Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
CT scans on children 'could triple brain cancer risk' 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18349499

Quote:
Multiple CT scans in childhood can triple the risk of developing brain cancer or leukaemia, a study suggests.

The Newcastle University-led team examined the NHS medical records of almost 180,000 young patients.

But writing in The Lancet the authors emphasised that the benefits of the scans usually outweighed the risks.

They said the study underlined the fact the scans should only be used when necessary and that ways of cutting their radiation should be pursued.

During a CT (computerised tomography) scan, an X-ray tube rotates around the patient's body to produce detailed images of internal organs and other parts of the body.

In the first long-term study of its kind, the researchers looked at the records of patients aged under 21 who had CT scans at a range of British hospitals between 1985 and 2002.

Because radiation-related cancer takes time to develop, they examined data on cancer cases and mortality up until 2009.

Brain cancer and leukaemia are rare diseases.

'Significant increases'

The study estimated that the increased risk translated into one extra case of leukaemia and one extra brain tumour among 10,000 CT head scans of children aged under ten.

Dr Mark Pearce, an epidemiologist from Newcastle University who led the study, said: "We found significant increases in the risk of leukaemia and brain tumours, following CT in childhood and young adulthood.

"The immediate benefits of CT outweigh the risks in many settings.

"Doses have come down dramatically over time - but we need to do more to reduce them. This should be a priority for the clinical community and manufacturers."

CT scans are useful for children because anaesthesia and sedation are not required.

This type of check is often ordered after serious accidents, to look for internal injuries, and for finding out more about possible lung disease.

Regulations on their use in the UK mean CT scans should only be done when clinically justified - and the researchers said their study underlined that point.

Professor Sir Alan Craft, a co-author and leading expert in child health, said: "The important thing is that parents can be reassured that if a doctor in the UK suggests a child should have a CT scan, the radiation and cancer risks will have been taken into account.

"There's a much greater risk of not doing a CT scan when it's suggested.

"This study will push us to be even more circumspect about using it. We have much stricter rules here about using CT than in the United States, for example."

Dr Hilary Cass, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: "We have to take very seriously the link between repeated CT scans and increased risk of these cancers amongst children and young people.

"But with both tumours rare, the absolute risk remains low."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "The UK uses lower levels of radiation in CT scans than other countries.

"We also have clear regulations to ensure a CT scan is only carried out when clinically justified."


_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:30 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
In all honesty, I'm surprised this is news. Mainly because it's long been known that CT scans increase cancer rates. There has been a study (I forget the name) which showed that like-for-like, patients in America were more likely to get cancer and this was down to radiation exposure. Litigation means Americans are more "thoroughly" (ie overly and unnecessarily) investigated which means increased exposure and increase risk of developing cancer.

In the UK, the mentality has always been to investigate where appropriate and all appropriate imaging has to pass the IRMER regulations which limits the likelihood of this.

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:34 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 994
Reply with quote
BBC bored, and decides to scare the crap out of parents, leading to increased child deaths because cancer risks are increased from "titchy" to "3*titchy" versus getting a good diagnosis and treatment for a life-threatening head injury etc. :( A quiet word to doctors to double-check the importance of the scan as part of the procedures would have been a far better idea.

p.s. did you know that 50% of children who got the MMR vaccine are now autistic? :roll:


Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:19 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
Presumably the stats are balanced for patients who may have been precancerous? If that's actually a word. It doesn't seem unlikely that some symptoms leading to a scan may either be related to very early undetectable cancer stages, or to medical or environmental conditions that increase ones risk.

It's interesting that we already a use lower x-ray dosage than some other countries. Sounds like everything is under control already.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:28 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 6580
Location: Getting there
Reply with quote
Lol. I was thinking the same as JJ.

This is another one of those times where they are mixing up cause and effect and getting them the wrong way round.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3r40si

_________________
Oliver Foggin - iPhone Dev

JJW009 wrote:
The count will go up until they stop counting. That's the way counting works.


Doodle Sub!
Game Of Life

Image Image


Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:48 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
I think the evidence exposure to xrays can cause cancer is undisputed, especially with children who have faster dividing cells and a longer life expectancy. It's a question of how much exposure is significant, and whether the benefits out-way the risk. It's this statistical analysis which is often questionable.

Quick statistic off the internet: The average overall lifetime risk of developing an invasive cancer is 37.5% for women and 44.9% for men. The majority of cancers occur later in life and the average lifetime risk of dying from cancer is 25%.

Remember, you're all going to die from something (happy thoughts happy thoughts). As infectious and genetic diseases are being cured or treated with far greater success at reducing fatality than ever before in history, the remaining causes of death will increase as a percentage. Most people used to die before they were my age, before cancer and other age correlated problems would usually develop.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:13 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.