increased cancer risk with cardiac imaging
- gibbledygook
- Family Elder
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:00 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
There was somewhere an info that MSers contract other diseases more rarely than other people because they watch out for their eating habits, stress etc. So this might counteract. A bit.
Finally, in my country there is a saying that lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place. Though if it already stroke once...
Finally, in my country there is a saying that lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place. Though if it already stroke once...
- gibbledygook
- Family Elder
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:00 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: increased cancer risk with cardiac imaging
Here's Dr. Sclafani's post...HappyPoet wrote:There are a couple old threads here that discuss how one session of CT venography is equal to the exposure of approximately 100 X-rays. Sorry.
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-113211.html#113211
NHEDrSclafani wrote:the dose of an angiogram of the neck and chest generates about 5 millisievert, (mSy) which is a definition of dose absorbed.
Lets put that in perspective. The dose is about the same as 170 chest xrays. A head CT scan is 2 mSy, a chest CT 8mSy. Annual allowable occupation dose limit is 50 mSy. the LD50 is 5000 Sy.
Re: increased cancer risk with cardiac imaging
Thanks.NHE wrote:Here's Dr. Sclafani's post...HappyPoet wrote:There are a couple old threads here that discuss how one session of CT venography is equal to the exposure of approximately 100 X-rays. Sorry.
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-113211.html#113211
NHEDrSclafani wrote:the dose of an angiogram of the neck and chest generates about 5 millisievert, (mSy) which is a definition of dose absorbed.
Lets put that in perspective. The dose is about the same as 170 chest xrays. A head CT scan is 2 mSy, a chest CT 8mSy. Annual allowable occupation dose limit is 50 mSy. the LD50 is 5000 Sy.
Looks like it might be more toxic than previously thought and perhaps something to keep in mind in terms of considering repeat procedures over short periods of time. The cancer risks would rise considerably.
Something to definitely think about and take into consideration, for sure. We might not want to be considering venograms as routine, regular occurences of a couple procedures a year for an indefinite period as the risks of cancer would rise significantly.
Heart attack survivors who undergo scans and nuclear medicine tests tend to have higher rates of cancer than those with less exposure, a new Canadian study suggests.
The researchers, from the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, note that the use of cardiac imaging tests has exploded in recent years in both Canada and the U.S.
And yet, they point out, little attention has been paid to the cumulative effect of the radiation used in those tests, or on how they might be affecting cancer rates.
So for this study, which appears in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the researchers looked almost 83,000 patients who had a heart attack between 1996 and 2006, but who had no history of cancer.
About 77 per cent underwent at least one cardiac procedure using low-dose ionizing radiation within a year of the attack.
The tests included a heart imaging test called myocardial perfusion imaging, angiogram procedures called diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention, as well as a form of nuclear imaging called cardiac resting ventriculography All the tests involve exposing patients to low-dose ionizing radiation.
While most patients received only a low or moderate level of radiation, a substantial group were exposed to high levels through repeated tests -- and these patients tended to be younger, healthy men.
The study's lead author, Dr. Louise Pilote, a researcher in epidemiology, says her team found a distinct link between the cumulative exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and the risk of cancer.
Over the course of the study, the researchers found 12,000 incidents of cancers, with two-thirds of the cancers affecting the abdomen/pelvis and chest areas.
They calculated that for every 10 "milliSieverts" of ionizing radiation, there was a 3.0 per cent increase in the risk of cancer, the study found. (A milliSievert is commonly used to measure the radiation dose in diagnostic medical procedures.)
Since the risk for cancer grows with age, the researchers accounted for that in their calculations.
"These results call into question whether our current enthusiasm for imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction should be tempered," she and her co-authors conclude.
-
- Family Elder
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
Cancer Risk From Cardiac CT Overstated, Researchers Say
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112146.htm
There is also a recent study that concludes that radiographers have lower cancer rates due to regular radiation exposure which may have a beneficial effect. I can't locate it but here's one with the same conclusion
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/full/75/895/637
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112146.htm
There is also a recent study that concludes that radiographers have lower cancer rates due to regular radiation exposure which may have a beneficial effect. I can't locate it but here's one with the same conclusion
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/full/75/895/637
There are a few supplements that you can take which may reduce the risk perhaps. I bought every one before the procedure, hedging my bets.
I know that coenzyme Q10 was recommended on a page (which I can't find now but looked quite well informed) and vitamin A. I shall look out the others tomorrow. Fresh miso was recommended too which I eat every day anyway.
Well, who knows if they do any good at all? I find it everso slightly reassuring to be do something though..
I know that coenzyme Q10 was recommended on a page (which I can't find now but looked quite well informed) and vitamin A. I shall look out the others tomorrow. Fresh miso was recommended too which I eat every day anyway.
Well, who knows if they do any good at all? I find it everso slightly reassuring to be do something though..
Dr. J. Hewett http://www.pacificinterventional.com/physicians.html : “……In the question and answer period, Dr. Hewett stressed that we should get the fluoro time from our treatment doctors because of the potential radiation exposure. This time indicates how long we were exposed to the dye used during the procedure to assess blood flow. In the United States and Canada, it is the law to keep this time very short. Dr. Code mentioned one patient who had CCSVI treatment and had two hours of radiation exposure during the procedure, leading to all of her hair falling out. Dr. Hewett said this couldn't happen in the US or Canada because of the regulations. He didn't think patients need to be overly concerned about repeated angioplasties (meaning repeated exposure to this dye), mentioning that we probably are exposed to more radiation coming out of building materials used in our homes; however, it is important to keep this information in our medical records…..”
read/learn more: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 940&ref=mf
read/learn more: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 940&ref=mf
"MS" doesn't exist! - CCSVI dx Nov.2009, 1. angio LVJ & RVJ June 2010, 2. angio RVJ April 2011, January 2012 2. restenosis, reversed after ~1 year intake of high dosage Magnesium only. ThisIsCCSVIinMS: http://tinyurl.com/nwy5x58
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 1 Replies
- 1032 Views
-
Last post by NHE
-
- 0 Replies
- 1070 Views
-
Last post by Petr75
-
- 0 Replies
- 2317 Views
-
Last post by NHE
-
- 6 Replies
- 6762 Views
-
Last post by ElliotB
-
- 0 Replies
- 1379 Views
-
Last post by NHE
-
- 0 Replies
- 3440 Views
-
Last post by NHE
-
- 11 Replies
- 3409 Views
-
Last post by NHE
-
- 0 Replies
- 3165 Views
-
Last post by NHE
-
- 0 Replies
- 1461 Views
-
Last post by NHE