A week or two ago we had a discussion on radiation from all our tests, especially those of us who have also had cancer. I posted a link from Harvard.edu and found this today:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/hidden-dangers-medical-scans/story?id=27178551
Sherri
Thanks for posting this. I was the person who posted the discussion originally so any more info is welcome! I am not going to think about the amout I’ve had so far which I feel is considerable hence my hair loss but I’m going to be more careful going forward. When I questioned it at the time I was told they were trying to save my life. Well that is certainly true and I’m not questioning that. Just was wondering if anyone else was concerned. Thanks again for the link!
Yes, there are several of us that are. Not that we can do a lot about it, in some cases. Although I have heard of people here having angios yearly versus MRAs. Another nice tidbit I already knew and you probably do, too - all machines may not put out the same amount of radiation. It depends on how often they are calibrated, serviced, etc.
The Merck Manual Online...Radiation and Imaging ...lists from
x-ray chest 0.02 to (mSv) (skipped a # of other small x-ray)
CT- head 2
Barium enema 8 oral barium not noted...
CT -body (chest, abd, pelvis) 6-8
CORONARY Angiogram 7-15 Cerebral Angio not noted
PET scan 7 SPECT not noted
Bone scan 6.3
Hepatobiliary scan 2.1-3.1
Technetium sistimibi heart scan 9.4-12.8 re: radionuclides...have not studied...
Usually four angios are done for diagnostics; occasionally more...
One Angio: of Series 1 up to Series 9; each Series has up to 120 images...
In the Angio data (DICOM)...the radiation codes used:
SC: low dose exposure generally corresponding to fluoroscopic settings (e.g. prep of diagnostic quality image acquisition)... to
GR: high dose for diagnostic quality image acquisition (also called digital spot or cine)
And, have not yet found/learned which mSv #s support SC and/or GR...
Again...if SC / GR and mSv relates to common terms/verbiage:
angio: 1 X 7 or 15..soemwhere between
Series: 1 X 7 - 15.... or up to 9 X 7 or 15... or somewhere between mSv
Images:...120 X 7 or 15...or somewhere in between?
It is complex...all of our records vary...and we average 3-5 hours under angio rad, contrast dye and fluoroscopy...Plus all the drugs put into our systems at the time...and, which can vary dramatically by the quality of care...
RELATED: FLOUROSCOPY ...that stuff used in the imaging...
Can locate on FDA site; Wikipedia, and far more..
a new site: Patient radiation dose in diagnostic and interventional procedures for intracranial aneurysm: experience at a single center...PMID 25469098 (PubMed)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25469098 this is dated 2014 Nov...re: their center...
Wow, this is a little overwhelming but thanks so much for posting! I’m going to dig into it further when I can clear away some quiet time and see if I can decipher more from it. Thanks!
Wendy...you are more than welcome; because of my concern...I began asking questions on radiation 09/2011...and, have not secured any true (fully descriptive?) answers...
I meant to note above:
DICOM: Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine...so grand when met and maintained... it is the library/index system of what was done... well, some of us have high difficulty learning SC and GR...
Later...I will note data on "primary/original"...and, "derived/secondary"...images...overwhelms me..
Again...you are so welcome....and, prayers that it is good/right in helping you...
And, that you will share back what you have learned...I am a slow/slow learner...
Pat
I'm sure I had entirely too many CT scans due to a local neuro who found nothing and told me less. On the other side, did any of you play in those fluoroscopes at shoe stores when you were young? I did. It was so much fun to step up on that machine and see the bones in your feet. What we didn't know then!
I have never heard of such a thing - fluoroscopes at shoe stores? (I am not that young either). How funny. I do cringe everytime I think of all the tests I have had, especially bone scans, etc. while undergoing cancer treatment (especially after seeing Pat's list). Some of us should set off alarms at the airports!
Troy said:
I'm sure I had entirely too many CT scans due to a local neuro who found nothing and told me less. On the other side, did any of you play in those fluoroscopes at shoe stores when you were young? I did. It was so much fun to step up on that machine and see the bones in your feet. What we didn't know then!
I had a 7-hour coiling procedure in May of 2008. I understand that there was a semi-continuous, low-level radiation source applied in very close proximity to the surface of my head, to facilitate imaging during the course of the procedure. Beginning about 12 days after this, a large patch of hair in the vicinity of the radiation source began to fall out, and there was a two-week window in which I could just reach up and pull large wads of hair out with very little effort. I had a bald spot there for several months but it slowly filled back in over the course of a year.
Clearly I received a large dose of radiation - might have been 7 -10 rems. I made this estimate several years ago after a lot of reading on the subject. A nuclear power plant worker is allowed to received a total of 5 rems in a year (whole body exposure, via gradual, cumulative exposure). We receive 0.2-0.4 rems from the sun in an average year, but double this amount if we do a fair amount of flying on aircraft. The 50% mortality threshold at Hiroshima was approximately 100 rems, the average exposure of citizens approximately 1 mile from ground zero. Of course, you have to remember that in nuclear detonations, exposures are extremely intense, occurring over very short intervals. Still, you'd be surprised to learn just how many Japanese citizens who received high doses of radiation and got sick went on to live long lives and did not develop cancer.
In fact, if you dig into the facts about the Chernobyl accident, you will find that the number of deaths directly attributable to the accident - people who worked at the plant and received mega-doses - is something like 70. Greenpeace would like us to think that there will be 200,000 future deaths attributable to Chernobyl, but here almost 30 years later there's little evidence of any kind to support figures of this kind. And remember this was a grotesque accident in which a reactor blew up and spewed molten graphite everywhere - with radiation levels of up to 30,000 rems per hour.
It may sound as though I take radiation casually, but I do not. I'm an engineer with a physics background and an understanding of nuclear weapons and their effects. I take the subject of radiation seriously, but I also know that the anti-nuclear lobby has put a great deal of fear into the public mind to support their cause.
I sincerely hope I do not develop cancer, but I've come to the following conculsions: The human body tolerates and recovers from mild to moderate radiation doses and the vast majority of exposures in the medical environment do not lead to cancer. Not that we should let our guard down, we should always limit our exposure, but those of us who have survived aneurysms should relax and not live in fear. Ruptured aneurysms have a very high mortality rate - might be 50% at 48 hours. Contrast this with a rate of one cancer case per 2100 cases of medical procedure exposure (in which the average person received multiple doses from Xrays, CT scans, etc.). Surely this is down in the noise level of statistics, and if you think about it, many many more than 1 in 2100 will develop cancer from some other source. I probably have a 1 in 5 chance of developing some kind of cancer by the time I reach 75, and a similar probability of having a heart attack or getting seriously hurt in a car accident.
I had a Fischer Grade III aneursym almost seven years ago while on work travel in the Twin Cities. I received a lot of radiation over the course of several weeks in the hospital. I might have a 1 in 500 chance of developing cancer from the radiation exposure, but they took me from a 1 in 2 chance of dying via use of radiation during the surgery. So my thinking is: I'm glad to be alive and to hell with worrying about a little radiation.
I appreciate this perspective, David. Thank you for this thoughtful response.
Troy...thanks for your input here...I was a little girl when those were local...in a short time frame..
Way back then...my mommy told me "no"...and, I whined enough for an "ok - just once"...Later, I sometimes could quickly jump out of the car and run in before mommy...and get a 2-second look... jogging memory...we were not in seat belts either... easy for a little one to jump out of the car...
I have no memory of the term fluoroscopy...just x-rays...We were surprised when they were removed...the answers were like "re-arranging/changing layout"... I have no memory of any media coverage on those being stopped...by who/when...
Your note on it made me remember...in my location....it would have been late 1940's-early 1950's... Checked wiki and it notes 1920's - 1970's..USA, Canada, Europe... .
Troy said:
I'm sure I had entirely too many CT scans due to a local neuro who found nothing and told me less. On the other side, did any of you play in those fluoroscopes at shoe stores when you were young? I did. It was so much fun to step up on that machine and see the bones in your feet. What we didn't know then!
A large federal study was just published this past Friday which looked at the CT imaging of the heart versus other tests without radiation and the results were astonishing. The articles stated:
"But the study also wound up exposing how much medical radiation most patients like this - 4 million in the United States each year - are getting. Radiation can raise the risk of developing cancer, yet few doctors are choosing heart tests that do not require radiation, the study revealed.
"It's such a bad reflection on American medicine," said one independent expert, Dr. Eric Topol of the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California. "Look at how much radiation they gave these poor people," equivalent to 500 to 700 regular X-rays, he said. "That is despicable.""
The article about the study can be seen at: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEART_TESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
As I am about to undergo more tests for my heart to try to explain my breathlessness that I have had only since my annie coiling/stent, this really hits home for me. I had an echocardiagram right after the brain surgery, but my lung doctor now wants more tests on my heart.
Sherri
Thank you Pat for all your research on radiation. Besides all the medical tests we may go through, some areas of the country are also being exposed to environmental radiation through fracking.
patioplans said:
Wendy...you are more than welcome; because of my concern...I began asking questions on radiation 09/2011...and, have not secured any true (fully descriptive?) answers...
I meant to note above:
DICOM: Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine...so grand when met and maintained... it is the library/index system of what was done... well, some of us have high difficulty learning SC and GR...
Later...I will note data on "primary/original"...and, "derived/secondary"...images...overwhelms me..
Again...you are so welcome....and, prayers that it is good/right in helping you...
And, that you will share back what you have learned...I am a slow/slow learner...
Pat
Thank you for sharing this. I just turned 40, and turned down my PCP's recommendation of a mammogram, since I feel like my radiation exposure has been enough due to all of my CT scans and extensive dental work over the years. I'm going to get the test for the genetic component for breast cancer, and if that comes back negative, I don't think I'll be getting a mammogram anytime soon. I'm prepared for people to look at me like I'm nutso - but I'm not prepared to increase my exposure to a known cause of cancer.
Sarge...were you provided rad data/volume by your neuro-docs to assist you in making your decisions (if your condition allowed time for that...)
Was the volume noted on any of your records post-procedure?
I have been researching...several diff agencies/facilities...others may want to view: '
SIR (Society of Interventional Radiology); ACR (American College of Radiology) and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)...which does have specific patient/doctor info.
I found the latter, the easiest for me to read...then, I did wonder if that was because it was the third source...so I may have learned/remembered some terminology???
The data is so detailed, when a definition was given, most I had/have to look up some of those words to begin my comprehension...those words past "a, an, the"...
Sherri, I wish you well on your heart and hope your breathlessness is because you’re shoveling four feet of snow, wading through snow to feed the horses, etc. ;). If I remember correctly in the beginning, I did a stress test and a big scan, it was about 4-6 hours at the hospital. Then the first cardiologist did a cardio angiogram, it was followed up two years later with a second cardio angiogram. I was put on metoprolal for the tach. It is very difficult to explain that the beta blocker is to control rhythm not BP.
Oh and I thought of you this morning - Canadian Geese passed over the house heading North. There should be two more flocks in the next couple days. They are always my sign to get ready to plant. Then True Spring (no drastic fluctuations of temperature) for us will follow in a week or two.
I sometimes wonder about mammograms as well. However it was at my yearly mammogram at the age of 50 that my breast cancer was discovered. I do not have any genetic factors so heredity was not involved. Most cases of breast cancer do not have a genetic link unfortunately, so I still believe that mammograms are useful at this point. I had seven weeks of radiation therapy following surgery. So I am very concerned about future radiation. CT scans to follow a lung nodule for two years and now all this aneurysm stuff puts me way up there on the radiation exposure list!
Hi Patty. Unfortunately as both of us know, we cannot do without mammograms yet. My oncologist changed my mammos from 6 month to yearly after 6 years because of the radiation factor. I did find out a few weeks ago that there are now low rad ct scans available. I also have had ct scans for a lung nodule and evidently had ct scans accidentally scheduled at 2 different facilities this year. The original nodule was cleared this June only to find another nodule and one in my thyroid. So, another year of those. I then found out that the one appt. I didn't go on was on a low rad cat ct scan machine. I will be sure to book the low rad test next year.
Sarge, have you done anything about a mammo? I failed to have one until I was 45 - by that time there were suspicious bumps and just bumpiness in general. I was diagnosed with cancer, but I have been cancer free for 14 years. Even with the "increased risk" of any more rads for me, I will gladly have my mammo every year. It does save lives. There is also an alternative, but most insurance companies probably would not cover unless there was already a mammo and that is ultra sound. I had that prior to breast surgery, but it really did not give any additional info for them to go on.
Good luck - hard decisions we have to make these days. Let me know what you have decided. I'm sorry for the late reply,
Sherri
Proton Beam Therapy ... re: cancer treatment...anyone can search online for:
Mayo Clinic Proton Beam Therapy ...their new video on upgrades are impressive.
I am noting it here...as it displays the benefits in less radiation volume in cancer care.
This forum was begun for concerns about the radiation levels in the angiograms...and which vary so much based on the numbers for diagnosis, procedures, and, the numbers of angio follow-ups which may be needed.