he advent of computed tomography (ct) has revolutionized diagnostic radiology. Since the inception of CT in the 1970s, its use has increased rapidly. It is estimated that more than 62 million CT scans per year are currently obtained in the United States, including at least 4 million for children. 1 By its nature, CT involves larger radiation doses than the more common, conventional x-ray imaging procedures (Table 1). We briefly review the nature of CT scanning and its main clinical applications, both in symptomatic patients and, in a more recent development, in the screening of asymptomatic patients. We focus on the increasing number of CT scans being obtained, the associated radiation doses, and the consequent cancer risks in adults and particularly in children. Although the risks for any one person are not large, the increasing exposure to radiation in the population may be a public health issue in the future. C T a nd I t s Use The basic principles of axial and helical (also known as spiral) CT scanning are illustrated in Figure 1. CT has transformed much of medical imaging by providing three-dimensional views of the organ or body region of interest. The use of CT has increased rapidly, both in the United States and elsewhere, notably in Japan; according to a survey conducted in 1996, 2 the number of CT scanners per 1 million population was 26 in the United States and 64 in Japan. It is estimated that more than 62 million CT scans are currently obtained each year in the United States, as compared with about 3 million in 1980 (Fig. 2). 3 This sharp increase has been driven largely by advances in CT technology that make it extremely user-friendly, for both the patient and the physician. C om mon T y pe s of C T S c a ns CT use can be categorized according to the population of patients (adult or pediatric) and the purpose of imaging (diagnosis in symptomatic patients or screening of asymptomatic patients). CT-based diagnosis in adults is the largest of these categories. (About half of diagnostic CT examinations in adults are scans of the body, and about one third are scans of the head, with about 75% obtained in a hospital setting and 25% in a single-specialty practice setting. 1) The largest increases in CT use, however, have been in the categories of pediatric diagnosis 4,5 and adult screening, 6-13 and these trends can be expected to continue for the next few years. The growth of CT use in children has been driven primarily by the decrease in the time needed to perform a scan-now less than 1 second-largely eliminating the need for anesthesia to prevent the child from moving during image ac

The best available risk estimates suggest that pediatric CT will result in significantly increased lifetime radiation risk over adult CT, both because of the increased dose per milliampere-second, and the increased lifetime risk per unit dose. Lower milliampere-second settings can be used for children without significant loss of information. Although the risk-benefit balance is still strongly tilted toward benefit, because the frequency of pediatric CT examinations is rapidly increasing, estimates that quantitative lifetime radiation risks for children undergoing CT are not negligible may stimulate more active reduction of CT exposure settings in pediatric patients.

High doses of ionizing radiation clearly produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer induction. At very low radiation doses the situation is much less clear, but the risks of low-dose radiation are of societal importance in relation to issues as varied as screening tests for cancer, the future of nuclear power, occupational radiation exposure, frequent-flyer risks, manned space exploration, and radiological terrorism. We review the difficulties involved in quantifying the risks of low-dose radiation and address two specific questions. First, what is the lowest dose of x-or ␥-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risks in humans? The epidemiological data suggest that it is Ϸ10 -50 mSv for an acute exposure and Ϸ50 -100 mSv for a protracted exposure. Second, what is the most appropriate way to extrapolate such cancer risk estimates to still lower doses? Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology. This linearity assumption is not necessarily the most conservative approach, and it is likely that it will result in an underestimate of some radiation-induced cancer risks and an overestimate of others.

No abstract

No abstract

In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of CT scans performed, both in the US and the UK, which has fuelled concern about the long-term consequences of these exposures, particularly in terms of cancer induction. Statistics from the US and the UK indicate a 20-fold and 12-fold increase, respectively, in CT usage over the past two decades, with per caput CT usage in the US being about five times that in the UK. In both countries, most of the collective dose from diagnostic radiology comes from high-dose (in the radiological context) procedures such as CT, interventional radiology and barium enemas; for these procedures, the relevant organ doses are in the range for which there is now direct credible epidemiological evidence of an excess risk of cancer, without the need to extrapolate risks from higher doses. Even for high-dose radiological procedures, the risk to the individual patient is small, so that the benefit/risk balance is generally in the patients' favour. Concerns arise when CT examinations are used without a proven clinical rationale, when alternative modalities could be used with equal efficacy, or when CT scans are repeated unnecessarily. It has been estimated, at least in the US, that these scenarios account for up to one-third of all CT scans. A further issue is the increasing use of CT scans as a screening procedure in asymptomatic patients; at this time, the benefit/risk balance for any of the commonly suggested CT screening techniques has yet to be established.

No abstract

Over the twentieth century the discipline of radiation oncology has developed from an experimental application of X-rays to a highly sophisticated treatment of cancer. Experts from many disciplines - chiefly clinicians, physicists and biologists - have contributed to these advances. Whereas the emphasis in the past was on refining techniques to ensure the accurate delivery of radiation, the future of radiation oncology lies in exploiting the genetics or the microenvironment of the tumour to turn cancer from an acute disease to a chronic disease that can be treated effectively with radiation.