CT Scans Projected to Result in 100,000 New Cancers in The US
- Reference: 0177024887
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/04/14/2333207/ct-scans-projected-to-result-in-100000-new-cancers-in-the-us
- Source link:
> At an individual level, the theoretical chance of developing cancer from a CT scan is thought to be very minimal, if it exists at all, and patients should not be scared of undergoing these tests if they are deemed medically necessary. However, the number of CT examinations performed each year in the US has increased by more than 30 percent since 2007, and researchers suggest that unwarranted tests are exposing the population to unnecessary radiation. [...]
>
> The anonymous data comes from 143 hospitals and outpatient facilities across the US, catalogued in the UCSF International CT Dose Registry. Using statistics from 2016 to 2022, researchers predicted 93 million CT examinations were carried out in 2023, on roughly 62 million patients. Based on the associated radiation risks, the team estimates that CT scans in 2023 may be tied to 103,000 future cancers.
The findings have been [2]published in JAMA Internal Medicine .
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/ct-scans-projected-to-result-in-100000-new-cancers-in-the-us
[2] https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0505
Impressive statistics but... (Score:3)
How many of the projected new cancer cases involve patients with old age or pre-cancerous conditions that would have evolved into cancer anyway due to other factors? Statistics are hard to read.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
> How many of the projected new cancer cases involve patients with old age or pre-cancerous conditions that would have evolved into cancer anyway due to other factors? Statistics are hard to read.
Be careful. You’re starting to sound like a litigator prepping for the defense on behalf of those profiting immensely off CT scans. And cancer.
Best we really follow through with this study. It’s a disgusting enough theory within the Cancer Industrial Complex. Those who profit heavily off treating cancer, are also prescribing the very tests that are now suspected of giving you cancer? Yeah, we definitely need to know more here.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, by all means, but so long as it doesn't turn into an antiscientific witch hunt against people who do save lives. Lawyers also profit from lawsuits from patients, as does everyone who gets paid to solve other people's problems.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Actually, I find these statistics very easy to read. 100 000 additional cancer cases, every year, most of them avoidable. And the risk of ionising radiation is very well understood.
How much easier do you want it?
Re: (Score:3)
Everything is easy if you choose to ignore complexity.
Re:Impressive statistics but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. from the article:
"CT scans conducted in 2023 could be responsible for an estimated 103,000 future cases of cancer. That's based on some assumptions and historical data from high radiation events, but if right, it would put CT scans on par with other significant risk factors for cancer, like alcohol consumption, at least at a population level. "
"As of now, these are just theoretical risks, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth considering. While scientists know that high doses of radiation cause cancer, conclusive evidence to link low-level radiation to cancer is lacking."
"The potential association is mostly based on long-term studies of atomic bomb survivors and those exposed to nuclear power plant meltdowns. For instance, in a group of 25,000 Hiroshima survivors, who received a dose of ionizing radiation on par with three or more CT scans, there was a slight but significant increase in cancer risk across a lifetime."
""Any risk from a CT scan of a sick patient is likely much less than the risk of the underlying disease," says Cynthia McCollough, CT imaging expert and past president of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. In a large national trial, there was a 20 percent decrease in lung cancer deaths among smokers and ex-smokers who received low-dose CT scans compared to those who only had a chest X-ray."
So reading the article and the paper, this appears to be a calculated, estimated risk based on assumptions that aren't well proven (the link of low dose ionized radiation) about a method of diagnostics that has resulted in a 20% decrease in lung cancer deaths, a known and proven benefit. That's a far cry from "avoidable", and the there is in fact [1]debatable evidence that low dose ionizing radiation does anything harmful [nih.gov] given we're exposed to that radiation on a daily basis in very low doses already.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2672242/
Re: (Score:3)
That's why we rely on scientists who know what they are doing and publish papers in peer reviewed journals where their results are judged to tell us what the results are. They typically provide more correct results than a random Slashdotter who thinks they are more qualified than actual people working in the field of research.
Kids. Just say no to CT scans (Score:2)
Computerised Tomography. Not even once.
A grim joke (Score:2)
There's a grim Russian joke: "It was found at the autopsy that the cause of death was autopsy". This is pretty applicable here.
Risk model from anonymous data...... (Score:2)
based on some assumptions and historical data from high radiation events.... So what are the actual numbers ??? Already have cancer, get CT once a year to check on cancer growth/reduction. Not going to skip my CT !
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of the linear no-threshold model that was used for some time after WW2, calculated from data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which calculated the expected radiation by the distance from ground zero and how many people died or got cancer. NASA has been studying radiation's effect on viruses for about 20 years. Low level radiation experienced by astronauts reactivates a few latent viruses that we all carry. It may have profound implications regarding how much radiation is safe
> This small animal model of space flight suggests that the combined effects of radiation and virus replication will significantly affect T-lymphocyte–mediated immunity that may lead to chronic viral infection and malignancy [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
> Reactivation of several latent viruses in astronauts is well documented, although the mechanism of reactivation is not well understood. We studied the effect of four different types of radiation, (1) 137Cs gamma rays, (2) 150-MeV protons, (3) 600 MeV/n carbon ions, and (4) 600 MeV/n iron ions on the activation of lytic gene transcription and of reactivation of EBV in a latently infected cell line (Akata) at doses of 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 Gy. The data showed that for all doses used in this study, lytic gene transcription was induced and median viral loads were significantly higher for all types of radiation than in corresponding control samples, with the increases detected as early as four days post-exposure and generally tapering off at later time points. [2]https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067... [mdpi.com]
This study
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009167490500521X
[2] https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/10/2961
Well Duhh People who Get CT Scans Have Cancer (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody gets a CT scan for "fun". People get CT scans because they have a medical issue. The scan is to try and find out what the issue is. Sometimes, often times its cancer. The cancer was there before the scan and may not even be detected by the scan. CT scans do not work well to find cancer but due to medical insurance requirements you have to get a CT scan before an MRI scan which is better at finding cancer. MRI scans are more expensive so they do them after CT scans. Another crappy scare headline for crappy science.
Note well: READ THE ARTICLE - and the paper (Score:2)
Quoting from the article:
As of now, these are just theoretical risks, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth considering. While scientists know that high doses of radiation cause cancer, conclusive evidence to link low-level radiation to cancer is lacking.
The potential association is mostly based on long-term studies of atomic bomb survivors and those exposed to nuclear power plant meltdowns. For instance, in a group of 25,000 Hiroshima survivors, who received a dose of ionizing radiation on par with th
Something doesnt add up (Score:3)
90 million scans, on 60 million people, creating 100,000 extra cases of cancer? That only works if a ct scan has a (100000/60000000)*1.5 chance of causing cancer. That would be a 0.25 percent chance. The chance of dying from Covid is 1 percent. Are these authors implying that 4 ct scans is very roughly as dangerous as contracting Covid? Something about those numbers seem very wrong.
Large assumptions made. (Score:2)
> CT scans conducted in 2023 could be responsible for an estimated 103,000 future cases of cancer.
> That's based on some assumptions and historical data from high radiation events , but if right,
> ...
> While scientists know that high doses of radiation cause cancer, conclusive evidence to link low-level radiation to cancer is lacking.
Publishers need to be more careful about publishing headlines like this because it has the ability to do far more harm than good.
So am I more likely (Score:3)
What's more risky in terms of death?
1) Riding a motorcycle daily or weekly.
2) Flying on an airplane weekly for your career.
3) Eating that Tuna sandwich from the corner store.
4) CT Scan.
5) Getting a chest X-ray.
6) Pulling a Lion or Tiger tail.
I've done 5 out of the six.
The gas-station mini-mart tuna sandwich (Score:2)
That one is a high-danger outlier on this list.
So what I'm gathering is (Score:1)
(blinders on) No CT scans = no new cases of cancer
Major Money Maker Unfortunately (Score:2)
Had yearly checkup with my Dr. Since I am over 50 she said "I should get a heart exam." I have no symptoms, am not over weight, normal blood pressure. The only thing I have is higher cholesterol which I don't even take medication for. I told her I wasn't interested in an unnecessary test that is equvalent to 100+ chest xras. She then said the standard line of "you get radiation from flying in a plan." Yes, I do. but not 100-500 chest xrays thank you very much. Not that with and without contrast usua
This is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
> 93 million CT examinations were carried out in 2023
So the average person gets a CT scan every three years? Over 20 in their lifetime? That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?
European countries do far fewer CT scans, with better health outcomes, although the numbers are rising, too.
Re: (Score:1)
> That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?
One guess is that it is a matter of a known risk in the present vs. a theoretical/statistical threat in the future.
I don't know what makes a good example. Maybe someone with severe injuries from an industrial accident that without precise information on broken bones and foreign objects the person could die, be left disabled, or require multiple surgeries and a lengthy recovery, versus less invasive procedures and a relatively short recovery with that information. Is that worth some small increase risk of
Re:This is crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
> One guess is that it is a matter of a known risk in the present vs. a theoretical/statistical threat in the future.
Maybe, but I think something different is at play. There is a legal risk of not doing imaging, in case something might be present that is not quite clear through the symptoms. Doing a CT scan mitigates that legal risk, because "everything has been done". There seems to be little legal risk in doing a CT scan, even if it has a significant chance of causing cancer (probably because the risk is diffuse, and the causality hard to prove, as you said).
> but it was prescribed because the risks are balanced by the benefits.
I very much doubt that, at least if you talk about medical risk. For the legal risk, yes, that seems to be the main reason.
And your argument assumes that people act rationally. Have you looked around recently? Where do you get that faith in humanity? :-)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
> And your argument assumes that people act rationally.
Is it rational to drink when thirsty? Eat when hungry? Sleep when tired? People manage to act rationally on many things all the time, if they didn't then they'd be dead. When things aren't so simple then things can get fuzzy on what is the rational action. Especially when taking some immediate concern on the balance with a future concern, such as having another drink at a bar than going home to sleep because of work the next day. Or longer term issues like saving up for a house, getting an education,
Re:This is crazy (Score:5, Informative)
> Can they get the same information with MRI? Likely not if there's metal in the body, like in my example of an accident victim.
16-slice CT scanners are the defacto choice for ER imaging. It's fast, and covers a lot and allows the radiologist reading the image to reconstruct the region of interest rather than relying on the scanner operator to image it properly. And you don't have to worry about pace makers or asking an unconscious patient about metal fragments in their body. Or an x-ray to check first
CT scans are literally just an axial scan of whatever part of the body needs to be viewed. Usually 1mm thick and contigous. Those scans are then reformatted to whatever region is of Interest.
CT scans are better for looking at bones, but soft tissue can be seen to a lesser extent and contrast agent can be used for some soft tissue Basically denser objests show up brighter becauseof being x-ray opaque
MRI is much better for soft tissue because it's exciting water (extreme over simplification) it's also considerably slower. MRI also requires the scanner tech look at a specific organ and scan it using the correct sequence. The tech also has tk be able to understand how to tweak settings to image properly. MRI scans are typically 8mm slices with a 2mm gap between each. It's also slower than CT so in some cases the patient needs to hold their breath for up to 30 seconds to properly image some areas. There's also the risk of someone bringing a ferrous object into an MRI room in an emergency situation. This can and has been deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's also the risk of someone bringing a ferrous object into an MRI room in an emergency situation. This can and has been deadly.
As someone who has done a bit of metal work I am concerned about embedded chips and shavings...
Re: (Score:3)
I have metal implanted in my body and I can have MRIs because it's MRI safe metal. MRIs and CTs image different types of tissue.
Re: (Score:2)
> so why do we use it like candy?
It's faster and cheaper than an MRI. Cancer? Eh, that's your problem, not theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
How would it being cheaper factor into it from the caregiver's side? Isn't it more a question of insurances pressuring towards less costly procedures?
I would guess they calculated that the additional cancers are cheaper than putting them all in MRIs instead.
Re: (Score:1)
> How would it being cheaper factor into it from the caregiver's side? Isn't it more a question of insurances pressuring towards less costly procedures?
CT is covered by insurance, MRI is not. An MRI tends to be about 3 to 5 more expensive.
"Would you like to pay out of pocket?"
> I would guess they calculated that the additional cancers are cheaper than putting them all in MRIs instead.
Not at all, but the cancers is "somebody else's" problem.
Re: This is crazy (Score:2)
I have had both CT and MRI, always covered by insurance. Not sure why they wouldn't be, if deemed medically necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine are too, I have MRIs of my back and neck every year or two. It's not about cost, its about using the right tool for the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
>> so why do we use it like candy?
> It's faster and cheaper than an MRI. Cancer? Eh, that's your problem, not theirs.
It not only is not their problem, but is a source of profit to them if whatever treats you gives you a new problem. This already happens with prescription drugs, the number three killer. They don't want to kill you, because that removes you from potential profit, but some of us might die, but that's a risk they are willing to take.
Re: (Score:2)
>> 93 million CT examinations were carried out in 2023
> So the average person gets a CT scan every three years? Over 20 in their lifetime? That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?
Because hospitals have the machines, and they have to recoup their investment by charging for their use. That's only half sarcasm.
IMO, with the exception of time-critical scans (e.g. someone having a stroke, bowel obstruction, or other life-threatening emergency) and scans of people with metal implants, CTs really shouldn't even be used anymore.
At this point, the latest MRI tech (11.7T), has roughly reached parity with CTs in spatial resolution, and MRIs have always been better at contrast (distinguishing
Re:This is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
> Instead, for some reason, a lot of doctors insist on doing it the other way around. This makes no sense at all to me. We should spend money to upgrade MRI hardware to be the best it can be, and stop using these ionizing-radiation-spewing abominations faster than 1950s shoe salesmen did.
That is exactly how I see it, but as you said, it is not happening. And yes, there are some applications where CT is certainly better (or where an MRI is disqualified because of implants), but you would assume those to be rare.
Re: (Score:3)
between "$300 and $6,750" for average cost of a CT scan... they are literally incentivized to do as many as possible. The joys of a healthcare system fueled by profits and not results. .... which also has the perverse result of causing conditions that will require additional CT scans... ... plus insurance companies declining procedures, needing a 2nd opinion- which results in additional scans ... google powered patients thinking they know better requesting doctors run the scans ... there are many many caus
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying is not reality. I've had to have a bunch of MRIs of my neck and back, but I've only had 2 CTs in my life. One was in the ER and there was no way I could lay flat long enough to have an MRI, the CT was bad enough and it was over in a few minutes.
Re: (Score:1)
> That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?
Almost all bad things with anything medical related in the US can be explained by two industries and their interplay:
- The health insurance industry.
- The litigation industry.
There is also the health care industry, but it is greatly overshadowed by the two above.
Or, in other words, there is money to be made by someone. That someone is not you, the individual, just to be clear. Also, your health is not overly important. What is important is that you remain alive for as long as more money can be squeezed (dir
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently undergoing radiation treatment for head & neck cancer. They did a CT scan on me before treatment started to get a good image of everything. I get 7 weeks of daily (weekdays) radiation, before each of which they do "mini CT" to make sure that I'm positioned properly in the machine. They'll do another at the end of the treatment. That's 37 CT scans in the span of about 2 months.
Re: This is crazy (Score:2)
I'm sorry you're fighting cancer. Best of luck to you.
I think your example is why these number seems crazy at first blush. 90 million CT scans is an average of 1 in 4 Americans getting a CT scan. That's not reasonable. But of course it's not a normal distribution, it's one thats heavily skewed by people with serious health conditions for which CT scans are providing a benefit, and could die of other causes (or maybe cancer) if they didn't get the CT scans.
By this argument, one could say that chemotherapy is
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer patients are probably what have inflated the number of CTs. The headline is clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm currently undergoing radiation treatment for head & neck cancer. They did a CT scan on me before treatment started to get a good image of everything. I get 7 weeks of daily (weekdays) radiation, before each of which they do "mini CT" to make sure that I'm positioned properly in the machine. They'll do another at the end of the treatment. That's 37 CT scans in the span of about 2 months.
Hoping it all works out for you, bro.
Re: (Score:1)
Mod this up. 37 scans in 2 months for cancer treatment, I had no idea. This definitely colors the story differently.
Re: This is crazy (Score:3)
Some people need repeat scans to track progress of their injuries and diseases and as follow-ups after treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
> That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?
They also don't just scan one area. I had to get a CT scan of my abdominal aorta. As I walked out, there was everything on the screen. Brain. Testicles. Everything in between. Why? Is the machine not capable of limits? Did they just get an order of "Do a scan" without some direction of what the doc wanted to see?
Re: (Score:2)
I usually make a jokes about "Death by compliance", about the number of useless "complicance documents" my company makes me sign every few months. 100% for CYA reasons and no real value.
My guess is this is the same. They order tests just to leave a paper trail that you were actually tested, so you can't sue them for not testing you.
This is literal Death by compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know I was born before CT scans existed but I've had...zero. On the other hand, my general health is good. On the third hand, which I don't have because my mother wasn't exposed to ionizing radiation during pregnancy except for atmospheric nuclear testing, I eat more or less right, exercise more or less okay, and try and get enough sleep. While good health is a matter of winning a genetic lottery behavior means a lot too. I've never engaged in 'hey, watch this!' behavior either, nor 'here, hold my