This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by HALL, E J Articles by BRENNER, D J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by HALL, E J Articles by BRENNER, D J

Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology

Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA

Correspondence: E J Hall, Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA. E-mail: ejh1{at}columbia.edu

In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of CT scans performed, both in the US and the UK, which has fuelled concern about the long-term consequences of these exposures, particularly in terms of cancer induction. Statistics from the US and the UK indicate a 20-fold and 12-fold increase, respectively, in CT usage over the past two decades, with per caput CT usage in the US being about five times that in the UK. In both countries, most of the collective dose from diagnostic radiology comes from high-dose (in the radiological context) procedures such as CT, interventional radiology and barium enemas; for these procedures, the relevant organ doses are in the range for which there is now direct credible epidemiological evidence of an excess risk of cancer, without the need to extrapolate risks from higher doses. Even for high-dose radiological procedures, the risk to the individual patient is small, so that the benefit/risk balance is generally in the patients' favour. Concerns arise when CT examinations are used without a proven clinical rationale, when alternative modalities could be used with equal efficacy, or when CT scans are repeated unnecessarily. It has been estimated, at least in the US, that these scenarios account for up to one-third of all CT scans. A further issue is the increasing use of CT scans as a screening procedure in asymptomatic patients; at this time, the benefit/risk balance for any of the commonly suggested CT screening techniques has yet to be established.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. K. Pahade, D. Litmanovich, I. Pedrosa, J. Romero, A. A. Bankier, and P. M. Boiselle Quality Initiatives: Imaging Pregnant Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: What the Radiologist Needs to Know RadioGraphics, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 639 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				BJR review of the year - 2008. Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2009; 82(975): 180 - 182. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.S.P. Tan, K.-L. Tan, J.C.L. Lee, C.-M. Wan, J.-L. Leong, and L.-L. Chan Comparison of Eye Lens Dose on Neuroimaging Protocols between 16- and 64-Section Multidetector CT: Achieving the Lowest Possible Dose AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., February 1, 2009; 30(2): 373 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				The so-called cone beam computed tomography technology (or CB3D, rather!) Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2008; 37(8): 477 - 478. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Wakeford Childhood leukaemia following medical diagnostic exposure to ionizing radiation in utero or after birth Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2008; 132(2): 166 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J Brenner Should computed tomography be the modality of choice for imaging Crohn's disease in children? The radiation risk perspective Gut, November 1, 2008; 57(11): 1489 - 1490. [Full Text] [PDF]