Projected Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007 | Radiology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Mettler  FA  JrThomadsen  BRBhargavan  M  et al.  Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results.  Health Phys 2008;95 (5) 502- 507PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Land  CE Estimating cancer risks from low doses of ionizing radiation.  Science 1980;209 (4462) 1197- 1203PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Berrington de González  ADarby  S Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries.  Lancet 2004;363 (9406) 345- 351PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Shrimpton  PCHart  DHillier  MCWall  BFFaulkner  K Survey of CT Practice in the UK, I: Aspects of Examination Frequency and Quality Assurance.  London, England HMSO1991;
5.
Brenner  DJHall  EJ Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.  N Engl J Med 2007;357 (22) 2277- 2284PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII—Phase 2.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2005;
7.
IMV Medical Information Division, IMV 2007 CT Market Summary Report.  Des Plaines, IL IMV Medical Information Division2008;
8.
Food and Drug Administration, National Evaluation of X-Ray Trends (NEXT): Tabulation of Graphical Summary of 2000 Survey of Computed Tomography.  Washington, DC Food and Drug Administration2007;
9.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 160: Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.  Bethesda, MD National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements2009;
10.
 ACRIN protocol 6664: the National CT Colonography Trial.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network Web site. http://www.acrin.org/TabID/151/Default.aspx. Accessed January 10, 2009Google Scholar
11.
Kim  KPEinstein  JLBerrington de Gonzalez  A Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk.  Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (13) 1188- 1194PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Stamm  GNagel  HD CT-expo—a novel program for dose evaluation in CT [in German].  Rofo 2002;174 (12) 1570- 1576PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Huda  WVance  A Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT.  AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188 (2) 540- 546PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Arch  MEFrush  DP Pediatric body MDCT: a 5-year follow-up survey of scanning parameters used by pediatric radiologists.  AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191 (2) 611- 617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Huda  WOgden  KM Computing effective doses to pediatric patients undergoing body CT examinations.  Pediatr Radiol 2008;38 (4) 415- 423PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Preston  DLRon  ETokuoka  S  et al.  Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998.  Radiat Res 2007;168 (1) 1- 64PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Ron  ELubin  JHShore  RE  et al.  Thyroid cancer after exposure to external radiation: a pooled analysis of seven studies.  Radiat Res 1995;141 (3) 259- 277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Preston  DLMattsson  AHolmberg  EShore  RHildreth  NGBoice  JD  Jr Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts.  Radiat Res 2002;158 (2) 220- 235PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
 Analytica 4.1.  Los Gatos, CA Lumina Decisions Systems Inc2008;
20.
Berrington de González  AKim  KPBerg  CD Low-dose lung computed tomography screening before age 55: estimates of the mortality reduction required to outweigh the radiation-induced cancer risk.  J Med Screen 2008;15 (3) 153- 158PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Einstein  AJHenzlova  MJRajagopalan  S Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography.  JAMA 2007;298 (3) 317- 323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Brenner  DJElliston  CD Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening.  Radiology 2004;232 (3) 735- 738PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Sodickson  ABaeyens  PFAndriole  KP  et al.  Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults.  Radiology 2009;251 (1) 175- 184PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Griffey  RTSodickson  A Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT.  AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192 (4) 887- 892PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
 What are the radiation risks from CT?  US Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html. Accessed February 26, 2009Google Scholar
26.
Little  MPWakeford  RTawn  EJBouffler  SDBerrington de González  A Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do.  Radiology 2009;251 (1) 6- 12PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation.  New York, NY United Nations2006;
28.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Low-Dose Extrapolation of Radiation Related Cancer Risk.  Oxford, England Pergamon Press2006;ICRP publication 99, contract 4
29.
Tubiana  MFeinendegen  LEYang  CKaminski  JM The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data.  Radiology 2009;251 (1) 13- 22PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Hunter  NMuirhead  CR Review of relative biological effectiveness dependence on linear energy transfer for low-LET radiations.  J Radiol Prot 2009;29 (1) 5- 21PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2008.  Atlanta, GA American Cancer Society2008;
32.
Van der Molen  AJVeldkamp  WJGeleijns  J 16-Slice CT: achievable effective doses of common protocols in comparison with recent CT dose surveys.  Br J Radiol 2007;80 (952) 248- 255PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Valentin  JInternational Commission on Radiation Protection, Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT): ICRP publication 102.  Ann ICRP 2007;37 (1) 1- 79, iiiPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Martin  CJ Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures?  Br J Radiol 2007;80 (956) 639- 647PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Hausleiter  JMeyer  THermann  F  et al.  Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography.  JAMA 2009;301 (5) 500- 507PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
 ACR appropriateness criteria.  American College of Radiology Web site. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/app_criteria.aspx. Accessed August 21, 2009Google Scholar
37.
American College of Radiology, ACR Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical X-Ray Imaging: Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards.  Reston, VA American College of Radiology2008;
38.
Amis  ES  JrButler  PFApplegate  KE  et al. American College of Radiology, American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine.  J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4 (5) 272- 284PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Goske  MJApplegate  KEBoylan  J  et al.  The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice.  AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190 (2) 273- 274PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
December 14, 2009

Projected Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland (Drs Berrington de González and Land); The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (Drs Mahesh and Bhargavan); Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea (Dr Kim); Research Department, American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia (Dr Bhargavan and Ms Lewis); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, New Mexico Veterans Administration Healthcare System, Albuquerque (Dr Mettler).

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071-2077. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440
Abstract

Background  The use of computed tomographic (CT) scans in the United States (US) has increased more than 3-fold since 1993 to approximately 70 million scans annually. Despite the great medical benefits, there is concern about the potential radiation-related cancer risk. We conducted detailed estimates of the future cancer risks from current CT scan use in the US according to age, sex, and scan type.

Methods  Risk models based on the National Research Council's “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation” report and organ-specific radiation doses derived from a national survey were used to estimate age-specific cancer risks for each scan type. These models were combined with age- and sex-specific scan frequencies for the US in 2007 obtained from survey and insurance claims data. We estimated the mean number of radiation-related incident cancers with 95% uncertainty limits (UL) using Monte Carlo simulations.

Results  Overall, we estimated that approximately 29 000 (95% UL, 15 000-45 000) future cancers could be related to CT scans performed in the US in 2007. The largest contributions were from scans of the abdomen and pelvis (n = 14 000) (95% UL, 6900-25 000), chest (n = 4100) (95% UL, 1900-8100), and head (n = 4000) (95% UL, 1100-8700), as well as from chest CT angiography (n = 2700) (95% UL, 1300-5000). One-third of the projected cancers were due to scans performed at the ages of 35 to 54 years compared with 15% due to scans performed at ages younger than 18 years, and 66% were in females.

Conclusions  These detailed estimates highlight several areas of CT scan use that make large contributions to the total cancer risk, including several scan types and age groups with a high frequency of use or scans involving relatively high doses, in which risk-reduction efforts may be warranted.

×