|
Home > Archive > Radiology > June 2006 > Ct scan radiation exposure question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Ct scan radiation exposure question
|
|
| stryped 2006-06-04, 9:22 am |
| x-no-archive:yes
I I have been having recurring fevers for two years. Doctor wants to do
a high resolution chest ct and a sinus ct. I am only 34. In my life I
have had 3 cts This will be my 4th. The other was an abdominal ct. I
also had some new test that diagnosed heart problems several years ago.
Last year due to a positive gallium scan I had a chest ct. It was
normal. SO My doctor wants to have another one done, "just in case".
I hear the radiation adds up after each one. because this will be my
4th am I at a greater rish for having something happen like cancer?
| |
| Andrew Kerr 2006-06-04, 9:22 am |
| stryped wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> I I have been having recurring fevers for two years. Doctor wants to do
> a high resolution chest ct and a sinus ct. I am only 34. In my life I
> have had 3 cts This will be my 4th. The other was an abdominal ct. I
> also had some new test that diagnosed heart problems several years ago.
> Last year due to a positive gallium scan I had a chest ct. It was
> normal. SO My doctor wants to have another one done, "just in case".
>
> I hear the radiation adds up after each one. because this will be my
> 4th am I at a greater rish for having something happen like cancer?
>
Yes, theoretically you would be at a greater risk. Is it a measurable
risk? No. Can it be estimated? Not really. There are SO many factors
that influence your chance of getting cancer that there is really no way
to predict the increase in risk from a diagnostic test.
Andrew
| |
|
| >From a technologist's standpoint (or any procedure for that matter) you
always have to think about the "risk vs. benefit" question.
Is the amount of radiation in this scan more harmfull than to have an
illness go undiagnosed? Most of the time, it's not. I work at a
hospital in washington, DC, and (for example) there are patients that
we scan every week for cancer follow up's, there are neuro patients
that may need to be scanned daily, all where the need of the exam
outweights the risk of radiation exposure.
another thing you have to remember, is that after small doses of
radiation, the body tends to regenerate itself at the cellular level.
When you hear about radiation causes of cancer, it's usually either
high doses of, or prolonged exposure to radiation.
to put it simply, in order for the level of radiation to become a
problem, you'd probably have to have a cat scan of your chest, abdomen
and pelvis, three times a week, for a couple months.
| |
|
| another thing that popped into my head.....
you're 34. granted that's not middle age or anything, but you're body
has stopped it's growth process. radiation mainly attacks cells that
are rapidly dividing (cancer cells, sperm cells, unborn fetus,
children, etc.) since you're body is not growing anymore, that also
decreases the amount of damage that small amount of radiation can do.
when a patient undergoes radiation therapy for cancerous tumors, the
focus of the radiation is directed towards the tumor. as with any kind
of radiation, there is what's called scatter radiation. that's the
dangerous part of radiation and what we as technologists try to reduce
the most. scatter radiation is formed when the primary x-rays interact
and pass through the tissues of the body. this form of radiation is
what can change the make-up of the cells or kill the cells around the
tumor. sometimes this can't be avoided. however, to do any real
damage to you, that would have to be a lot of radiation.
if you have any furthur questions, you can always contact your doctor,
you can contact a radiologist at any of your local hospitals, or feel
free to give me an email.
| |
| Dave S 2006-06-04, 9:22 am |
| stryped wrote:
> I hear the radiation adds up after each one. because this will be my
> 4th am I at a greater rish for having something happen like cancer?
>
Maybe.
| |
| stryped 2006-06-04, 9:22 am |
| x-no-archive:yes
Well, went to the hospital for my sinus/chest ct. They asked me if I
was allergic to anything. I said no but the last time I had a ct with
contrast, 20 minutes later my face turned red and started itching. I
took a benedril and it went away.
They said they would do it without contrast.
Is this as acurate for fever of unknown origion? Will it still show
lymphnodes?
smurf wrote:
> another thing that popped into my head.....
>
> you're 34. granted that's not middle age or anything, but you're body
> has stopped it's growth process. radiation mainly attacks cells that
> are rapidly dividing (cancer cells, sperm cells, unborn fetus,
> children, etc.) since you're body is not growing anymore, that also
> decreases the amount of damage that small amount of radiation can do.
>
> when a patient undergoes radiation therapy for cancerous tumors, the
> focus of the radiation is directed towards the tumor. as with any kind
> of radiation, there is what's called scatter radiation. that's the
> dangerous part of radiation and what we as technologists try to reduce
> the most. scatter radiation is formed when the primary x-rays interact
> and pass through the tissues of the body. this form of radiation is
> what can change the make-up of the cells or kill the cells around the
> tumor. sometimes this can't be avoided. however, to do any real
> damage to you, that would have to be a lot of radiation.
>
> if you have any furthur questions, you can always contact your doctor,
> you can contact a radiologist at any of your local hospitals, or feel
> free to give me an email.
|
| |
|
|