Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

CT and radiation-related cancer risk—time for a paradigm shift?

Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology volume 6, pages 738–740 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

The use of CT in the US has been increasing exponentially over the past decade. The greatest increases in CT use have been in pediatric diagnosis and adult screening. Unfortunately, there is little cognizance among health-care providers (or their patients) about the relative latent cancer risks associated with repetitive exposure to ionizing radiation. Given the exposure of a relatively high proportion of the population to these tests, it is incumbent on health-care providers to have an improved understanding of these risks and discuss them accordingly with their patients. The risks and benefits of these tests should be carefully analyzed and radiation exposure risk assessment should be conducted as part of the selection of diagnostic and screening tests. Appropriate discussion between physicians and patients of the risks associated with radiographic studies is warranted to inform patients of the longitudinal risks of subsequent testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ulrich, H. Incidence of leukemia in radiologists. N. Engl. J. Med. 234, 742–743 (1946).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fazel, R. et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medcial imaging procedures. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 849–857 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. IMV CT 2006 market summary report. IMV [online], (2006).

  4. Linton, O. W. & Mettler, F. A. Jr. National conference on dose reduction in CT with an emphasis on pediatric patients. Am. J. Roentgenol. 181, 321–329 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner, D. J. & Georgsson, M. A. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 129, 328–337 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bach, P. B. et al. Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes. JAMA 297, 953–961 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brenner, D. J. & Elliston, C. D. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full body CT screening. Radiology 232, 735–738 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Little, M. P. Risk associated with ionizing radiation. Br. Med. Bull. 68, 259–275 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shope, T. B. Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy. Radiographics 16, 1195–1199 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 60 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1991).

  11. Löbrich, M. et al. In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 8984–8989 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Committee to Assess the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. The National Academies Press [online]

  13. Liedenbaum, M. H., Venema, H. W. & Stoker, J. Radiation dose in CT colonography–trends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocols. Eur. Radiol. 18, 2222–2230 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Katz, S. I., Saluja, S., Brink, J. A. & Forman, H. P. Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. Am. J. Roentgenol. 186, 1120–1124 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hausleiter, J. et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 301, 500–507 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Brenner, D. J. & Hall, E. J. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 2277–2278 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Preston, D. L. et al. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat. Res. 162, 377–389 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Preston, D. L. et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat. Res. 168, 1–64 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cardis, E. et al. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat. Res. 167, 396–416 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Einstein, A. J., Henzolova, M. J. & Rajagopalan, S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 298, 317–323 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee, C. I., Haims, A. H., Monico, E. P., Brink, J. A. & Forman, H. P. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231, 393–398 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Morcos, S. K. Prevention of contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity after angiographic procedures. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 16, 13–23 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR [online]

  24. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 149, 1–44 (2008).

  25. Berrington de Gonzales, A. & Darby, S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363, 345–351 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Slovis, T. L. & Berdon, W. E. Panel discussion. Pediatr. Radiol. 32, 242–244 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. American Medical Association. Informed Consent [online]

  28. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 n 15 (D. C. Cir. 1972).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    David A. Johnson

  2. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Clarian Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Paul R. Helft

  3. Division of Gastroenterology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Clarian Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Douglas K. Rex

Authors
  1. David A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul R. Helft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas K. Rex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, D., Helft, P. & Rex, D. CT and radiation-related cancer risk—time for a paradigm shift?. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 6, 738–740 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2009.184

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2009.184

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing