Study finds CT scans could be responsible for 103,000 new cancer cases in the US each year

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 583   +13
Staff
A hot potato: A new study from UC San Francisco is raising alarms about the widespread use of computed tomography (CT) scans in the United States, warning that the technology may be responsible for as much as 5 percent of all cancers diagnosed each year. The research, published in JAMA Internal Medicine and funded by the National Institutes of Health, suggests that the risks associated with CT scans – particularly the exposure to ionizing radiation – are far greater than previously believed.

"CT can save lives, but its potential harms are often overlooked," said Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, the study's lead author and a UCSF radiologist. Smith-Bindman, who also serves as a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, said there is an urgent need to reconsider current practices. "Given the large volume of CT use in the United States, many cancers could occur in the future if current practices don't change," she said. "Our estimates put CT on par with other significant risk factors, such as alcohol consumption and excess body weight. Reducing the number of scans and reducing doses per scan would save lives."

CT scans, also known as CAT scans, have become a mainstay in modern medicine, used to detect tumors and diagnose a wide range of illnesses. Since 2007, the number of annual CT exams in the US has jumped by 30 percent. In 2023 alone, Americans underwent 93 million CT scans, a figure that researchers say could result in nearly 103,000 new cancer cases – three to four times higher than previous estimates.

The study's methodology set it apart from earlier research. The approach used more accurate and individualized CT dose and utilization data than prior studies, allowing the researchers to produce more precise estimates of the number of radiation-induced cancers, explained co-author Dr. Diana Miglioretti, a breast cancer researcher and division chief of biostatistics at UC Davis.

The findings indicated that the excess cancer risks associated with CT scans also apply to the youngest patients and, again, are higher than previously recognized. Researchers analyzed data from 93 million CT exams performed on 61.5 million patients across the country. The likelihood of receiving a scan increased with age, peaking among adults aged 60 to 69. Children made up just over 4 percent of the scans, but the risks for this group were particularly acute. The study excluded scans performed in the last year of a patient's life, as these were unlikely to contribute to future cancer cases.

Adults between the ages of 50 and 59 were projected to have the highest number of CT-related cancers, with 10,400 cases in women and 9,300 in men. Among adults, the most common cancers linked to CT scans were lung, colon, leukemia, bladder, and breast cancer.

For children, the most frequently projected cancers were thyroid, lung, and breast. The data showed that CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis were the largest contributors to cancer risk in adults, while head scans posed the greatest risk for children. Notably, infants who underwent CT scans were found to be ten times more likely to develop cancer compared to other age groups.

The study's authors pointed out that many CT scans may be unnecessary, particularly those ordered for conditions like upper respiratory infections or headaches without alarming symptoms.

They urged patients and clinicians to consider alternatives or lower-dose scans when possible. "There is currently unacceptable variation in the doses used for CT, with some patients receiving excessive doses," Smith-Bindman said.

Dr. Malini Mahendra, a UCSF assistant professor of Pediatric Critical Care and co-author of the study, stressed the importance of transparency with families. "Few patients and their families are counseled about the risk associated with CT examinations," she said. "We hope our study's findings will help clinicians better quantify and communicate these cancer risks, allowing for more informed conversations when weighing the benefits and risks of CT exams."

Permalink to story:

 
Problem with CT scans is they got significantly safer so doctors stopped using them as cautiously and basically undid any good that came from them using less radiation.

That said, the increase in cancer deaths from CT scans is insignificant compared to all the other things that kill us like heart disease, the garbage in our food and now microplastics. So, go ahead, if a doctor says I need a CT scan, I'll get one. It's really only once every 3-5 years that I get one and I'm often in agreement that the doctors request for a CT scan is necessary
 
Alt to CT scans that might be safer.
AI Overview



+8
Yes, several safer alternatives to CT scans are available, including MRI, ultrasound, and low-dose CT scans. MRI uses magnetic fields and radio waves, offering detailed images without radiation. Ultrasound uses sound waves, providing a non-invasive option for certain diagnoses, especially beneficial for pregnant women and children. Low-dose CT scans also minimize radiation exposure, Yale School of Medicine.
Elaboration:
MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging):
MRI is a radiation-free imaging technique that uses strong magnets and radio waves to create detailed images of the body's internal structures. This makes it a safer alternative to CT scans, especially for individuals who may need multiple imaging procedures or are particularly sensitive to radiation. MRIs are often preferred for visualizing soft tissues, organs, and the brain.
Ultrasound:
Ultrasound utilizes high-frequency sound waves to create images, making it a radiation-free imaging technique. It's particularly well-suited for imaging abdominal and pelvic areas, and cardiovascular structures. Ultrasound is widely used in pregnancy and can be an excellent alternative to CT scans in certain situations, particularly when radiation exposure needs to be avoided.
Low-Dose CT Scans:
While CT scans do expose patients to radiation, they can be adjusted to use a lower dose, minimizing the potential health risks. Low-dose CT scans can be a useful alternative when radiation exposure needs to be reduced without compromising the need for detailed imaging.
EOS Imaging:
HSS uses a low-dose radiation alternative to X-rays and CT. EOS imaging is an alternative for some patients, particularly those concerned about radiation, HSS | Hospital for Special Surgery.

update also contrast dies used may be toxic as well.
AI Overview


+10
Yes, there is evidence suggesting that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) used in MRI scans can be toxic, especially for individuals with kidney problems, but also for those with normal kidney function. While GBCAs were initially considered safe, research has shown that gadolinium can remain in the body for extended periods, potentially causing adverse effects like nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients with renal impairment, and also causing gadolinium deposition in various tissues, including the brain, in other individuals.
Evidence of Toxicity:
Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF):
NSF is a severe condition associated with GBCAs in patients with severe kidney problems, leading to skin thickening and hardening, joint contractures, and even death.
Gadolinium Deposition:
Studies have shown that gadolinium, a component of GBCAs, can accumulate in various tissues, including the brain, even in patients with normal kidney function.
Long-Term Retention:
The discovery that gadolinium can remain in the body for months or years after exposure has raised concerns about the potential for long-term toxicity.
Possible Adverse Effects:
While the long-term effects of retained gadolinium are still being studied, some individuals who have received GBCAs have reported symptoms like brain fog, skin disorders, joint pain, and permanent disability.
FDA Guidance:
In response to these concerns, the FDA has issued new warnings and safety recommendations for GBCAs, including a new class warning for all GBCAs used in MRI exams.
Ongoing Research and Debate:
Cause-and-Effect Relationship:
While the association between GBCAs and adverse effects is strong, establishing a definitive cause-and-effect relationship for some of the reported symptoms, like gadolinium deposition disease, is still ongoing.
Mechanisms of Toxicity:
The exact mechanisms by which gadolinium causes toxicity are still being investigated.
Potential for Harm:
Even though the potential for harm from GBCAs is being explored, it's crucial to weigh the benefits of using GBCAs in MRI scans, which can be essential for diagnosis and treatment, against the potential risks.
 
Last edited:
Problem with CT scans is they got significantly safer so doctors stopped using them as cautiously and basically undid any good that came from them using less radiation.

That said, the increase in cancer deaths from CT scans is insignificant compared to all the other things that kill us like heart disease, the garbage in our food and now microplastics. So, go ahead, if a doctor says I need a CT scan, I'll get one. It's really only once every 3-5 years that I get one and I'm often in agreement that the doctors request for a CT scan is necessary
Every 3-5 years ? Is that because of some condition you have ?
 
It’s worth noting this is a correlation study so people that get more CT scans tend to get cancers at a higher rate later in life. Controlling for adequate factors means this correlation should not be dismissed as a risk factor but the finding should be understood in that context. Along with the knowledge that proving causation on something that takes years to develop is impossible (short of locking people in a lab) due to the myriad of factors and variables that are different between people going about their daily lives.
 
Every 3-5 years ? Is that because of some condition you have ?
I'm just an ***** and end up with lots of sports related injuries. Recently I hurt my back in a mountain biking accident, that was back in march. before that I gave myself a severe concussion in a rock climbing accident. This tends to happen every 3-5 years since I was a teenager
 
Nowadays, doctors can't even pull out a baby tooth without sending you for an X-ray. I asked what the dose of radiation absorbed by the body is for certain types of X-rays, and I couldn't get a quantitative answer—only a qualitative one: it's a small amount, the current machines are modern and the dose is far lower than it used to be.
 
I did note the in some developing countries that reporting crime to the police then increase the chance of more crime against the complainant - one of reasons rape and S.A was not often reported
But shakedowns at police station or in their home not uncommon

Look at any packet of anti-nausea tabs- on the contra-indications it says nausea . Ha took an antimalarial for cerebral malaria (Plasmodium falciparum) in West africa , side effect irregular heart beats etc - was withdrawn a few years later in west as too many deaths ( cardiac arrest ) - only got tested as a bit of tiredness and sensitivity to light , and was with some others who were zonked out crashed, my red blood cells were messed up twice as much as theirs from labs - anyway that drug was strong whacked it in everyone in just a couple of days

Amount of people who die in hospitals is quite high - so maybe a correlation there :) - more seriously lots of people die from prescription drugs or medical misadventure

as mentioned above - it's understanding statistics false positive or false negatives % need to be weigh up for cons for unnecessary treatments vs have many lives if saves etc

ie the way you present the info makes a huge diff - you could make a drug seem next to useless saves 5 days of live for taking it for a year or adds 5 years to someones live over the course of their whole live
 
This is based on vague correlations that mean nothing.
The title is a pure speculation.

It's obvious, statistically speaking, that people who need CT scans have more health problems than people who don't need CT scans. People with more health problems have a higher risk of cancer, so they have more cancer. That's the 'discovery' of this 'study'.
 
I'm just an ***** and end up with lots of sports related injuries. Recently I hurt my back in a mountain biking accident, that was back in march. before that I gave myself a severe concussion in a rock climbing accident. This tends to happen every 3-5 years since I was a teenager
You went mountain biking without me!? I'm insulted! Not really but I am sad that I missed out.

I had a boss that used to play ice hockey. Yea, his body is broken.
 
I did note the in some developing countries that reporting crime to the police then increase the chance of more crime against the complainant - one of reasons rape and S.A was not often reported
But shakedowns at police station or in their home not uncommon

Look at any packet of anti-nausea tabs- on the contra-indications it says nausea . Ha took an antimalarial for cerebral malaria (Plasmodium falciparum) in West africa , side effect irregular heart beats etc - was withdrawn a few years later in west as too many deaths ( cardiac arrest ) - only got tested as a bit of tiredness and sensitivity to light , and was with some others who were zonked out crashed, my red blood cells were messed up twice as much as theirs from labs - anyway that drug was strong whacked it in everyone in just a couple of days

Amount of people who die in hospitals is quite high - so maybe a correlation there :) - more seriously lots of people die from prescription drugs or medical misadventure

as mentioned above - it's understanding statistics false positive or false negatives % need to be weigh up for cons for unnecessary treatments vs have many lives if saves etc

ie the way you present the info makes a huge diff - you could make a drug seem next to useless saves 5 days of live for taking it for a year or adds 5 years to someones live over the course of their whole live
Take home message use everything in moderation. Also it's always better to weigh the risk/benefit ratio and be aware that while not proven linear increased exposure to radiation increases the mutation rate of your DNA that might be above the threshold of your body do fight those cancer cells. Unfortunately many patients blindly trust their doctors instead of challenging them and or getting multiple opinions/ doing own research.
Notice the number one risk of morbidity is cardiac arrest. That doesn't stop people using over the counter decongestants with warning labels of contraindications for people with high blood pressure and heart problems are listed. People continue to eat fast food with high cholesterol, trans fats and sodium as well.


Can you blame clinicians who are challenged with an over load of information and warning exhaustion ( partially yes). The machine will always defend itself though.
 
This is based on vague correlations that mean nothing.
The title is a pure speculation.

It's obvious, statistically speaking, that people who need CT scans have more health problems than people who don't need CT scans. People with more health problems have a higher risk of cancer, so they have more cancer. That's the 'discovery' of this 'study'.
That's why studies control for a host of other variables. So it's not just A correlates to B, it's after accounting for age, race, weight, fitness, income, geographic location, and other factors there is still a statistically significant relationship between A and B.

Is it perfect? No, but it is how science is done because it is the best we can reasonably accomplish in the real world.

And the conclusion isn't stop using CTs - merely let's be more cautious about performing CTs as there is a potential risk associated with them.
 
That's why studies control for a host of other variables. So it's not just A correlates to B, it's after accounting for age, race, weight, fitness, income, geographic location, and other factors there is still a statistically significant relationship between A and B.

Is it perfect? No, but it is how science is done because it is the best we can reasonably accomplish in the real world.

And the conclusion isn't stop using CTs - merely let's be more cautious about performing CTs as there is a potential risk associated with them.
But I wanna live in a fantasy world!
Sniff, it just ain't fair! :cold_sweat:

Seriously, death is inevitable; so, why worry about it. If you go around worrying about what could increase the risk of cancer, you might end-up living a miserable life. You might live long, but not a happy life. Quality Vs. quantity.
 
Take home message use everything in moderation. Also it's always better to weigh the risk/benefit ratio and be aware that while not proven linear increased exposure to radiation increases the mutation rate of your DNA that might be above the threshold of your body do fight those cancer cells. Unfortunately many patients blindly trust their doctors instead of challenging them and or getting multiple opinions/ doing own research.
Notice the number one risk of morbidity is cardiac arrest. That doesn't stop people using over the counter decongestants with warning labels of contraindications for people with high blood pressure and heart problems are listed. People continue to eat fast food with high cholesterol, trans fats and sodium as well.


Can you blame clinicians who are challenged with an over load of information and warning exhaustion ( partially yes). The machine will always defend itself though.

One of the many that attack kidney function is paracetamols , then kidney failure leads to heart Issues

If you have chronic pain , try and learn mind control methods- than fentanyl and such

I got TB in China - steamed up buses in remote area people coughing , spitting everywhere ( just missed vax by few years in NZ when a kid )- flared up and went away ( did not know cause, one night /day chinese hospital on saline drip ) any way 5 years later in london - had a huge workout at gym , went to work party some AH forcing drinks on women at my table - so I took some of pressure ( not a big drinker ) outside 3am raining very cold waiting taxis etc - so TB came back - never tested truly positive as not classic systems- but hit heart/lungs etc crazy fast heart beat, super high temps, one lung collapse from fluids , low oxygen . Anyway post 2 months hospital monitoring ward one of many consultants I saw - figured TB most likely pericardial TB - so was put on them for 9 months . Least a week after starting , eye , kidney . liver tests . So now now partial heart constriction - shame as tech said had a perfect heart - not fussed as doesn't affect me, work out resting pulse rate at night say 54 and now morning just mucking around will be 70 or under .
Done 3 or so multi day hikes with over 5000M when younger with backpack etc (Peru.Nepal, China) plus many at high Boliva/pakistan etc - did those real easy - probably at my age now with this affect go very slow or stay at 4 and go up and down quick
 
One of the many that attack kidney function is paracetamols , then kidney failure leads to heart Issues

If you have chronic pain , try and learn mind control methods- than fentanyl and such

I got TB in China - steamed up buses in remote area people coughing , spitting everywhere ( just missed vax by few years in NZ when a kid )- flared up and went away ( did not know cause, one night /day chinese hospital on saline drip ) any way 5 years later in london - had a huge workout at gym , went to work party some AH forcing drinks on women at my table - so I took some of pressure ( not a big drinker ) outside 3am raining very cold waiting taxis etc - so TB came back - never tested truly positive as not classic systems- but hit heart/lungs etc crazy fast heart beat, super high temps, one lung collapse from fluids , low oxygen . Anyway post 2 months hospital monitoring ward one of many consultants I saw - figured TB most likely pericardial TB - so was put on them for 9 months . Least a week after starting , eye , kidney . liver tests . So now now partial heart constriction - shame as tech said had a perfect heart - not fussed as doesn't affect me, work out resting pulse rate at night say 54 and now morning just mucking around will be 70 or under .
Done 3 or so multi day hikes with over 5000M when younger with backpack etc (Peru.Nepal, China) plus many at high Boliva/pakistan etc - did those real easy - probably at my age now with this affect go very slow or stay at 4 and go up and down quick
Parecetemol ( Tylenol aka Acetaminophen) is metabolized by the Liver. No worries you might mean Ibuprofen and aspirin as well as others Nsaids that get metabolized by the kidneys.
Clinicians often recommend acetaminophen for those who undergoing Dialysis and have end stage kidney failure.
 
Parecetemol ( Tylenol aka Acetaminophen) is metabolized by the Liver. No worries you might mean Ibuprofen and aspirin as well as others Nsaids that get metabolized by the kidneys.
Clinicians often recommend acetaminophen for those who undergoing Dialysis and have end stage kidney failure.
Thanks for the correction I FU , still apparently can affect the liver in high doses
My take is get good advice for long term drug use and revisit .

I have no such problems, but seems statins , HRTs for women , pain, antidepressants etc all need follow up and often tweaking , some take awhile for to work so long drawn out process
So hopefully personal targeted meds get better
Problem is also when you take it - while sleeping , before food ,after food etc - then if good compliance makes a BIG difference . also injected , enteric coating , slow release etc , what else you take . Diabetics can lead fuller lives now if access to better methods
 
Just cracked 40 CT scans this week :(

If the cancer doesn't kill you the treatment will so they say.

With all that said though. I am thankful for the scans as they were better than the alternative
 
Many doctors use contrast agents MRI and CT scans as if it was a blood test. That's bad. But worse than this is the quality of reading of these exams. Most radiologists spend five to fifteen minutes (if you're lucky) reading the scans. What can you expect ? Soon AI will do the reading and, as it will be a monopoly once competition is eliminated, the prices will skyrocket. Pessimistic view yet realistic.
 
That's why studies control for a host of other variables. So it's not just A correlates to B, it's after accounting for age, race, weight, fitness, income, geographic location, and other factors there is still a statistically significant relationship between A and B.

Is it perfect? No, but it is how science is done because it is the best we can reasonably accomplish in the real world.

And the conclusion isn't stop using CTs - merely let's be more cautious about performing CTs as there is a potential risk associated with them.
After accounting for age, race, weight, etc., people who need CT scans still have more health problems than people who don't need CT scans. What the study actually finds is that people with more health problems have more health problems. CT helps finding them, but there is not enough data to claim that it causes some of them or that it increases the risk.

Yes, the conclusion isn't anything radical, but just see the title. The most likely interpretation is that scans cause cancer, when in fact nothing suggests that.
 
Isn't the data isolated only with people who are neither overweight nor alcoholics?

A large portion of the American population is overweight, smokes, drinks and that's not even counting the drugs the government thought it wise to sprinkle like cherries on top of the hellish cake the country has become.
 
After accounting for age, race, weight, etc., people who need CT scans still have more health problems than people who don't need CT scans. What the study actually finds is that people with more health problems have more health problems.
This is simply not true. I am sorry that you don't believe we scientists understand how to do science but I don't know how else to explain it to you briefly enough to fit in a comment.
Enjoy being smarter than researchers everywhere!
 
Back