Here is what is directly off of
www.fda.gov website (then click on radiation ct scans).
Uses
CT can help diagnose or rule out a disease or condition. CT has become recognized as a valuable medical tool, for:
- Diagnosis of disease, trauma, or abnormality
- Planning, guiding, and monitoring therapy
As in many aspects of medicine, there are risks associated with the use of CT. The main risks associated with CT are:
- An increased lifetime risk of cancer due to x-ray radiation exposure.
- Possible allergic reactions or kidney failure due to contrast agent, or “dye” that may be used in some cases to improve visualization.
- The need for additional follow-up tests after receiving abnormal test results or to monitor the effect of a treatment on disease, such as to monitor a tumor after surgical removal. Some of these tests may be invasive and present additional risks.
Under some rare circumstances of prolonged, high-dose exposure, x-rays can cause other adverse health effects, such as skin reddening (erythema), skin tissue injury, hair loss, cataracts, and potentially, birth defects (if scanning is done during pregnancy).
Radiation exposure is a concern in both adults and children. However, these concerns are greater for children because they are more sensitive to radiation and have a longer life expectancy than adults. As a result, accumulated exposures over a child’s lifetime are more likely to result in an adverse health effect. A child’s smaller size also has an impact on the radiation dose they receive. For example, if a CT scan is performed on a child using the same parameters as those used on an adult, an unnecessarily large dose will be delivered to the child. CT equipment settings (exposure parameters such as, x-ray tube current, slice thickness, or pitch) can be adjusted to reduce dose significantly while maintaining diagnostic image quality.
zufus (words now)- the huge key word above near the top was "help", for those whom are less than informed ct scans and other scans like bone scan, prostiscint, mri and others are less than totally definitive in cancers, and actually way less perfect than you might be told or lead to believe. Dr. Strum has pointed out on the internet PCa forums just how much money is wasted on alot of these scans, as they cannot detect minute amounts of PCa (aka. 'micro mets' or smaller clusters of PCa cells). Years ago it was pitched to patients that these scans were totally worthwhile and necessary and supposedly accurate. (John T. herein is a case in point of comparisons on various state of the art scans and which might be atleast superior to others). There are some scans like USPIO and past use of Combidex that have found PCa in lymphnodes or other areas that were absolutely not found on other scanning methods, this is factual. Doesn't mean these are perfect either, plenty of undefinitivy exists still.
You can have high risk and stats and get the all clear-clean scan signals from your doctor, it actually is almost meaningless. It means no 'known' cancer showed up or currently seen, does not mean you are clear and no cancer present. Evidences in case histories, progressions, failures, retestings later and phenomena called micro mets, which could linger anywhere or inside bone marrow and not be detected for years.
A friend of ours from H.W., Andrew (aka Ohio State) got a particular scan done with a contrast agent he had to take. Post scannings, he became violently ill and says he thought he might even die almost, it was so toxic to his system. His docs words- couldn't be from the fluid/scanning (although happened right afterwards), it is probably the flu you contacted. Andrew told me he has had the flu before and no way was this the flu, he also has contact with my onco-doc on occassion (even though out of state-Michigan), my onco-doc told him flat out it is possible your malady came directly from the fluid/agent scanning thing. (note the FDA mentions this plainly as a possible side effect....nice to see experts in effect lying to patients or covering up things...ignorance is pretty unexcuseable but could be the docs defense).
More money should be spent on additional pathology testings that could can be done and defining ones disease better (even targeted therapies on gene issues can be considered now), instead we waste money on these scans. Food for thought on what goes on in the medical world. Notice some of our brothern herein have had mutliple scans done and nothing found or false positives or errors. It is what it is.