Hard facts about radiation from scans?

[Lisa]

Friends,

Do any of you have any hard facts (if they exist) about the effects of regular CT or PET scans on the body? Sometimes I wonder if they add to my problems. But I don't know how else to find my "always on the move" mets. At least the brain scan is an MRI, rather than radiation based.

Love and light,

Lisa

[Becky]

Lisa

CT scans are quite low in radiation in comparison to xrays. A CT scan gives you the same radiation that people receive from normal background radiation in a 2-3 year period (meaning that one CT scan gives you the amt of radiation you would get in 2 or 3 years of normal living (depending on where you live - some areas get much much more than this just from daily living).

A Pet scan gives even less radiation but it is harder to quantify because it is a radioactive substance versus a special xray. The half live of the isotope is 2.5 hours so in 5 hours, you only have about 1/4 of the substance left in you (which was a very small amount to begin with).

Pet scans are better than CT scans at picking up living tissue (ie: that the lesion the radiologist is seeing is active tumor versus just scar tissue).

Getting scanned, zapped or magnetized is fine if there is a reason and making sure you are NED or that tumors are shrinking (or growing) and to accurately ensure treatment is working (or needing a change) is appropriate reasons for scans and exposing yourself to low, safe levels of radiation.

Don't worry about this. Testing is ensuring appropriate medical treatment.

Warm regards,

Becky

I am not a radiologist, and likely Becky works in that field where I don't, so please keep that in mind.

My answer is "it depends". It isn't a perfect world. Managed care can mean a less expensive diagnostic procedure or technique is used more often (a procedure with radiation, as opposed to MRI).

While a drug given for imaging may be minimal and may leave the body in a very short period of time, any rads received by that method is cumulative and doesn't leave the body.

Radiation has the potential to cause cancer. So at least theoretically the more often one has radiation and the higher the dose, the greater the possibility there is that it could be a legitimate concern.

For example, if you have had procedures with radiation over time in different radiation facilities, can they answer the question "what is your current cumulative dose of radiation"?

I do agree with Becky in that radiation still has a real role in treating and tracking cancer and sometimes means getting rads as part of that. Why aren't we given personal radiation badges that keep count of the rads we receive, just like workers in the field of radiation?

AlaskaAngel

[Lisa]

EXCELLENT suggestion about the badges!


Love and light,

Lisa

[Lolly]

My onc made an interesting comment back when I was beginning treatment for primary disease, when we were discussing possible causes; he asked if I'd had a lot of x-rays? I said not to my knowledge, but it started me thinking about other sources of radiation exposure and how the cumalative doses have probably played a role in cancer developing.

<3,
Lolly

[Esther]

Interesting thread... this is something I have been wondering about for a while now. Whether the radiation from the testing might cause undesirable results of their own.

I have been careful to limit my scans, etc. to those times when they are truly needed.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think I'll try to research this and see what I can come up with.

I've been worrying about this as well. I found out that the maximum millisievert (mSv) you should get occupationally is 100 mSv over 5 years or 20 mSv per year. An abdomen CAT scan is 10 mSv, as opposed to regular chest x-ray which is 0.1 mSv per x-ray. Hence if you're getting two CAT scans a year you are at the max. A mammogram is another 0.7 mSv. One more thing to think about as though we don't have enough.

Best,
Monica

[StephN]

... of limiting to not more than 2 scan per year must be because he knows what the recommended max exposure should be. We did it monthly to verify that my treatment for aggressive liver mets was working, then backed off to every 4 months till NED and just after. I was actually NOT comfortable with going longer than the 4 months as my mets had come on so quickly! Now, this far out, I think I am more willing to trust my tumor markers and maybe scan even less often.

Don't think I ever had radiation exposure due to my job or where I lived since adulthood. But did grow up not far from a plutonium production facility in eastern Washington!

[CLTann]

I have personal experience on radiation. A very close relative of mine had non small cell lung cancer. She had the usual radiation treatment as well as chemo. After six month, she was found NED. Still, she died six month later because radiation has damaged her body. Her vital body fluid leaked inside her body like sieve. She had no cancer even at the end. As all of us know, radiation has a life time cumulative total limit. When that limit is exceeded, the person will be like the recent Russian spy murder case -- dies from excessive radiation. No medication can reverse the cumulative dosage.

[Heart Sutra]

ya' know,

The suggestion about badges to show accumulated radiation is such a good, common-sense idea I can't imagine it ever being done.


But these badges would need to measure the radio-activity of substances put directly into the blood-stream... neat trick.

This is a good topic, one I've wondered about as well. Ignorance, is not bliss. looks like I have more home-work to do.
I don't think polonium 210 (the russian spy's end) is something to worry about here, animal of a different color than medicinal radiation.

[AlaskaAngel]

Maybe we should start by asking medical personnel each time we go in for rads procedures what our total rads count is so far? (I've done this myself.)

I am adding the link I added to the post in response to mts and chelee, for consideration.

http://professional.cancerconsultant....aspx?id=38770

[Alice]

It would be nice if we could track the radiation exposure. The problem with the badges workers wear is that they only measure the scatter radiation that is not in the direct beam our problem is being exposed unnecessarily to the direct beam.

Alice

[Chelee]

I know I have had a REAL concern about over exposure to x-rays. I had so many x-rays from age five to 15 yrs old following my scoliosis. I was the 1st one in my family to get cancer. So it sure makes me wonder.

Now since my DX last year I have been exposed to far more radiation then I even want to think about. Which all the doctors and techs will start telling you how little risk you have from the radiation. That its such a small amount, & I shouldn't even think about it. (I know better.) I get this all the time when I bring it up to any doc, onc, tech, or even my dentist. I know these scans & tests are very necessary...but I sure wish there were better ways with NO radiation involved. I would hate to hear what my "total rads count" is for just this year. Scary thought! I wish they would use ultrasound, MRI and other less invasive scans any time they could. But due to costs...they won't.

Between all the x-rays, PET/CT scans and all test involving radioactive dyes...it sure worries me. (Tomorrow I have a mammo..more rads.)

Chelee

[AlaskaAngel]

It would be great if doctors actually knew everything about cancer and radiation when it comes to cost vs benefit, but there is still a lot that isn't certain, especially since our cancers, heredity, and individual health are all different. It is a work in progress. So some estimation goes into making difficult decisions about what to recommend for treatment and testing.

Being concerned about radiation and trying to find some accurate way to pin it down really is different than being scared about it and wishing it wasn't part of the therapy. But as long as no one is actively measuring and consistently tracking a representative group of us in terms of just what kinds and how much radiation we are getting and what the results are long-term, would anyone have a really meaningful grasp of how much we are actually getting? Or of how much is probably "too much" and the cause of more cancer?


Does anyone know of any reputable long-term studies specifically of cancer patients that include the use of chest x-rays, mammograms, CTs, bone scans, and therapeutic radiation that have been or are being performed to provide documented guidance for our doctors in providing our care?