Literature DB >> 21742785

Cancer induction caused by radiation due to computed tomography: a critical note.

Ernest K J Pauwels1, Michel Bourguignon.   

Abstract

The considerable rise of computed tomography (CT) procedures over the past few decades has urged responsible authorities and researchers to evaluate the risk of carcinogenesis in the population in relation to the radiation dose delivered to the patient. A single patient undergoing CT may receive a radiation equivalent dose that varies between about 2 mSv (head ) to about 20 mSv (CT-based coronary angiography). Whereas the latter represents a substantial dose delivered to one patient it is, however, population-wise far below the area of the so-called low doses, i.e. 50 mSv in children and 100 mSv in adults. While at effective doses above 50 mSv the risk of cancer induction increases linearly with dose, this dose-response relation has not been demonstrated at doses below 50 mSv. Below 50 mSv no convincing epidemiological evidence for cancer risk exists. Calculations on this risk are based on scientifically questionable, if not invalid, extrapolations of data from higher doses. However, the failure to demonstrate that a risk of cancer exists does not mean that there is no risk. This paper summarizes the data mentioned in various articles from recent literature discussing cancer risks due to CT and puts the results of these studies in perspective of current scientific knowledge in the field of radiation protection. For this we follow the lead of the ICRP and UNSCEAR. Furthermore, we review the strategies and efforts of various national and international bodies and manufacturers of CT apparatus to lower the radiation dose to the patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21742785     DOI: 10.1258/ar.2011.100496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  8 in total

Review 1.  Effects of ionizing radiation on biological molecules--mechanisms of damage and emerging methods of detection.

Authors:  Julie A Reisz; Nidhi Bansal; Jiang Qian; Weiling Zhao; Cristina M Furdui
Journal:  Antioxid Redox Signal       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 8.401

2.  Level of knowledge on radiation exposure and compliance to wearing protective equipment: where do endourologists stand? An ESUT/EULIS survey.

Authors:  Lazaros Tzelves; Bhaskar Somani; Thomas Knoll; Guido Kamphuis; Kemal Sarica; C Seitz; E Liatsikos; Andreas Skolarikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Radiation risks associated with serial imaging in colorectal cancer patients: should we worry?

Authors:  Jeong Suk Oh; Jonathan B Koea
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Role of multidetector CT angiography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in redefining follow-up protocols after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Authors:  R Motta; L Rubaltelli; R Vezzaro; V Vida; P Marchesi; R Stramare; A Zanon; M Battistel; M Sommavilla; D Miotto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the postnatal evaluation of congenital lung malformations: a pilot study.

Authors:  Salvatore Zirpoli; Alice Marianna Munari; Alessandra Primolevo; Marco Scarabello; Sara Costanzo; Andrea Farolfi; Gianluca Lista; Elena Zoia; Gian Vincenzo Zuccotti; Giovanna Riccipetitoni; Andrea Righini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used.

Authors:  Cristian Candela-Juan; Alegría Montoro; Enrique Ruiz-Martínez; Juan Ignacio Villaescusa; Luis Martí-Bonmatí
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks.

Authors:  Stefano Colagrande; Daniela Origgi; Giovanna Zatelli; Andrea Giovagnoni; Sergio Salerno
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 8.  Are Risks From Medical Imaging Still too Small to Be Observed or Nonexistent?

Authors:  Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.658

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.