Using this table you can say that the risk is about "one in ..."
Click on image above to enlarge.
Reference:
Smith-Bindman R, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 169(22):2078-88.
Free access to PDF article: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/22/2078
Awesome. And the risk of a fatal cancer is typically double that, correct?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the risk of cancer in each age group without a CT? I am more interested in knowing how CT increases their risk. If the risk of cancer from a ct of head of a female is 1 in 4300 was it 1 in 6000 before the ct?
ReplyDelete@ Graham: I believe that you mean that the risk of a fatal cancer is HALF the overall lifetime risk? I can't seem to find the reference for this, but I believe you are correct.
ReplyDelete@Steven: I re-read the article and the study actually looked at the increased risk that a CT ADDS to a patient's baseline risk. I added the link to the article in the post in case you wanted to read more. Excellent point made.
That's correct Michelle, this is the additional risk of cancer that one can attribute to a specific CT study. I think the usefulness of the paper and the PV (hopefully) is in educating ourselves, residents/med students and patients the very real risk that some of these CT's pose to their health. Great questions all around!!!
ReplyDeleteHans
Sorry, yeah, "half the risk," so "double" the number in the table. Damn you, NNRs! (Number Needed to Radiate)
ReplyDeleteGreat post. That table is going up in our ED as soon as I get a chance to print it out.
ReplyDeleteHave to thank Hans for thinking of summarizing the landmark article by Smith-Bindman, who is actually at my home site of UCSF!
ReplyDelete