/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8754757]

Do CT scans cause cancer?

[Anonymous No.8754789]

>>8754757
CT is just a 3d xray so yes its possible but unlikely unless you fall asleep in one while its on.

Dont know why theyre still used instead of an MRI since MRIs use just magnets instead of radiation

[Anonymous No.8754801]

>>8754789
In short they are still used because of the cost of purchasing/running an MRI is higher than a CT, and they can charge just as much.

[Anonymous No.8754803]

>>8754757
I don't see how with CT scans having been given in the millions since 1980 and cancer rates not increasing. That's not perfect foolproof logic but it's pretty damn good.

>>8754789
MRIs take a long time, cost a lot, and some things are better imaged with a CT. MRI of the head will take like 15-30 minutes where CT of the head will take 10 seconds.

[Anonymous No.8754816]

>>8754803
>with CT scans having been given in the millions since 1980 and cancer rates not increasing
this + we are searching for cancer waaaaay more now with these scans where before it was pretty hard to diagnose.

[Anonymous No.8754829]

>>8754789
mri is expensive, slow and more difficult to interpret. It also cannot be used if there is any metal in the body, and is worse than ct for picking up many conditions.

[Anonymous No.8755879]

>>8754757
After all of the research we have ever done on here, the only people at any risk are small children under 5 years old who receive multiple scans in the same area. Long term exposure is what we care about when we're talking about cancer risk, and if you eat well, go for a jog every day, and don't get a CT scan every week of your damned life, I don't see how you'd be at any risk.

Even dental hygienists get thyroid cancer from giving dental x-rays for decades. It had nothing to do with the dose, just the fact they were being exposed to it for literally every week day of their lives for 10-30 years, or 3,650-10,950 days, almost consecutively. People don't get CT scans every day, week, month, or year. We just have no evidence that would point towards them being dangerous in the amount that people receive them.

What we do have though are fear-mongering articles and blog posts giving back of the envelope calculations using extrapolated data that we know doesn't make any sense biologically, to scare the shit out of people to buy their health & wellness e-book and supplements or whatever.

[Anonymous No.8755945]

>>8754757
No. Each scan will -very slightly- increase the risk of getting cancer. But a scan will not -directly- give you cancer.

[Anonymous No.8756226]

>>8755879
>Even dental hygienists get thyroid cancer from giving dental x-rays for decades. It had nothing to do with the dose, just the fact they were being exposed to it for literally every week day of their lives for 10-30 years, or 3,650-10,950 days, almost consecutively.

This is something nobody thinks about. You need a massive dose in the region of 100+ mSv instantaneously for us to have any incidence increase from a single dose. Otherwise, it comes from a chronic dose like from what dental hygienists are exposed to daily for years. They could be getting ~30 mSv just from working as a dental hygienist for ten years, and obviously around 100 mSv from thirty years.

[Anonymous No.8756338]

>>8754757
We don't know, but probably not.

[Anonymous No.8756374]

>>8756338
We do know. They don't.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v112/n1/full/bjc2014526a.html

This french study showed that CT scans had no excess risks associated with them and accounted for WHY the scans were performed and the patients predisposing factors.

[Anonymous No.8756421]

>>8756374
oh shit, that's part of the Epi-CT study.

>Overall, the results reported here showed that studies estimating cancer risks after CT scans should consider the reason for these examinations to obtain convincing risk estimates. By extending the follow-up, the Cohorte Enfant Scanner should be able to provide more robust risk estimates in the future and to investigate whether a confounding bias related to the PFs persists at older ages. This cohort, as well as the UK study mentioned above, is participating in the Epi-CT collaborative project that includes nine national cohorts intended to obtain powerful results about cancer risks after CT scans and aims at enhancing strategies to optimise CT procedures. The Epi-CT project is focusing especially on exposure assessment and consideration of the uncertainties in dose estimation for risk analyses (Thierry-Chef et al, 2013). Valuable information (although for higher exposure levels) could also be obtained by studies on interventional procedures that use X-rays to treat benign conditions, especially as the indication for treatment is generally known with precision (Baysson et al, 2013). In clinical practice, all of those results should help to determine the situations in which the expected benefits do not outweigh the risks and clarify the information given to patients and parents. So far, no evidence has invalidated the risk predictions extrapolated from studies at high doses under the linear dose–response assumption. The promotion of the optimisation of CT procedures and the use, as often as possible, of non-irradiating techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging must continue, especially in paediatrics.

[Anonymous No.8756426]

>>8756374
>>8756421
I've been waiting for that to come out for so long. It really does look like the answer is no, too. This is kick ass, man.

>results: During a mean follow-up of 4 years, 27 cases of tumours of the central nervous system, 25 of leukaemia and 21 of lymphoma were diagnosed; 32% of them among children with PF. Specific patterns of CT exposures were observed according to PFs. Adjustment for PF reduced the excess risk estimates related to cumulative doses from CT scans. No significant excess risk was observed in relation to CT exposures.

>conclusions: This study suggests that the indication for examinations, whether suspected cancer or PF management, should be considered to avoid overestimation of the cancer risks associated with CT scans.

That's fucking awesome.

[Anonymous No.8756448]

>>8754757
no, but gps in the uk will tell you as as an excuse not to give you a scan

t. a guy who is dying of cancer but STILL undiagnosed

[Anonymous No.8756539]

>>8756448
fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.8756859]

>>8756448
lmao you again

call us back when you die

[Anonymous No.8756910]

Radiation dose at the hospital is a big deal, but as other anon's have mentioned, the killer is the long term exposure. Orthopaedic surgeons who use C-Arm x rays and fluoroscopy to guide procedures die of cancer at unusually high rates . If you ever meet one, look at their hands. They probably have no hair.

Also it really depends on what kind of CT scan. Abdominal CT scans deliver 10-20 mSv in a single go. Whereas dental x rays are like 0.005 mSv

t. Hopkins PhD

[walala No.8756920]

Hello, someone would help me solve this problem. Make a pseudocode that asks for a presentation note and calculate the note you need to

pass the exam

[Anonymous No.8756923]

>>8756920
wtf are you talking about

[walala No.8756996]

In other words how to make a pseudocode from this
4.48*70/100=3.136
4*3.36=0.864
0.864/.0/100=2.88

[Anonymous No.8757239]

They can. Though you're far more likely to develop cancer from exposure to cell phones, wi-fi, power lines, etc.

[Anonymous No.8757616]

>>8756374
all of these CT scan threads die in one post, lol

[Anonymous No.8757635]

>>8754757
I came back to /sci/ after a week of boycott.

Then I saw this thread.

[Anonymous No.8757639]

>>8757635
this one's not even that bad. These ct scan shitpost threads routinely get 200 replies

[Anonymous No.8757650]

>>8757639
not anymore. i'm a regular of these threads and >>8756374 sort of closed the book. the Epi-CT is what everyone was waiting for and that is part of it.


tl;dr
>Do CT scans cause cancer?

They don't.

Time to move on with my life. It was cool posting in these for the last ~8 months, but that's that.

[Anonymous No.8758145]

>>8754829
Good post. Also they actually use CT scans to do lots of procedures, as in they actually poke you with something, then put you in the CT scanner, pull you out, adjust the pokey thing, back in, etc.

I think I have had about 2 CT guided biopsies and a CT guided angiogram by now, though I try not to remember. I had a CT scan several times a week for well over a month. I am apparently past my maximum recommended lifetime CT exposure.

It was all for some Hodgkin's Lymphoma that went away with some chemo. I am sure if I get cancer again it will be due to the chemo, and not my very minor CT radiation exposure.