Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians

Abstract

Objective To assess the cancer risk in children and adolescents following exposure to low dose ionising radiation from diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans.

CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks

“…Two relevant epidemiological studies on low-dose cancer risk have recently been published by Pearce in the Lancet and Mathews et al in the BMJ and regarded British and Australian young subjects affected by leukaemia and other solid cancers [34,35]. Mathews et al compared the cancer incidence rates in individuals exposed to a CT scan more than 1 year before any cancer diagnosis with the incidence rates in unexposed individuals.…”

“…Mathews et al compared the cancer incidence rates in individuals exposed to a CT scan more than 1 year before any cancer diagnosis with the incidence rates in unexposed individuals. The study determined that ''the increased cancer incidence rates after CT exposure in these cohorts are mostly due to irradiation'' [35].…”

Both sides now: diagnostic imaging medical physics in two hemispheres

“…There is nothing more undermining to good radiation safety practice than the belief or suspicion "that it might be good for us after all." Whilst there is debate about the methodological detail, recent papers using a Big Data approach show for the first time a causal dose response relationship between radiation received from CT scans by children and cancer incidence [4,5]. The findings of 50-60 mGy tripling leukaemia and brain cancer risk, and 4.5 mSv resulting in a 24% increase in cancer and leukaemia incidence brings known deleterious effects into diagnostic imaging territory.…”

ALARA, Image Gently and CT-induced cancer

“…Although many radiology publications indicate that cancer risks from CT scans are extremely small, this is unfortunately not always the case [4,11,23,32,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42].…”

“…The first study was published by Pearce [32] in Lancet in 2012. The second was published by Mathews [42] in BMJ in 2013. Both these studies have flaws [57].…”