Low-radiation CT

[chrisca]

My surgeon scheduled me for my annual CT. I did some searching and found out that there are low-radiation machines, and fortunately a local hospital had one. It was a longer drive and less convenient, but I figure it was worth it to get a lower dose. This is something doctors are unlikely to tell us about. I found out about it from this link:

http://www.healthcare.philips.com/main/products/ct/products/idose/

Ask your doctor if there is access to an iDose 4 machine.

[Voxx66]

I wonder if the imaging is actually as good as a conventional machine? I'd be interested in knowing.

[NZJay]

Does anyone now exactly How dangerous CT scans are? Is there a fear they'll cause new cancer at some stage in the future, or is it a fear of weakening the body *now*?
My oncologist is using over-exposure to radiation as a reason to only scan me once a year. I'm honestly more concerned about colon cancer right now.

[Carolinabluetec]

I worked in the Medical Imaging Industry for 46 years and worked for many years at the company noted in the above link, Here are results of a 2004 study by the RSNA (Radiological Society of North America).

RESULTS: "A single full-body CT examination in a 45-year-old adult would result in
an estimated lifetime attributable cancer mortality risk of around 0.08%, with the
95% credibility limits being a factor of 3.2 in either direction. A 45-year-old adult
who plans to undergo annual full-body CT examinations up to age 75 (30 examinations)
would accrue an overall estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer
mortality of about 1.9%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 2 in either
direction."

As far as imaging quality of a "low dose CT", if no other factors in a machine are changed, the higher dose will give a better image. But advances in detector efficiency, software processing, etc.,etc. make lower dose imaging feasible. Besides, Radiologists are incredibly picky about image quality.

[KWT]

Yeah, low radiation is good. We wouldn't want to get cancer or anything

[SkiFletch]

Does anyone now exactly How dangerous CT scans are? Is there a fear they'll cause new cancer at some stage in the future, or is it a fear of weakening the body *now*?
My oncologist is using over-exposure to radiation as a reason to only scan me once a year. I'm honestly more concerned about colon cancer right now.

The "risk" is the development of different primary cancers in the future.

[Carolinabluetec]

The real drive for "low dose imaging" is geared toward children and young adults who may have many scans during their lifetime. Certain parts of the body are more susceptible to radiation damage such as the eyes, thyroid, and the reproductive "bits" In any case, less is more. P.S. in an airplane at 35,000 ft you are getting a 100 times the dose that you are getting on the ground from cosmic radiation

[GrouseMan]

I just read a news brief about a study done oat the University of Michigan medical center were they are looking at low dose helical scans and doing the post image processing in the cloud on multiple servers to get the resulting 3D image construction done in a more timely manner. Seems its the post scan processing that is the thing that takes the longest to do and might be the reason it takes longer for these scans to be analyzed by the radiologist.

See: http://www.businessinsider.com/sc/amazo ... ns-2014-10

For your technical types here is a link to the original Paper as a PDF: http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/pape ... 13-ihc.pdf

Regards,

GrouseMan

[Carolinabluetec]

I am not sure that I like pictures of my guts floating around "The Clouds" I guess "remote servers networked together" was not sexy enough.

[NedPlease]

So as a mature stage four patient, is it worth seeking out this technology? I ask this in an optimistic moment.
Thanks for the information,
N

[chemo sabe]

My Onc told me he would love to talk to me several years from now about a radiation induced cancer as opposed to not being able to talk to me at all. I could not agree more.

[raym]

Similar to chemo sabe's response, my oncologist feels the benefit of scans (with active disease) outweigh the risks. Since July I have had 2 chest/abd/pelvis scans, one pelvic to assess an abscess and another one in a week for follow-up as well as CT scans during insertion and removal of a drain for the abscess. In general I get about 4 full scans a year, but with an infection last year and this year they really piled up.

[iitg.ritesh]

Can we do frequent MRI instead of CT scan every 3 month for followup ? I know MRI doesn't have radiation and there is not any side effect from it. What do you think guys? I need some advices pls.

[GrouseMan]

Can we do frequent MRI instead of CT scan every 3 month for followup ? I know MRI doesn't have radiation and there is not any side effect from it. What do you think guys? I need some advices pls.

Actually you probably get more radiation from flying frequently than from a CT scan. They are using less and less X-Ray radiation now a days. The question of MRI vs CT is difficult because they view the tissues and bones differently. Here are a couple of links that address this:.

http://hanfordsentinel.com/lifestyles/h ... 963f4.html

http://www.ct-scan-info.com/mrivsctscan.html

http://www.radiologydaily.com/daily/abd ... l-imaging/

Regards,

GrouseMan

[Carolinabluetec]

Can we do frequent MRI instead of CT scan every 3 month for followup ? I know MRI doesn't have radiation and there is not any side effect from it. What do you think guys? I need some advices pls.

In the early days of X-ray, they did not think it was harmful either. They actually used to have X-ray machines in shoe stores and would show you your foot in the shoes!!! As far as effects of MRI. There do not appear to be any "identifiable" adverse effects at this time. If you have a disease process that requires CT scans every 3 months, you have more important things to deal with than the radiation you get from a CT scan.