Abstract
Risks associated to ionising radiation from medical imaging techniques have focused the attention of the medical society and general population. This risk is aimed to determine the probability that a tumour is induced as a result of a computed tomography (CT) examination since it makes nowadays the biggest contribution to the collective dose. Several models of cancer induction have been reported in the literature, with diametrically different implications. This article reviews those models, focusing on the ones used by the scientific community to estimate CT detriments. Current estimates of the probability that a CT examination induces cancer are reported, highlighting its low magnitude (near the background level) and large sources of uncertainty. From this objective review, it is concluded that epidemiological data with more accurate dosimetric estimates are needed. Prediction of the number of tumours that will be induced in population exposed to ionising radiation should be avoided or, if given, it should be accompanied by a realistic evaluation of its uncertainty and of the advantages of CTs. Otherwise they may have a negative impact in both the medical community and the patients. Reducing doses even more is not justified if that compromises clinical image quality in a necessary investigation.
Key Points
• Predictions of radiation-induced cancer should be discussed alongside benefits of imaging.
• Estimates of induced cancers have noticeable uncertainties that should always be highlighted.
• There is controversy about the acceptance of the linear no-threshold model.
• Estimated extra risks of cancer are close to the background level.
• Patients should not be alarmed by potential cancer induction by CT examinations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ALARA:
-
As low as reasonably achievable
- BEIR:
-
Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation
- DDREF:
-
Dose and dose-rate reduction factor
- ERR:
-
Excess relative risk
- ICRP:
-
International Commission on Radiological Protection
- LAR:
-
Lifetime attributable risks
- LNT:
-
Linear no-threshold
- NCRP:
-
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
References
International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332
Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ et al (2011) Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology 258:889–905
Aroua A, Samara ET, Bochud FO et al (2013) Exposure of the Swiss population to computed tomography. BMC Med Imaging 13:22
Sodickson A (2012) Strategies for reducing radiation exposure in multi-detector row CT. Radiol Clin North Am 50:1–14
Teeuwisse W, Geleijns J, Veldkamp W (2007) An inter-hospital comparison of patient dose based on clinical indications. Eur Radiol 17:1795–1805
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000) UNSCEAR 2000 Report. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. United Nations, New York
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2001) NCRP Report 136. Evaluation of the linear nonthreshold dose–response model for ionizing radiation. NCRP, Bethesda
Hall EJ, Henry S (2004) Kaplan Distinguished Scientist Award 2003: the crooked shall be made straight; dose–response relationships for carcinogenesis. Int J Radiat Biol 80:327–337
Wall BF, Kendall GM, Edwards AA, Bouffler S, Muirhead CR, Meara JR (2006) What are the risks from medical X-rays and other low dose radiation? Br J Radiol 69:285–294
BEIR VII (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR VII Phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington
Xu XG, Bednarz B, Paganetti H (2008) A review of dosimetry studies on external-beam radiation treatment with respect to second cancer induction. Phys Med Biol 53:R193–R241
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1994) UNSCEAR 1994 Report to the General Assembly. Annex B. Adaptive responses to radiation in cells and organisms. United Nations, New York
Pierce DA, Preston DL (2000) Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 154:178–186
Pauwels EK, Bourguignon M (2011) Cancer induction caused by radiation due to computed tomography: a critical note. Acta Radiol 52:767–773
Cuttler JM, Pollycove M (2009) Nuclear energy and health: and the benefits of low-dose radiation hormesis. Dose Response 7:52–89
Nikjoo H, Khvostunov IK (2003) Biophysical model of the radiation-induced bystander effect. Int J Radiat Biol 79:43–52
Rzeszowska-Wolny J, Przybyszewsky WM, Widel M (2009) Ionizing radiation-induced bystander effects, potential targets for modulation of radiotherapy. Eur J Pharmacol 625:156–164
Rossi HH, Kellerer AM (1972) Radiation carcinogenesis at low doses. Science 175:200–202
Brenner DJ, Sachs RK (2006) Estimating radiation-induced cancer risks at very low doses: rationale for using a linear no-threshold approach. Radiat Environ Biophys 44:253–256
Tubiana M (2005) Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: the joint report of the Académie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Académie Nationale de Médecine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:317–319
Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Masse R (2006) Recent reports on the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation and its dose-effect relationship. Radiat Environ Biophys 44:245–251
Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL et al (1996) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, part 1. Cancer: 1950–1990. Radiat Res 146:1–27
Brenner DJ (2002) Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 32:228–231
Samei E, Li X, Chen B, Reiman R (2013) The effect of dose heterogeneity on radiation risk in medical imaging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 155:42–58
Brenner DJ (2008) Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol 81:521–523
Health Protection Agency (2011) Radiation risks from medical x-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. HPA-CRCE-028. Health Protection Agency, Didcot
Calandrino R, Ardu V, Corletto D et al (2012) Evaluation of second cancer induction risk by CT follow-up in oncological long-surviving patients. Health Phys Soc 104:1–8
Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Mettler FA, Menyaylo AN, Kashcheev VV (2012) Methodology for estimating cancer risks of diagnostic medical exposure: with an example of risks associated with computed tomography. Health Phys 103:732–739
Ivanov VK, Kashcheev VV, Chekin SY et al (2013) Estimation of risk from medical radiation exposure based on effective and organ dose: how much difference is there? Radiat Prot Dosimetry 155:317–328
Martin CJ (2007) Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 80:639–647
Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Apostoaei AI, Veiga LH et al (2012) RadRAT: a radiation risk assessment tool for lifetime cancer risk projection. J Radiol Prot 32:205–222
Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A et al (2013) The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr E1-E8
Perisinakis K, Seimenis I, Tzedakis A et al (2012) Triple-rule-out computed tomography angiography with 256-slice computed tomography scanners: patient-specific assessment of radiation burden and associated cancer risk. Invest Radiol 47:109–115
Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, Coburn JA, Bruining DH, McCollough CH (2013) Perspective on radiation risk in CT imaging. Abdom Imaging 38:22–31
Health Physics Society (2004) Radiation risk in perspective. Position Statement of the Health Physics Society: PS010-PS011
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505
Kim KP, Berrington de González A, Pearce MS et al (2012) Development of a database of organ doses for paediatric and young adult CT scans in the United Kingdom. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 150:415–426
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2010) UNSCEAR 2008 report to the general assembly. United Nations, New York
Ron E, Modan B, Boice JD Jr et al (1988) Tumors of the brain and nervous system after radiotherapy in childhood. N Engl J Med 319:1033–1039
Preston DL, Kusumi S, Tomonaga M et al (1994) Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. III. Leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Radiat Res 137:1950–1987
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2012) Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology 265:330–331
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360
Sodickson A (2013) CT radiation risks coming into clearer focus. BMJ 346:f3102
Baysson H, Etard C, Brisse HJ, Bernier MO (2012) Diagnostic radiation exposure in children and cancer risk: current knowledge and perspectives. Arch Pediatr 19:64–73
Krille L, Jahnen A, Mildenberger P et al (2011) Computed tomography in children: multicenter cohort study design for the evaluation of cancer risk. Eur J Epidemiol 26:249–250
Krille L, Zeeb H, Jahnen A et al (2012) Computed tomographies and cancer risk in children: a literature overview of CT practices, risk estimations and an epidemiologic cohort study proposal. Radiat Environ Biophys 51:103–111
Epidemiological study to quantify risks for paediatric computerized tomography and to optimise doses. Available via: epi-ct.iarc.fr. Last accessed 26 June 2013
Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al (2009) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 169:2078–2086
European Commission (2008) Radiation Protection No. 154. European guidance on estimating population dose from medical x-ray procedures. Available via: http://ddmed.eu/_media/background_of_ddm1:rp154.pdf. Last accessed 26 June 2013
Rehani MM (2009) Smart protection. IAEA Bull. 50. Available via: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull502/50205813137.html. Last accessed 26 June 2013
Rehani MM, Frush DP (2011) Patient exposure tracking: the IAEA Smart Card Project. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 147:314–316
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) AAPM Position Statement on Radiation Risks from Medical Imaging Procedures. Available via http://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP. Last accessed 26 June 2013
Stiller CA (2007) Childhood cancer in Britain: Incidence, survival, mortality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2012) CT scans are an important diagnostic tool when used appropriately. Available via http://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/CTScansImportantDiagnosticTool.asp. Last accessed: 26 June 2013
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2012) Report of the UNSCEAR. 59th session. May 21–25. General Assembly Official Records. 67th session, Supplement No. 46. United Nations, New York
Brix G, Nissen-Meyer S, Lechel U et al (2009) Radiation exposures of cancer patients from medical X-rays: how relevant are they for individual patients and population exposure? Eur J Radiol 72:342–347
Eschner W, Schmidt M, Dietlein M et al (2010) PROLARA: prognosis-based lifetime attributable risk approximation for cancer from diagnostic radiation exposure. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:131–135
Hendee WR (2013) Risk of medical imaging. Med Phys 40:040401
Eisenberg JD, Harvey HB, Moore DA et al (2012) Falling prey to the sunk cost bias: a potential harm of patient radiation dose histories. Radiology 263:626–628
Hendee WR, O’Connor MK (2012) Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 264:312–321
Recchia V, Dodaro A, Braga L (2013) Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging. Insights Imaging 4:647–653
Durand DJ, Mahesh M (2012) Understanding CT dose display. J Am Coll Radiol 9:669–671
Pandharipande PV, Eisenberg JD, Avery LL et al (2013) How radiation exposure histories influence physician imaging decisions: a multicenter radiologist survey study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1275–1283
Oikarinen H, Meriläinen S, Pääkkö E et al (2009) Unjustified CT examinations in young patients. Eur Radiol 19:1161–1165
Brenner DJ (2012) Medical imaging in the 21st century—getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med 11:943–945
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Candela-Juan, C., Montoro, A., Ruiz-Martínez, E. et al. Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used. Eur Radiol 24, 649–656 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3047-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3047-z