Comments on: Whole body CT scans http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html medical blog Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:15:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html/comment-page-1#comment-69581 Anonymous Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:35:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html#comment-69581 The problem with whole-body CT scans is screening the worried well, for whom the scans can uncover all kinds of findings of unknown significance, but which demand intervention. "When medically indicated" is not necessarily the problem, though I'd like to see that application formally evaluated, too.<br/><br/>I can't comment on the radiation dose. The problem with whole-body CT scans is screening the worried well, for whom the scans can uncover all kinds of findings of unknown significance, but which demand intervention. “When medically indicated” is not necessarily the problem, though I’d like to see that application formally evaluated, too.

I can’t comment on the radiation dose.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html/comment-page-1#comment-69576 Anonymous Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:34:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html#comment-69576 The title of the article is so erroneous it's not even funny.<br/><br/>I am a radiation safety professional at a large teaching hospital, and while I definitely don't advocate these drive-through CT scans, the technology is a life saver when medically indicated. I take great issue with the underlying tone of the article that even occasional, medically necessary scans are a huge danger. The author of the article has grossly overstated facts about doses and risks from CT radiation. As technology improves (at lightning speed today), dose to the patient is reduced accordingly. <br/><br/>However - is it reckless for a patient to get 5 scans a year? If not indicated, absolutely. And shame on the physicians who write the orders. <br/><br/>As for the IRB issue, all IRB-approved protocols must state in the consent form what the risks of radiation exposure are. The protocols are reviewed by the Hospital's Radiation Safety Committee to ensure that patients or subjects get the lowest radiation dose attainable for that particular procedure. It is up to the patient or subject to read the form and understand the potential risks involved. The title of the article is so erroneous it’s not even funny.

I am a radiation safety professional at a large teaching hospital, and while I definitely don’t advocate these drive-through CT scans, the technology is a life saver when medically indicated. I take great issue with the underlying tone of the article that even occasional, medically necessary scans are a huge danger. The author of the article has grossly overstated facts about doses and risks from CT radiation. As technology improves (at lightning speed today), dose to the patient is reduced accordingly.

However – is it reckless for a patient to get 5 scans a year? If not indicated, absolutely. And shame on the physicians who write the orders.

As for the IRB issue, all IRB-approved protocols must state in the consent form what the risks of radiation exposure are. The protocols are reviewed by the Hospital’s Radiation Safety Committee to ensure that patients or subjects get the lowest radiation dose attainable for that particular procedure. It is up to the patient or subject to read the form and understand the potential risks involved.

]]> By: Maurice Bernstein, M.D. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html/comment-page-1#comment-69574 Maurice Bernstein, M.D. Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:34:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/12/whole-body-ct-scans.html#comment-69574 ...and some doctors are money hungry. ..Maurice. …and some doctors are money hungry. ..Maurice.

]]>