CT Scans/X Ray Radiation Exposure Calculator

[radnyc]

Thanks for mpbser for a useful link to something a lot of us wonder about, how safe are multiple CT/PET scans particularly for us on the younger side. Those of us in our 40's or 50's hopefully have many years left after treatment, the effects of all this radiation overexposure will take years to show up, will it make our old age another cancer battleground?

After my 20+ scans it calculates I have a 1 in 60 probability of a new cancer, that sucks!

http://www.xrayrisk.com/calculator/calc ... tudies.php

[ACPdiddy]

I like that calculator, and thanks for posting it mpbser.

As for your new 1 in 60 chance of cancer, let's put that in perspective.

Without the scans, you probably had something like a 20 in 60 chance of a new cancer. Now it's 21 in 60. Don't worry about it.

[CRguy]

My take :
I die from undiagnosed Stage IV CRC or potential radiation induced neoplasia

ergo ..... bring on the scans !!!!!

doesn't mean we need to stand in the tunnel of the LHC and partake of cosmic levels of radiation
BUTT ...... scans when needed = OK by me !!!!

JMO
CR

[radnyc]

We need safer options, as I wrote on an earlier post: t's sad that they haven't figured out how to make more accurate ULTRASOUND or MRI scans which are totally safe and WAY CHEAPER! Hmmmm.

[CRguy]

Not sure I agree MRIs are inherently cheaper than CTs ?????? at least not locally OR as available locally as CTs.
U/Sounds hellyeah !!!!

The devil of it is : all imaging modalities have their own inherent risk / reward / return metrics.
IF I had my choice I would do MRI over CT
( notwithstanding the issues of potentially severe toxicities for the gadolinium contrast required for an MRI )

What I CAN do, is do xray + U/sound routinely and then PET / CT / MRI as needed based on what is found = what I have done / am doing.
I realize the inherent problem in that : IF the imaging modalities I choose do NOT show anything .....
a potential MISSED Dx and missed opportunity to do the correct imaging and clinical follow up.

Coming at this as both patient and clinician. I have NO interest in the public / private funding / insurance issues which sadly also contribute to what we can and cannot get when we need it !

SO : am I better off to use a "less comprehensive" follow up imaging and risk missing potentially life threatening "mets"
OR
risk the radiation in hopes of getting a better imaging to rule out those potentially life threatening "mets"

I choose radiation. It IS a very personal choice BUTT while we can and should argue the safety issues, we also need to consider the quality of what we are getting for our follow up.... here and NOW !

I would love better xrays / ultrasounds and MRIs
BUTT know for now I need to deal with the devil in the details to be convinced I am getting the best imaging,
which so far for me has been Hi Res CAP CT w/contrast. I am just changing to less CTs now because I am 7 years out from last confirmed met.
For those 7 years I was Ok to get the CTs.

Cheers
CR