CT scan risks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dd has one scheduled for this week for breathing issues: ENT could not see anything well in her nose which was inflammed and recommended a CT scan to also look at sinuses. Now of course this am without looking for it at all I see an article about how dangerous CT scans are due to radiation levels, especially head ones, and how they can cause cancer. Would this worry you?

CT scan is the normal diagnostic tool for this. They're looking for deviations in the septum that may be causing restrictions (among other abnormalities).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd has one scheduled for this week for breathing issues: ENT could not see anything well in her nose which was inflammed and recommended a CT scan to also look at sinuses. Now of course this am without looking for it at all I see an article about how dangerous CT scans are due to radiation levels, especially head ones, and how they can cause cancer. Would this worry you?

CT scan is the normal diagnostic tool for this. They're looking for deviations in the septum that may be causing restrictions (among other abnormalities).

But the long-term risks of such a diagnostic tool is not worth benefit. That's the whole point of the question and the thread. There is so much evidence against just doing it without weighing the options. I would ask for MRI, or even x-ray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd has one scheduled for this week for breathing issues: ENT could not see anything well in her nose which was inflammed and recommended a CT scan to also look at sinuses. Now of course this am without looking for it at all I see an article about how dangerous CT scans are due to radiation levels, especially head ones, and how they can cause cancer. Would this worry you?

CT scan is the normal diagnostic tool for this. They're looking for deviations in the septum that may be causing restrictions (among other abnormalities).

Many obviously harmful things were "normal" at one time. Look up shoe fluoroscopes for instance.

[Anonymous]

How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

If you have a large enough sample size and account for other factors as well (family history, exposure to pesticides, etc) you can do things like a regression analysis to get a sense of it's just a correlation or it make be more causative. Also, you can look at the correlations with those other factors. These machines have been around for long enough I assume the studies have a fairly large sample size. Studies have to be pretty rigorous to make it into peer reviewed journals.

[Anonymous]

Comparison of head CT scan radiation exposure to dental x-rays gives an alarming ratio, but I don’t see the relevance. Why are dental x-rays the standard for comparison? It’s more meaningful to say that a head CT scan exposes you to 1/25 of the maximum annual dose allowed for radiation workers in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

That's why nobody can definitively say that cigarettes/radiation causes cancer, they cannot completely "rule out" other factors.

[Anonymous]

CT is a huge amount of radiation and not to be done lightly. You’re absolutely right to question the necessity of any CT. However, sometimes they are essential and in those cases, remember it’s a small risk overall.

If this is not an emergency, I’d get a second opinion and be more prepared with questions. It may be that you need the CT but at least you will feel more sure it is needed. Or you might get a more conservative doc with a different plan.

Please don’t just do nothing though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

That's why nobody can definitively say that cigarettes/radiation causes cancer, they cannot completely "rule out" other factors.

We are certain that ionizing radiation causes cancer. We even have models used to guide exposure.

[Anonymous]

I commented further up but wanted to add, I have several providers who are extremely cautious about radiation (even x-ray) and go to great lengths to explain why they do or do not think it’s appropriate in a given situation. I appreciate doctors who take it seriously and am more likely to use them again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

That's why nobody can definitively say that cigarettes/radiation causes cancer, they cannot completely "rule out" other factors.

We are certain that ionizing radiation causes cancer. We even have models used to guide exposure.

+1 very surprised that this is not common knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd has one scheduled for this week for breathing issues: ENT could not see anything well in her nose which was inflammed and recommended a CT scan to also look at sinuses. Now of course this am without looking for it at all I see an article about how dangerous CT scans are due to radiation levels, especially head ones, and how they can cause cancer. Would this worry you?

CT scan is the normal diagnostic tool for this. They're looking for deviations in the septum that may be causing restrictions (among other abnormalities).

But the long-term risks of such a diagnostic tool is not worth benefit. That's the whole point of the question and the thread. There is so much evidence against just doing it without weighing the options. I would ask for MRI, or even x-ray.

You'd be asking for an inferior test.

https://radiopaedia.org/articles/deviated-nasal-septum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd has one scheduled for this week for breathing issues: ENT could not see anything well in her nose which was inflammed and recommended a CT scan to also look at sinuses. Now of course this am without looking for it at all I see an article about how dangerous CT scans are due to radiation levels, especially head ones, and how they can cause cancer. Would this worry you?

CT scan is the normal diagnostic tool for this. They're looking for deviations in the septum that may be causing restrictions (among other abnormalities).

But the long-term risks of such a diagnostic tool is not worth benefit. That's the whole point of the question and the thread. There is so much evidence against just doing it without weighing the options. I would ask for MRI, or even x-ray.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

That's why nobody can definitively say that cigarettes/radiation causes cancer, they cannot completely "rule out" other factors.

Not really. There are real time short term andong term effects from cigarettes, evidence of particular cancers only on smokers. This is not the same with radiation. It's impossible to tell what cancers, how long after exposure, how much exposure, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone know that a cancer several years after ct scans has to do with CT scans? Sounds correlative, but not necessarily causal. There's many reasons for cancer, both environmental and genetic.

If you have a large enough sample size and account for other factors as well (family history, exposure to pesticides, etc) you can do things like a regression analysis to get a sense of it's just a correlation or it make be more causative. Also, you can look at the correlations with those other factors. These machines have been around for long enough I assume the studies have a fairly large sample size. Studies have to be pretty rigorous to make it into peer reviewed journals.

Can anyone cite a refereed article on this question?

I have access to a good research library, so access to a reputable article should not be a problem.