Clinical studies examining the potential of CT exposure to cause cancer are under way, but it could be years or even a decade until the results are known. Even then, they may be inconclusive, say expert presenters at the ISCT symposium on MDCT.
Clinical studies examining the potential of CT exposure to cause cancer are under way, but it could be years or even a decade until the results are known. Even then, they may be inconclusive, say expert presenters at the ISCT symposium on MDCT.
Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, an assistant professor of clinical medicine in radiology at Columbia University, examined the current basis for concerns about radiation exposure from CT, noting that none of the research used to support these cautionary arguments involve CT radiation exposure itself. Instead they are drawn from studies examining survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, accidents involving nuclear power plant workers, and exposure of children to radiation in utero.
A half dozen clinical studies are now enrolling hundreds of thousands of patients in Canada, the U.K., Australia, Israel, Sweden, and France with the goal of looking specifically at whether CT is a cause of cancer. But the studies, one of which involves pediatric patients, will take many years to complete. And there is no guarantee the results will be definitive.
“But it is still important that we do such studies because each additional study provides us with new information and a more complete picture of the issues that we are dealing with,” Einstein said.
In the meantime, the CT community and public will be left with only circumstantial data to make or break the connection between CT exams and cancer, a prospect that concerns Cynthia H. McCollough, Ph.D., director of the CT Clinical Innovation Center at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.
Some patients are making bad decisions about their healthcare because of their unjustified fear of CT radiation, McCollough said, promulgated by a flawed base of research data. Despite 60 years of studying the Hiroshima data, for example, no definitive conclusions have yet been made about the cancer risk at doses commonly encountered during CT studies.
“When people say we just don't know what's happening, I disagree,” she said. “We know that it is not a big effect . If it is an effect at all, it is a really small effect.”
McCollough has a simple solution to the debate over radiation dose and CT, as it relates to deciding whether to schedule an exam.
“If the CT is needed, do it,” she said. “And if it's not needed, don't do it.”
What is the Best Use of AI in CT Lung Cancer Screening?
April 18th 2025In comparison to radiologist assessment, the use of AI to pre-screen patients with low-dose CT lung cancer screening provided a 12 percent reduction in mean interpretation time with a slight increase in specificity and a slight decrease in the recall rate, according to new research.
The Reading Room: Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Cancer Screenings, and COVID-19
November 3rd 2020In this podcast episode, Dr. Shalom Kalnicki, from Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, discusses the disparities minority patients face with cancer screenings and what can be done to increase access during the pandemic.
Can CT-Based AI Radiomics Enhance Prediction of Recurrence-Free Survival for Non-Metastatic ccRCC?
April 14th 2025In comparison to a model based on clinicopathological risk factors, a CT radiomics-based machine learning model offered greater than a 10 percent higher AUC for predicting five-year recurrence-free survival in patients with non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
Could Lymph Node Distribution Patterns on CT Improve Staging for Colon Cancer?
April 11th 2025For patients with microsatellite instability-high colon cancer, distribution-based clinical lymph node staging (dCN) with computed tomography (CT) offered nearly double the accuracy rate of clinical lymph node staging in a recent study.