why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

Hi friends,

Now we have heard the thundering herd of angry women protesting the new mammograph protocol change. The voice is loud and clear. However, we fail to have a test for the life-time cumulative radiation dosages you have gotten since your birth. Be the doses came from natural, environmental and medical. The new guideline supporters also point out that radiation from mammograms can be a cause for new cancer.

Doctors order new radiation generating tests without blinking an eye. I understand CT scan is a very bad radiation source. When confronted by my question on how much radiation I already got in my body, their eyes dazed and not a single doctor can even guess how much I already have gotten. Why can't they issue badges like those people working at the nuclear reactor sites? Whats appalling is that no one knows what is the limit. The Hiroshima data showed that every person is different in his or her maximum safe total dosages. On such an important issue, no one is taking this issue seriously. Yet, they cite this as a danger for mammograms.

I certainly have no answer to this but am furious on the medical experts who seem not to care.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

You made a very good point. I remember seeing a report about CT scans and radiation. Now it is possible to get CT scans and other major scans for all kinds of reasons even if a person has not offically been diagnosed with a disease. There are even facilities specifically for that purpose.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

Good point!!! Probably the test to measure cumulative radiation would include more radiation??!!! We should all be glowing in the dark.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

I think the recommendatin to wear radiation counting badges is an excellent one. With all the tech knowledge these days, they should be able one that would keep up with multiple patients at the time. Ann, you are one bright lady!

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

As an early stage bc patient who has had multiple CTs over time, I have posted before about the common sense need for tracking radiation exposure to each patient over time, using badges. If they can require rads techs to be monitored with badges for their exposure, they can track OUR exposure. And there is no excuse for not keeping count now that our records are computerized.

This linked article provides some helpful information, although it only provides estimates for sequential exposures by mammograms. Imagine how much more rads one gets through the use of rads for treatment in addition to periodic mammograms. It makes me wonder if perhaps in the long-term, I would have been smarter to choose breast removal instead of lumpectomy followed by rads tx followed by yearly mammos.

http://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/...rticle/469436/

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

good idea. how to we get it to happen? I've had severe side effects from the radiation given as cancer treatment alone. I tried to get someone to put my side effects down to note how many people have these side effects, they didn't seem the least interested but I think it's important. I had an artery 100% blocked, a heart attack, had to have angioplasty and stent put in and a lung full of fibrosis and basically useless. I'm not angry but I think it should be noted

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

Sarah,

Part of the problem is the specialization of medical care, and the emphasis on precautionary over-treatment as a rule.

Radiologists report the facts as they see them to the best of their ability and make recommendations about repeat exams based only on the exam they were asked to do. The decision-making with the patient is done by the patient's NPs or other providers, who have a more limited idea of just how much radiation is involved and no accurate count as to how much a patient has already had, for making their recommendations.

Radiation departments also are notorious for being backbone money-makers for institutions, and the bean counters like that.

I think concerns are being voiced by reputable large radiology programs. I just think they need more pressure from consumer groups and pressure for such sources as ASCO to be more proactive about publishing standards and guidelines for using computer technology to start keeping counts.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

I agree and as I said, I'm not upset after all I'm still here 11 years later and it looked really bleak 11 years ago when I had my recurrence. I think it's important to know about for younger people in particular.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

Several thoughts - for sure before breast cancer, It never occurred to me to worry or think about xray exposure.

When I first was diagnosed, in the stone ages, 1996, I was so burned after radiation that I had to wear duo-derm (artificial skin) for around 2 months. I definitely recall saying "I'm sorry, what CURES cancer?? Chemical poisoning and radiation burning?!!!" AND "What causes cells to go crazy and result in cancer? Oh, let's see, that would be radiation exposure and chemical poisoning? I guarantee that someday this treatment for cancer will be akin to blood-letting. Barbaric!"

About 3 or 4 years ago, my oncologist said she wanted to spread my PET/ct's out, to minimize radiation exposure, unless there was a reason to do sooner, I began every 4 months, then every 6 months and then went thru a period of time where I just couldn't be tortured and switched to about every 9 months.

Most recently, the radiation oncologist mentioned that she not only has to figure out the best exposure to kill the MF cancer, but that she also has to keep track of my life-long exposure. I was surprised to hear that she was tracking me as a whole human who has been radiated several different times in the past 20 years.

With regard to the cracker-jack Style Rads Exposure Ring, it seems like you should be able to buy one at your local Rite aid.

My personal conclusion is I didn't have a choice, or a better option at any time that I was exposed to rads, it was a fight at all costs to stay un-dead.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

SoCalGal,

I've sorta gotten to the Ancient History level myself (2002, at age 51). I agree with Sarah that because younger people may be more vulnerable to the early exposure and toxicity, I have concern about them in particular.

However, I don't understand why it is taking so long for any formal general guidelines to be in place for tracking our repeated exposure to rads from the very beginning. I'm glad to hear that at least one doctor seems to be aware and actively doing it.

As an Alaskan who was diagnosed initially in Alaska, and then seen in Seattle at a cancer center for mammos, MRI's and recommendations (with additional CTs and imaging in Alaska, and then eventually also breast radiation post-lumpectomy in California).... the total for cumulative exposure is a little harder to track, but in the best interests of the patient, I still believe it wouldn't be impossible to do it accurately. My providers never had a clue when I spoke with each one as to what my rads exposure over time had been.... and still don't.

They need to get on it. It has been 14 years since I was diagnosed with cancer, and I'm sure that in that time-frame, there have been plenty of care providers who completed advanced training to competently THINK about such things, who have also been diagnosed with cancer...

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

Very good points, AlaskaAngel indeed. At it's simplest form, adding up exposure is a math problem.

Re: why is there no test for cumulative radiation
 

I hear you and with early stage or systemic disease that might be reasonable. In my case it isn't like an extra scan is going to stop us from needing to see what is going on, we won't say she's had enough radiation exposure so let's hold off.

I have noticed that all of the therapies are fairly one-size fits all. Chemo they adjust for body weight or sometimes change because of side effects but not so often. Radiation seems to be even less flexible. My naturopathic onc did his residency in radiation oncology so he had some better insight into the discipline. He said some studies have shown that even when the skin reacts badly that some cancer cells can survive and the dosages are set to try to cause maximum cancer-killing with the treatment. The problem is that my cancer or your cancer might be more susceptible to rads than someone else's cancer and so these standard dosages might be total overkill in us.