Home | Non-food | Drug | Some basics about radiation and cancer

Some basics about radiation and cancer

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

Editor’s note: Two studies in the Dec 14-28, 2009 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine have found that CT scans each year may cause tens of thousands of future cancer cases. Amy Berrington de González, D. Phil., of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues found CT scans performed in 2007 could lead to development of about 29,000 future cancers including 14,000 cases from scans of the abdomen and pelvis which require higher dosages of radiation; 4100 from chest scans; 4,000 from head scans; and 2,700 from CT angiography. The following are some basics for those who know a thing about radiation and cancer.

Understand radiation cancer risk

Is radiation a cancer-causing agent or carcinogen?

Yes, ionizing radiations like x-ray used in computed tomography scan or CT scan are recognized by the U.S. National Toxicology Program as a carcinogen.  In fact, radiation is the most studied carcinogen in history.

Is there any threshold of exposure to radiation that is considered safe?

Safe or not, it all depends on your definition.  One needs to know that just because you are exposed to some radiation does not mean you will definitely get cancer. On the other hand, no one can guarantee that you will not get cancer after you receive certain dose of radiation from a CT scan or conventional x-ray diagnostic tool.

It has become clear that any tiny amount of radiation can cause mutations, which of course may or may not lead to development of cancer.

In addition, people may need to remember that radiation-induced damage is cumulative over the years.
 
In a sense, there is no safety threshold for radiation.

How does radiation cause damage to DNA?

Radiation causes ionizations in molecules in living cells, which injure the cells.  The radiation-induced damage may or may not be repaired.  Cells receiving severe damage may just die, which would not result in any consequence in the future. The problem with radiation is that some injured cells cannot be repaired and they will produce abnormal cells particularly in children, which may lead to development of cancer.

We receive background radiation every day.  Do we have to worry about medical radiation?

There are a couple of things different between the two types.  Medical radiaiton comes often in a higher dose than that of environmental radiation. For instance, one may get background radition in 300 MREM in a year. But one chest-ray gets you 30 or 50 MREM. One CT scan can be 50 to 100 times higher than chest x-ray.

And secondly, according to John Gofman, MD PhD, a distinguished nuclear physicist and medical physician, medical radiation poses twice as effective as the radiation from our environment at causing damage.  Medical radiation is more focused and results in more severe injury to cells.

Do all medical radiations pose the same cancer risk?

No. The risk depends on dosage, the dose rate, age, sex, lifestyle and the individual's genetics among other things.

Some medical tools like CT scans use much higher doses than chest x-ray.  CT scan performed on abdomen/pelvic uses higher doses of radiation than that used for the head.

Who are at higher risk of radiation-induced cancer?

Children are at higher risk of radiation-induced cancer.

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (1 posted):

Dave Fisher on 12/15/2009 21:27:36
avatar
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 & Technology Alliance (MITA)
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Newsletter
Email:
Tags

Rate this article
0