iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Medical Radiation Exposure: How Much Is Too Much?

First Posted: 08/16/11 12:25 PM ET   Updated: 10/16/11 06:12 AM ET

Since the mid-90s, the use of CT scans in the ER has skyrocketed, according to a new study conducted by the University of Michigan Health System. The review of hospital data from 1996 through 2007 examined national trends in the use of CT scans and found that the use of computed tomography scans in emergency rooms increased a stunning 330 percent in just 12 years. “It’s enough so that these days -- and it’s even grown since 2007 -- about 1 in 7 patients in the ER get a CT scan,” says Keith Kocher, M.D., M.P.H., clinical lecturer at U of M’s Department of Emergency Medicine and first author on the study. “If you look at the number of scans [conducted] in the ER and compare [that] to the entire health care system, about a quarter of the scans [being done] are being done in the ER.”

Although the U of M study specifically focused on CT scans and emergency rooms, it seems that this trend is not limited to these conditions. A more generalized report was released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in March 2009. It measured Americans’ total exposure to ionizing radiation by source. Ionizing radiation is defined by the American Cancer Society as “high frequency radiation.” This type of radiation has the power to do permanent damage to the DNA in your cells.

The NCRP report concluded that medical tests were responsible for almost 50 percent of all radiation exposure experienced by Americans. CT scans -- which use more radiation than other imaging procedures such as x-rays -- alone were responsible for half of this total. It is not altogether surprising, as imaging technology has become more widely available and physicians have been more universally trained to use these technologies over the last two decades. “It’s the way medicine is practiced these days,” says Kocher.

But what do these studies and statistics mean for patients in practical terms? And should we be concerned?

It’s A Mixed Bag
As with most medical issues, the question of “concern” is not easily answered. One positive that Dr. Kocher and his team discovered when studying ER statistics, was a possible association between scans and a decrease in unnecessary ER patient hospitalization. Although Kocher acknowledged the inherent limitations of a study that looks back at pre-existing, emergency room data, he felt that the point was worth mentioning.

“One of the main things that emergency physicians do is decide whether [a patient] can go home. With a rise in CT scans, [there seems to be] a fall in the number of patients that end up being admitted over time,” he told The Huffington Post. “There may be some benefits in the amount of scans over time because it may prevent people from being hospitalized [unnecessarily].”

It’s also important to note that imaging procedures can be lifesaving. CT scans and x-rays allow physicians to see inside of their patients, which means that these procedure are pretty invaluable diagnostic tools. Not only do these technologies allow physicians to gather a lot of information, but to do so in a time-effective manner -- which is especially key in emergency situations. According to RadiologyInfo.org, imaging procedures help physicians cut down on invasive, exploratory surgeries, determine more accurately when surgical procedures are necessary and more accurately diagnosis serious conditions such as cancer.

However, these scans are by no means all good. To begin with, ionizing radiation is classified as a known carcinogen by the CDC. Although one scan is not going to cause you to develop cancer, over time radiation exposure can build up. Additional side effects from ionizing radiation exposure include cataracts and skin burns. “The truth is that we are probably causing future cancers as a result of the scans that we’re doing today,” says Kocher. He also acknowledged the importance of conducting these scans only when they are medically necessary -- and expressed that they are probably overused.

New technologies also inherently bring about new -- and dangerous -- margins of error when they are used. And when it comes to technologies that expose patients to ionizing radiation, errors can be life threatening. Walt Bogdanich’s “Radiation Boom” series for The New York Times has exposed countless errors in the way that technicians sometimes operate these powerful machines. For example, in 2009, more than 300 patients received unnecessarily high radiation exposure while being administered CT scans at Los Angeles’ Cedars-Sinai Medical Center alone. This past February, the FDA unveiled an Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging to address these issues.

In addition to issues of patient safety, unnecessary imaging procedures also exert a high cost on our health care system. In 2008, The New York Times reported that in 2007, over 150,000 CT scans were conducted -- costing in excess of $100 million.

How To Be Savvy
The key to being scan-savvy is education and dialogue. “It’s OK to talk to your provider … about why they think a CT scan is necessary or indicated,” says Kocher. “A lot of times doctors come in with this perception that this [procedure] is what patients want. Sometimes this is an unfair perception.”

Image Wisely, an organization sponsored by the ACR and RSNA that aims to eliminate unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure, recommends that all patients ask their physicians the following questions before receiving a scan:
-How will this exam improve my care?
-Are there alternative imaging exams that don’t use radiation?

The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that when it comes to radiation exposure from medical procedures, there is both good and bad. Often times, these procedures are quite necessary -- and allow physicians to make life-saving diagnoses. However, it’s important for patients to educate themselves and begin dialogues with their physicians. Ultimately, an informed patient is a safer patient.

Kocher believes that patients and doctors should move past a paternalistic model of care. “This is an older model [of care],” he says. “I think that having a shared decision-making discussion -- in particular [when it comes to scans] is really helpful.” Let’s start discussing.

Below we've gathered a list of some of the most common imaging procedures and their respective radiation doses (all measurements are based on a full-sized adult):

CT Scan: Abdomen and Pelvis
1 of 13
Approximate Effective Radiation Dose: 15 mSv

Comparable to Natural Background Radiation for: 5 years

Additional Lifetime Risk of Fatal Cancer From Examination: Low

Source: www.RadiologyInfo.org, copyright Radiological Society of North America and American College of Radiology (2011)
Total comments: 18 | Post a Comment
1 of 13
This Procedure
Knew this.
Had no idea!

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10
Top 5 Procedures
Users who voted on this slide
loading...

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

Since the mid-90s, the use of CT scans in the ER has skyrocketed, according to a new study conducted by the University of Michigan Health System. The review of hospital data from 1996 through 2007 exa...
Since the mid-90s, the use of CT scans in the ER has skyrocketed, according to a new study conducted by the University of Michigan Health System. The review of hospital data from 1996 through 2007 exa...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:04 AM on 08/25/2011
The author of this article uses generalities and doesnt have a sufficient fund of knowledge to publish about this subject.

Side effects including " cataracts and skin burns."?? It would take at least 100 scans to produce such damage. One can cite anectodal evidence about untoward incidents in California or Alabama that are literally 1 in 500,000 when reduced to the number of overall CT scans performed in this country. CT scanning has saved more lives, kept more individuals from exploratory surgery, detected more cancers, and improved life than any other medical invention in the last 50 years. Its also interesting that the author cites an ER doctor as the primary reference for this article. It is the ER over-utilization in cover your a*s medicine that is primarily behind this boom in CT usage. Nobody wants their career to end like other doctors who didnt utilize the resources available and had to explain such to a tort lawyer. Also, the doctors interapting the CT scans can detect disease, even the most subtle manifestation of disease, very quickly and efficiently. Balance your reporting out with some commonsense please.
12:36 PM on 08/24/2011
I am a CT technologist. You will get more radiation from being out in the sun than from what you get during a CT of the head. We are constantly updating and changing the radiation dose during the scan so we can get better pictures. The bigger you are the more radiation you get. And yes we have two types of contrast and yes one is more expensive then the other but it depends on your kidney function. If your kidney function is low, we use the more expensive contrast because it is less harsh on your kidneys and it has a different chemistry make up than the least expensive brand.


Bottom line, just trust your doctor and the health care workers. They know what is best for you. They went to school for this and know how to do our jobs.
07:57 AM on 08/17/2011
Doctors claim they run tests in large part to protect themselves from lawsuits. What they don't tell you is they also make more money that way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freedom Rush
freedom is the oxygen of the soul
09:56 PM on 08/16/2011
the techs who calibrate the equipment are a big part of the problem. this article (and many others) say:
"...patients were reportedly over-radiated by CT scans."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-21/news/ct-edit-scan-20100221_1_ct-scans-radiation-chest-x-rays
08:51 PM on 08/16/2011
www.xrayrisk.com is a free site that lets you calculate your cancer risk from CT scans and x-rays. For most patients, the small assumed risk is greatly outweighed by the benefits of the scan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:24 PM on 08/16/2011
I like how half the images shown in the link that directed me to this page were MRIs, which produce no radiation, and the others also weren't CT scans. I guess they look cooler.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freedom Rush
freedom is the oxygen of the soul
09:58 PM on 08/16/2011
wow...really? brilliant journalism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lensman3
04:54 PM on 08/16/2011
I hear an ultrasound will give the same information as CT scan. Anybody know any details? Seems with good software the same "pretty" CT scans would be equivalent and no radiation damage.

See if they have the guts to do a CT scan on a pregnant woman!

I think this study was done for those people at sea level. What is the risk here in Denver, a mile high? Whats the risk to airline pilots?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:20 PM on 08/16/2011
Ultrasound will give the same or better information for some things. For other things, an ultrasound would be totally useless.
06:31 PM on 08/16/2011
Ultrasound and CT give very different information. In some cases an US is better than a CT. It depends on the reason for doing the test. It is a fair question to ask your doctor.

Ultrasound is limited by a number of things. The first things are body fat and bone which attenuate the signal and make the images sometimes uninterpretable or not obtainable. So ultrasound can't visualize your brain well because of your skull. The second thing is air which the soundwaves don't travel through effectively. This means that it can't look at air filled structures including: lungs, bowel, stomach. As well ultrasound doesn't have the same resolution as CT scans which mean that smaller things, eg tumors could be missed. This is why CT scans are still around despite the radiation, other tests just can't do the job yet.

CT scans are done on pregnant women if the risk of death or morbidity is higher than the risk of the radiation to the mother or fetus.

hope that is helpful
photo
Greyfox01
My shoe knows more than THEY do.
02:22 PM on 08/16/2011
After a year of hell following a CT here is what I have to add ....

My advise after doing my own research is never have a CT until every other test has been done first. Three years ago it was thought that those who have CT have a 1 in 2000 chance of contracting cancer. Two years later the number was changed to 1 in 250, now the number in 1 in 80 chance of contracting a cancer. The FDA has repeatedly told doctors and hospitals to turn down the radiation level. Also there are two type of contrast dye, the expensive one and the cheap one. Guess which one most hospital like to use? The dyes also have an expiration date.

Here's a website that may help you decide to allow a doctor to put you through hell, when a simple urine test could save you from months of

http://blog.remakehealth.com/blog_Healthcare_Consumers-0/bid/10276/What-are-the-side-effects-of-CT-scan-and-MRI-scan-dye
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chad Wheeler
04:45 PM on 08/16/2011
As a hypochondriac, your post is horrifying.
05:14 PM on 08/16/2011
I agree with your point that all other tests should be done before ones that are invasive or have radiation involved. However your other points are misinformed.

For high quality images a specific dose of radiation is required, using less means a result that is uninterpretable, requiring a repeat which means more radiation. People are continually finding ways to reduce radiation and have a vested economic interest in doing so, because the less the radiation dose the more scans (necessary and otherwise) you can order for people and have them be considered safe. Hospitals get paid per scan, not per dose.

Finally, in response to CT/MRI dye. If you look at the small number of people who have side-effects and realize that most of those include, "feeling warm and flushed or getting itchy for awhile" it isn't something that should whip people into a frenzy. I am not suggesting there can't be serious reactions to dye or that people shouldn't be informed that there is a very very small chance of a severe reaction but the number of lives saved by necessary scans far out-weighs the risks. Refusing to get a scan that could help save your life because you are afraid of a remote dye reaction is not rational.

Again, not to suggest that these scans don't involve a small amount of risk, but weigh it against the consequence of not getting information about whatever brought you into the office in the first place.
photo
Greyfox01
My shoe knows more than THEY do.
07:46 PM on 08/16/2011
I didn't want to go into detail ..... but six day after the scan I had dizzy spells, and was losing weight and unable to sleep at all. My wife drove me to the our small town hospital and the ER. I had lost 18 lbs, was suffering from dehydration, which took a liter to bring me back to feeling better. For the next four months I could not lie flat in bed, and ended getting no more that two to three hour a night setting in the recliner. I came down with infections, in one ear, the bladder and pneumonia. Antibiotics cleaned it all up in twenty days.

Blood tests have always been normal and were still normal. Not one doctor asked for a one or three stage urine test, so I got one on my own .... normal.

At 72 years, I don't take any medications. Blood pressure is about 131/64. I single track mountain bike three days a week for two to three hours except Sundays. I do my yoga & work out for one hour every morning. We eat very well from our own garden, eat no beef, only our own chickens, and fish from our lake, and I still ware the same size pants I did in high school. There's been no cancer on either side of my family, and until the blood and urine tests show otherwise the kidney stays.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:54 AM on 08/16/2011
Hey, what's the problem?

Radiation is great for business.

; o }