2005. In the earlier period, 42 percent of the patients had undergone CT scans. For the period 2002 to 2005, that figure rose to 49 percent, which was not surprising given the increasing use of scans in U.S. medical care.> > Within each group, the research team reviewed the number and type of CT scans administered to see how many patients received low-dose radiation (50 to 100 millisieverts) and how many got high-dose radiation (more than 100 millisieverts). They then estimated how many cancers were induced using standard cancer risk models.> > Yet despite the upward trend in the overall use

of CT scans, with an apparent doubling of both low- and high-dose radiation exposure within the two time frames, the researchers determined that there was a "significantly lower risk of developing cancer from CT than previous estimates."> > Cancers associated with radiation exposure were estimated to be 0.02 percent of the first group and 0.04 percent of the second.> > Previous estimates ranged from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, said the authors.> > While the results are good news, the consequences of CT scans should continue to be monitored, the authors concluded.> > Dr. Zimmerman, executive vice chair of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, said that assessing CT scan risk is a tricky endeavor. He believes patient needs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis so as to limit exposure as much as possible.> > "It doesn't surprise me that the secondary

cancer risk is low," he said. "But it's a very complicated epidemiological notion to deal with. Does every amount of cancer radiation exposure increase your risk, or is there a level of exposure that your body can always tolerate and recover from? It's very, very hard to say," Zimmerman pointed out.> > "For better or worse we are now conducting an experiment on the entire population of the U.S. as to whether or not low-dose radiation exposure is going to raise risk of developing cancer," he said.> > Reducing radiation doses across the board should be the goal, regardless of the study's finding, he noted. "We always want to make sure that the dose used when scanning is as low as possible, and that scanning only takes place when necessary and beneficial to the patient," he said.> > Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the findings should be viewed as preliminary until they are published in a

peer-reviewed journal.> > More information> > For more on CT scans, visit radiologyinfo.org.>

[Guest guest]



I would bet that our lifetime of radiation exposure via medical tests doesn't even come close to the amount of radiation my husband has been exposed to working for 30 years in nuclear power plants. For me personally, the amount of radiation I've been exposed to is small stuff compared to other things in my life and I'm not going to sweat about it.

Peggy

[ ] Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

It's important to remember that many scoliosis patients, especially us older folk, have had a lifetime of high dose radiation radiographs, radiation from fluoroscopy in surgery, and radiation from fluroscopy during injections. It all adds up.>> CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends> By Alan Mozes> HealthDay Reporter by Alan Mozes> healthday Reporter Wed Dec 1, 11:48 pm ET> > WEDNESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of developing cancer as a result of radiation exposure from CT scans may be lower than previously thought, new research suggests.> > That finding, scheduled to be presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago, is based on an eight-year analysis of Medicare records covering nearly 11 million patients.> > "What we found is that overall between two and four out of every 10,000 patients who undergo a CT scan are at risk for developing secondary cancers as a result of that radiation exposure," said Aabed Meer, an M.D. candidate in the department of radiology at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.> > "And that risk, I would say, is lower than we expected it to be," said Meer.> > As a result, patients who need a CT scan should not be fearful of the consequences, Meer stated.> > "If you have a stroke and need a CT scan of the head, the benefits of that scan at that moment outweigh the very minor possibility of developing a cancer as a result of the scan itself," he explained. "CT scans do amazing things in terms of diagnosis. Yes, there is some radiation risk. But that small risk should always be put in context."> > The authors set out to quantify that risk by sifting through the medical records of elderly patients covered by Medicare between 1998 and 2005.> > The researchers separated the data into two periods: 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2005. In the earlier period, 42 percent of the patients had undergone CT scans. For the period 2002 to 2005, that figure rose to 49 percent, which was not surprising given the increasing use of scans in U.S. medical care.> > Within each group, the research team reviewed the number and type of CT scans administered to see how many patients received low-dose radiation (50 to 100 millisieverts) and how many got high-dose radiation (more than 100 millisieverts). They then estimated how many cancers were induced using standard cancer risk models.> > Yet despite the upward trend in the overall use of CT scans, with an apparent doubling of both low- and high-dose radiation exposure within the two time frames, the researchers determined that there was a "significantly lower risk of developing cancer from CT than previous estimates."> > Cancers associated with radiation exposure were estimated to be 0.02 percent of the first group and 0.04 percent of the second.> > Previous estimates ranged from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, said the authors.> > While the results are good news, the consequences of CT scans should continue to be monitored, the authors concluded.> > Dr. Zimmerman, executive vice chair of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, said that assessing CT scan risk is a tricky endeavor. He believes patient needs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis so as to limit exposure as much as possible.> > "It doesn't surprise me that the secondary cancer risk is low," he said. "But it's a very complicated epidemiological notion to deal with. Does every amount of cancer radiation exposure increase your risk, or is there a level of exposure that your body can always tolerate and recover from? It's very, very hard to say," Zimmerman pointed out.> > "For better or worse we are now conducting an experiment on the entire population of the U.S. as to whether or not low-dose radiation exposure is going to raise risk of developing cancer," he said.> > Reducing radiation doses across the board should be the goal, regardless of the study's finding, he noted. "We always want to make sure that the dose used when scanning is as low as possible, and that scanning only takes place when necessary and beneficial to the patient," he said.> > Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the findings should be viewed as preliminary until they are published in a peer-reviewed journal.> > More information> > For more on CT scans, visit radiologyinfo.org.>

[Guest guest]

Peggy and members,

 

Well for me, I opt out of unnecessary x-rays if possible, and my doc says, and I choose, to only have another if problems show up, as I probably glow in the dark, we laugh about it, but why have more and tempt fate I figure. I had plenty between my Harrington Rod days, and three revisions.

 

I'd hope given your husbands lifetime of work that they at least monitor him, doubt it, but they should, or be forced to. Sounds like he's had his issues from what youv'e posted.

 

Life is seldom fair, your family's story puts into light whats going on to many, and it hurts me to the core, and I hope this new year will find a turn in the road for you. Know I'm glad that you have shared with us, and we are at least here to vent to, and give what support we can from a distance. You are a lesson in sticktoitiveness, and trudging through, and eventually life has a way of showing up good, it's just hard to see when you are in the mud.

 

Colorado Springs

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Peggy Greene <jpgunlimited@...> wrote:

 

 I would bet that our lifetime of radiation exposure via medical tests doesn't even come close to the amount of radiation my husband has been exposed to working for 30 years in nuclear power plants.  For me personally, the amount of radiation I've been exposed to is small stuff compared to other things in my life and I'm not going to sweat about it.

 

Peggy

 

 

[ ] Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

 

It's important to remember that many scoliosis patients, especially us older folk, have had a lifetime of high dose radiation radiographs, radiation from fluoroscopy in surgery, and radiation from fluroscopy during injections. It all adds up.

>> CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends> By Alan Mozes> HealthDay Reporter by Alan Mozes> healthday Reporter Wed Dec 1, 11:48 pm ET> > WEDNESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of developing cancer as a result of radiation exposure from CT scans may be lower than previously thought, new research suggests.

> > That finding, scheduled to be presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago, is based on an eight-year analysis of Medicare records covering nearly 11 million patients.

> > " What we found is that overall between two and four out of every 10,000 patients who undergo a CT scan are at risk for developing secondary cancers as a result of that radiation exposure, " said Aabed Meer, an M.D. candidate in the department of radiology at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.

> > " And that risk, I would say, is lower than we expected it to be, " said Meer.> > As a result, patients who need a CT scan should not be fearful of the consequences, Meer stated.>

> " If you have a stroke and need a CT scan of the head, the benefits of that scan at that moment outweigh the very minor possibility of developing a cancer as a result of the scan itself, " he explained. " CT scans do amazing things in terms of diagnosis. Yes, there is some radiation risk. But that small risk should always be put in context. "

> > The authors set out to quantify that risk by sifting through the medical records of elderly patients covered by Medicare between 1998 and 2005.> > The researchers separated the data into two periods: 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2005. In the earlier period, 42 percent of the patients had undergone CT scans. For the period 2002 to 2005, that figure rose to 49 percent, which was not surprising given the increasing use of scans in U.S. medical care.

> > Within each group, the research team reviewed the number and type of CT scans administered to see how many patients received low-dose radiation (50 to 100 millisieverts) and how many got high-dose radiation (more than 100 millisieverts). They then estimated how many cancers were induced using standard cancer risk models.

> > Yet despite the upward trend in the overall use of CT scans, with an apparent doubling of both low- and high-dose radiation exposure within the two time frames, the researchers determined that there was a " significantly lower risk of developing cancer from CT than previous estimates. "

> > Cancers associated with radiation exposure were estimated to be 0.02 percent of the first group and 0.04 percent of the second.> > Previous estimates ranged from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, said the authors.

> > While the results are good news, the consequences of CT scans should continue to be monitored, the authors concluded.> > Dr. Zimmerman, executive vice chair of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, said that assessing CT scan risk is a tricky endeavor. He believes patient needs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis so as to limit exposure as much as possible.

> > " It doesn't surprise me that the secondary cancer risk is low, " he said. " But it's a very complicated epidemiological notion to deal with. Does every amount of cancer radiation exposure increase your risk, or is there a level of exposure that your body can always tolerate and recover from? It's very, very hard to say, " Zimmerman pointed out.

> > " For better or worse we are now conducting an experiment on the entire population of the U.S. as to whether or not low-dose radiation exposure is going to raise risk of developing cancer, " he said.

> > Reducing radiation doses across the board should be the goal, regardless of the study's finding, he noted. " We always want to make sure that the dose used when scanning is as low as possible, and that scanning only takes place when necessary and beneficial to the patient, " he said.

> > Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the findings should be viewed as preliminary until they are published in a peer-reviewed journal.> > More information> > For more on CT scans, visit radiologyinfo.org.

>

[Guest guest]



Actually when he, and the others in the plant, are working they have a thing around their neck (it attaches to a lanyard) that measures the radiation exposure. They are only allowed so much in any given year. But when he started working in his 20s which was back in the 60s I'm not sure they paid as much attention then. I always say that he's the one that glows in the dark!

I only get tests when needed as well. There has to be something worth looking. This year I've had my knees x-rayed, my hips, my full spine, and the CT scan. Some years I don't have anything at all.

I went back to the post office this morning. First time in 3 weeks. My back is aching from being on my feet. I let Brittany know that I really think I am in need of massage and stretching to get the kinks out of my hip and leg and then start strengthening exercises to get back to where I was before surgery. Hopefully she'll send me a script for PT because I told her I want to have my favorite PT evaluate me.

Peggy

[ ] Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

It's important to remember that many scoliosis patients, especially us older folk, have had a lifetime of high dose radiation radiographs, radiation from fluoroscopy in surgery, and radiation from fluroscopy during injections. It all adds up.>> CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends> By Alan Mozes> HealthDay Reporter by Alan Mozes> healthday Reporter Wed Dec 1, 11:48 pm ET> > WEDNESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of developing cancer as a result of radiation exposure from CT scans may be lower than previously thought, new research suggests.> > That finding, scheduled to be presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago, is based on an eight-year analysis of Medicare records covering nearly 11 million patients.> > "What we found is that overall between two and four out of every 10,000 patients who undergo a CT scan are at risk for developing secondary cancers as a result of that radiation exposure," said Aabed Meer, an M.D. candidate in the department of radiology at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.> > "And that risk, I would say, is lower than we expected it to be," said Meer.> > As a result, patients who need a CT scan should not be fearful of the consequences, Meer stated.> > "If you have a stroke and need a CT scan of the head, the benefits of that scan at that moment outweigh the very minor possibility of developing a cancer as a result of the scan itself," he explained. "CT scans do amazing things in terms of diagnosis. Yes, there is some radiation risk. But that small risk should always be put in context."> > The authors set out to quantify that risk by sifting through the medical records of elderly patients covered by Medicare between 1998 and 2005.> > The researchers separated the data into two periods: 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2005. In the earlier period, 42 percent of the patients had undergone CT scans. For the period 2002 to 2005, that figure rose to 49 percent, which was not surprising given the increasing use of scans in U.S. medical care.> > Within each group, the research team reviewed the number and type of CT scans administered to see how many patients received low-dose radiation (50 to 100 millisieverts) and how many got high-dose radiation (more than 100 millisieverts). They then estimated how many cancers were induced using standard cancer risk models.> > Yet despite the upward trend in the overall use of CT scans, with an apparent doubling of both low- and high-dose radiation exposure within the two time frames, the researchers determined that there was a "significantly lower risk of developing cancer from CT than previous estimates."> > Cancers associated with radiation exposure were estimated to be 0.02 percent of the first group and 0.04 percent of the second.> > Previous estimates ranged from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, said the authors.> > While the results are good news, the consequences of CT scans should continue to be monitored, the authors concluded.> > Dr. Zimmerman, executive vice chair of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, said that assessing CT scan risk is a tricky endeavor. He believes patient needs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis so as to limit exposure as much as possible.> > "It doesn't surprise me that the secondary cancer risk is low," he said. "But it's a very complicated epidemiological notion to deal with. Does every amount of cancer radiation exposure increase your risk, or is there a level of exposure that your body can always tolerate and recover from? It's very, very hard to say," Zimmerman pointed out.> > "For better or worse we are now conducting an experiment on the entire population of the U.S. as to whether or not low-dose radiation exposure is going to raise risk of developing cancer," he said.> > Reducing radiation doses across the board should be the goal, regardless of the study's finding, he noted. "We always want to make sure that the dose used when scanning is as low as possible, and that scanning only takes place when necessary and beneficial to the patient," he said.> > Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the findings should be viewed as preliminary until they are published in a peer-reviewed journal.> > More information> > For more on CT scans, visit radiologyinfo.org.>

[Guest guest]

I seriously don't think that any of us really realizes how much radiation we are being exposed to...even in our everyday lives. And even though I am all for the body scanners at the airports, it's just another small dose that we are exposed to. It's everywhere from our cell phones...to appliances in our homes...even the glowing exit signs in theaters & restaurants have a radioactive warning label on them. Add that to the poisons they spray on our food, & it's a wonder we ALL don't have cancer. I'm sure the arguement that such a small dose is acceptable...on the flip side...how many small doses does it take... & which one will be the proverbial straw that broke...............................................Kathy

From: linda.racine@... <linda.racine@...>Subject: [ ] Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

It's important to remember that many scoliosis patients, especially us older folk, have had a lifetime of high dose radiation radiographs, radiation from fluoroscopy in surgery, and radiation from fluroscopy during injections. It all adds up.>> CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends> By Alan Mozes> HealthDay Reporter by Alan Mozes> healthday Reporter Wed Dec 1, 11:48 pm ET> > WEDNESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of developing cancer as a result of radiation exposure from CT scans may be lower than previously thought, new research suggests.> > That finding, scheduled to be presented Wednesday at

the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago, is based on an eight-year analysis of Medicare records covering nearly 11 million patients.> > "What we found is that overall between two and four out of every 10,000 patients who undergo a CT scan are at risk for developing secondary cancers as a result of that radiation exposure," said Aabed Meer, an M.D. candidate in the department of radiology at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.> > "And that risk, I would say, is lower than we expected it to be," said Meer.> > As a result, patients who need a CT scan should not be fearful of the consequences, Meer stated.> > "If you have a stroke and need a CT scan of the head, the benefits of that scan at that moment outweigh the very minor possibility of developing a cancer as a result of the scan itself," he explained. "CT scans do amazing things in terms of diagnosis. Yes,

there is some radiation risk. But that small risk should always be put in context."> > The authors set out to quantify that risk by sifting through the medical records of elderly patients covered by Medicare between 1998 and 2005.> > The researchers separated the data into two periods: 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2005. In the earlier period, 42 percent of the patients had undergone CT scans. For the period 2002 to 2005, that figure rose to 49 percent, which was not surprising given the increasing use of scans in U.S. medical care.> > Within each group, the research team reviewed the number and type of CT scans administered to see how many patients received low-dose radiation (50 to 100 millisieverts) and how many got high-dose radiation (more than 100 millisieverts). They then estimated how many cancers were induced using standard cancer risk models.> > Yet despite the upward trend in the overall use

of CT scans, with an apparent doubling of both low- and high-dose radiation exposure within the two time frames, the researchers determined that there was a "significantly lower risk of developing cancer from CT than previous estimates."> > Cancers associated with radiation exposure were estimated to be 0.02 percent of the first group and 0.04 percent of the second.> > Previous estimates ranged from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, said the authors.> > While the results are good news, the consequences of CT scans should continue to be monitored, the authors concluded.> > Dr. Zimmerman, executive vice chair of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, said that assessing CT scan risk is a tricky endeavor. He believes patient needs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis so as to limit exposure as much as possible.> > "It doesn't surprise me that the secondary

cancer risk is low," he said. "But it's a very complicated epidemiological notion to deal with. Does every amount of cancer radiation exposure increase your risk, or is there a level of exposure that your body can always tolerate and recover from? It's very, very hard to say," Zimmerman pointed out.> > "For better or worse we are now conducting an experiment on the entire population of the U.S. as to whether or not low-dose radiation exposure is going to raise risk of developing cancer," he said.> > Reducing radiation doses across the board should be the goal, regardless of the study's finding, he noted. "We always want to make sure that the dose used when scanning is as low as possible, and that scanning only takes place when necessary and beneficial to the patient," he said.> > Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the findings should be viewed as preliminary until they are published in a

peer-reviewed journal.> > More information> > For more on CT scans, visit radiologyinfo.org.>

[Guest guest]

I find this news VERY unsetteling! I have have been getting MRIs, CTs, and X-Rays on a yearly basis, several times a year in fact since age 10, and I am currently 33! As if we already dont have enough stress in our lives due to our disabilities! i am sending you my best wishes and sisterly love! Please lean on any of us for support! We have all been in your shoes!

Kim mcGee

From: linda.racine@... <linda.racine@...>Subject: [ ] Re: CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

It's important to remember that many scoliosis patients, especially us older folk, have had a lifetime of high dose radiation radiographs, radiation from fluoroscopy in surgery, and radiation from fluroscopy during injections. It all adds up.>> CT Scans May Pose Less Cancer Risk Than Thought, Study Contends> By Alan Mozes> HealthDay Reporter by Alan Mozes> healthday Reporter Wed Dec 1, 11:48 pm ET> > WEDNESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of developing cancer as a result of radiation exposure from CT scans may be lower than previously thought, new research suggests.> > That finding, scheduled to be presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of

North America in Chicago, is based on an eight-year analysis of Medicare records covering nearly 11 million patients.> > "What we found is that overall between two and four out of every 10,000 patients who undergo a CT scan are at risk for developing secondary cancers as a result of that radiation exposure," said Aabed Meer, an M.D. candidate in the department of radiology at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.> > "And that risk, I would say, is lower than we expected it to be," said Meer.> > As a result, patients who need a CT scan should not be fearful of the consequences, Meer stated.> > "If you have a stroke and need a CT scan of the head, the benefits of that scan at that moment outweigh the very minor possibility of developing a cancer as a result of the scan itself," he explained. "CT scans do amazing things in terms of diagnosis. Yes, there is some radiation risk. But that small risk

should always be put in context."> > The authors set out to quantify that risk by sifting through the medical records of elderly patients covered by Medicare between 1998 and 2005.> > The researchers separated the data into two periods: 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2005. In the earlier period, 42 percent of the patients had undergone CT scans. For the period 2002 to 2005, that figure rose to 49 percent, which was not surprising given the increasing use of scans in U.S. medical care.> > Within each group, the research team reviewed the number and type of CT scans administered to see how many patients received low-dose radiation (50 to 100 millisieverts) and how many got high-dose radiation (more than 100 millisieverts). They then estimated how many cancers were induced using standard cancer risk models.> > Yet despite the upward trend in the overall use of CT scans, with an apparent doubling of both

low- and high-dose radiation exposure within the two time frames, the researchers determined that there was a "significantly lower risk of developing cancer from CT than previous estimates."> > Cancers associated with radiation exposure were estimated to be 0.02 percent of the first group and 0.04 percent of the second.> > Previous estimates ranged from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, said the authors.> > While the results are good news, the consequences of CT scans should continue to be monitored, the authors concluded.> > Dr. Zimmerman, executive vice chair of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, said that assessing CT scan risk is a tricky endeavor. He believes patient needs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis so as to limit exposure as much as possible.> > "It doesn't surprise me that the secondary cancer risk is low," he said. "But it's a very

complicated epidemiological notion to deal with. Does every amount of cancer radiation exposure increase your risk, or is there a level of exposure that your body can always tolerate and recover from? It's very, very hard to say," Zimmerman pointed out.> > "For better or worse we are now conducting an experiment on the entire population of the U.S. as to whether or not low-dose radiation exposure is going to raise risk of developing cancer," he said.> > Reducing radiation doses across the board should be the goal, regardless of the study's finding, he noted. "We always want to make sure that the dose used when scanning is as low as possible, and that scanning only takes place when necessary and beneficial to the patient," he said.> > Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the findings should be viewed as preliminary until they are published in a peer-reviewed journal.> > More

information> > For more on CT scans, visit radiologyinfo.org.>