Understanding the harm of low‑dose computed tomography radiation to the body (Review)

Shi,Hai-Min; Sun,Zhi-Chao; Ju,Fang-He

doi:10.3892/etm.2022.11461

Understanding the harm of low‑dose computed tomography radiation to the body (Review)

Authors:
- Hai-Min Shi
- Zhi-Chao Sun
- Fang-He Ju
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310006, P.R. China, Department of Medical Imaging, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310006, P.R. China, Department of Respiratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310006, P.R. China
Published online on: June 23, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2022.11461
Article Number: 534

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) is a modern examination method whose radiation characteristics vary depending on the population groups, the part of the body being examined, and other implementation conditions. The use of CT has become increasingly widespread. However, there is a growing concern regarding the harm caused by CT radiation. The opinions regarding whether low‑dose CT can induce cancer differ. It is necessary to consider the research population, radiation characteristics, and different parts of the body being exposed to radiation before the application of radiation to ensure the knowledge used is scientifically sound and reasonable. Therefore, different studies have different opinions on whether low‑dose CT induces cancer, and not all physicians are aware of this. The present review article aimed to impart relevant insights and a correct understanding of the hazardous effects of low‑dose CT radiation on the human body and help physicians reduce unnecessary CT radiation exposure.

View Figures

View References

1	Yang G, Li W, Jiang H, Liang X, Zhao Y, Yu D, Zhou L, Wang G, Tian H, Han F, et al: Low-dose radiation may be a novel approach to enhance the effectiveness of cancer therapeutics. Int J Cancer. 139:2157–2168. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	López R, García-Talavera M, Pardo R, Deban L and Nalda JC: Natural radiation doses to the population in a granitic region in Spain. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 111:83–88. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Psichoudaki M and Papaefthymiou H: Natural radioactivity measurements in the city of Ptolemais (Northern Greece). J Environ Radioact. 99:1011–1017. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Mc Laughlin JP: Some characteristics and effects of natural radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 167:2–7. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Sankaran Pillai G, Chandrasekaran S, Sivasubramanian K, Baskaran R and Venkatraman B: A review on variation of natural radioactivity along the southeast coast of Tamil Nadu for the past 4 decades (1974-2016). Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 179:125–135. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Hosoda M, Nugraha ED, Akata N, Yamada R, Tamakuma Y, Sasaki M, Kelleher K, Yoshinaga S, Suzuki T, Rattanapongs CP, et al: A unique high natural background radiation area-Dose assessment and perspectives. Sci Total Environ. 750(142346)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Sreekumar A, Jayalekshmi PA, Nandakumar A, Nair RRK, Ahammed R, Sebastian P, Koriyama C, Akiba S, Nakamura S and Konishi J: Thyroid nodule prevalence among women in areas of high natural background radiation, Karunagappally, Kerala, India. Endocrine. 67:124–130. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Omori Y, Hosoda M, Takahashi F, Sanada T, Hirao S, Ono K and Furukawa M: Japanese population dose from natural radiation. J Radiol Prot. 40:R99–R140. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Kendall GM, Little MP and Wakeford R: A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 97:769–781. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Meulepas JM, Ronckers CM, Smets AMJB, Nievelstein RAJ, Gradowska P, Lee C, Jahnen A, van Straten M, de Wit MY, Zonnenberg B, et al: Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans and subsequent cancer risk in the Netherlands. J Natl Cancer Inst. 111:256–263. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Lee KH, Lee S, Park JH, Lee SS, Kim HY, Lee WJ, Cha ES, Kim KP, Lee W, Lee JY and Lee KH: Risk of hematologic malignant neoplasms from abdominopelvic computed tomographic radiation in patients who underwent appendectomy. JAMA Surg. 156:343–351. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Feng ST, Law MW, Huang B, Ng S, Li ZP, Meng QF and Khong PL: Radiation dose and cancer risk from pediatric CT examinations on 64-slice CT: A phantom study. Eur J Radiol. 76:e19–e23. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Griffey RT and Sodickson A: Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 192:887–892. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Journy NM, Lee C, Harbron RW, McHugh K, Pearce MS and Berrington de González A: Projected cancer risks potentially related to past, current, and future practices in paediatric CT in the United Kingdom, 1990-2020. Br J Cancer. 116:109–116. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Kuo W, Ciet P, Tiddens HA, Zhang W, Guillerman RP and van Straten M: Monitoring cystic fibrosis lung disease by computed tomography. Radiation risk in perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 189:1328–1336. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Journy N, Rehel JL, Ducou Le Pointe H, Lee C, Brisse H, Chateil JF, Caer-Lorho S, Laurier D and Bernier MO: Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France. Br J Cancer. 112:185–193. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Lehrer S and Rosenzweig KE: Lung cancer hormesis in high impact states where nuclear testing occurred. Clin Lung Cancer. 16:152–155. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Dobrzyński L, Fornalski KW and Feinendegen LE: Cancer mortality among people living in areas with various levels of natural background radiation. Dose Response. 13(1559325815592391)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Du X, Wang J and Zhu B: The frequencies of x-ray examinations and CT scans: Findings from a sample investigation in Jiangsu, China. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 190:38–44. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Schultz CH, Fairley R, Murphy LS and Doss M: The risk of cancer from CT scans and other sources of low-dose radiation: A critical appraisal of methodologic quality. Prehosp Disaster Med. 35:3–16. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Viry A, Bize J, Trueb PR, Viry A, Bize J, Trueb PR, Ott B, Racine D, Verdun FR and LeCoultre R: Annual exposure of the Swiss population from medical imaging in 2018. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 195:289–295. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Masjedi H, Zare MH, Keshavarz Siahpoush N, Razavi-Ratki SK, Alavi F and Shabani M: European trends in radiology: Investigating factors affecting the number of examinations and the effective dose. Radiol Med. 125:296–305. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Nekolla EA, Schegerer AA, Griebel J and Brix G: Frequency and doses of diagnostic and interventional X-ray applications: Trends between 2007 and 2014. Radiologe. 57:555–562. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In German).
24	Wachabauer D, Mathis-Edenhofer S and Moshammer H: Medical radiation exposure from radiological and interventional procedures in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 132:563–571. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Bosch de Basea M, Espinosa A, Gil M, Figuerola J, Pardina M, Vilar J and Cardis E: CT scan exposure in Spanish children and young adults by socioeconomic status: Cross-sectional analysis of cohort data. PLoS One. 13(e0196449)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Bosch de Basea M, Salotti JA, Pearce MS, Muchart J, Riera L, Barber I, Pedraza S, Pardina M, Capdevila A, Espinosa A and Cardis E: Trends and patterns in the use of computed tomography in children and young adults in Catalonia-results from the EPI-CT study. Pediatr Radiol. 46:119–129. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Dreger S, Krille L, Maier W, Pokora R, Blettner M and Zeeb H: Regional deprivation and non-cancer related computed tomography use in pediatric patients in Germany: Cross-sectional analysis of cohort data. PLoS One. 11(e0153644)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	Pearce MS, Salotti JA, McHugh K, Kim KP, Craft AW, Lubin J, Ron E and Parker L: Socio-economic variation in CT scanning in Northern England, 1990-002. BMC Health Serv Res. 12(24)2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	Mettler FA Jr, Mahesh M, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Chambers CE, Elee JG, Frush DP, Miller DL, Royal HD, Milano MT, Spelic DC, et al: Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States: Procedure volume and effective dose for the period 2006-2016. Radiology. 295:418–427. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Rampinelli C, De Marco P, Origgi D, Maisonneuve P, Casiraghi M, Veronesi G, Spaggiari L and Bellomi M: Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: Secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis. BMJ. 356(j347)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Hoffman RM, Atallah RP, Struble RD and Badgett RG: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 35:3015–3025. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, Lammers JJ, Weenink C, Yousaf-Khan U, Horeweg N, et al: Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a Randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 382:503–513. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Hunger T, Wanka-Pail E, Brix G and Griebel J: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in smokers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 11(1040)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Heuvelmans MA and Oudkerk M: Appropriate screening intervals in low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 7:281–287. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
35	The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 37:1–332. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
36	Lakhwani OP, Dalal V, Jindal M and Nagala A: Radiation protection and standardization. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 10:738–743. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
37	Miller DL: Make radiation protection a habit. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 21:37–42. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
38	Boice J Jr, Dauer LT, Kase KR, Mettler FA Jr and Vetter RJ: Evolution of radiation protection for medical workers. Br J Radiol. 93(20200282)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
39	Biso SMR and Vidovich MI: Radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Thorac Dis. 12:1648–1655. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
40	Wagner JB: Radiation protection and safety in interventional radiology. Radiol Technol. 91:431–442. 2020.PubMed/NCBI
41	Seki Y, Fukushima Y, Ando M, Yarita K, Suto T and Tsushima Y: Exposure dose reduction for radiologists with combination of angular beam modulation and radiation protection drape in CT fluoroscopy: A phantom study. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 74:667–674. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In Japanese).
42	Dankerl P, May MS, Canstein C, Uder M and Saake M: Cutting staff radiation exposure and improving freedom of motion during CT interventions: Comparison of a novel workflow utilizing a radiation protection cabin versus two conventional workflows. Diagnostics (Basel). 11(1099)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
43	Lawson M, Kuganesan A, Parry G and Badawy MK: The efficacy of Radpad as a radiation protection tool in CT fluoroscopy guided lung biopsies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 191:328–334. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
44	Al Naemi H, Aly A, Kharita MH, Hilli SA, Al Obadli A, Singh R, Rehani MM and Kalra MK: Multiphase abdomen-pelvis CT in women of childbearing potential (WOCBP): Justification and radiation dose. Medicine (Baltimore). 99(e18485)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
45	1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 21:1–201. 1991.PubMed/NCBI
46	Li M, Du Q, Duan L, Yang X, Zheng J, Jiang H and Li M: Incorporation of residual attention modules into two neural networks for low-dose CT denoising. Med Phys. 48:2973–2990. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
47	Epstein L, Koch J, Riemer T, Haquin G and Orion I: An estimation of the exposure of the population of Israel to natural sources of ionizing radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 176:264–268. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
48	Wall BF, Kendall GM, Edwards AA, Bouffler S, Muirhead CR and Meara JR: What are the risks from medical X-rays and other low dose radiation? Br J Radiol. 79:285–294. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
49	Chen JX, Kachniarz B, Gilani S and Shin JJ: Risk of malignancy associated with head and neck CT in children: A systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 151:554–566. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
50	Berrington de Gonzalez A, Daniels RD, Cardis E, Cullings HM, Gilbert E, Hauptmann M, Kendall G, Laurier D, Linet MS, Little MP, et al: Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: Rationale and framework for the monograph and overview of eligible studies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2020:97–113. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
51	Prasad KN, Cole WC and Haase GM: Radiation protection in humans: Extending the concept of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) from dose to biological damage. Br J Radiol. 77:97–99. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
52	Costello JE, Cecava ND, Tucker JE and Bau JL: CT radiation dose: Current controversies and dose reduction strategies. Am J Roentgenol. 201:1283–1290. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
53	Stewart RD, Carlson DJ, Butkus MP, Hawkins R, Friedrich T and Scholz M: A comparison of mechanism-inspired models for particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Med Phys. 45:e925–e952. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
54	Ogbole GI: Radiation dose in paediatric computed tomography: Risks and benefits. Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 8:118–126. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
55	Su YP, Niu HW, Chen JB, Fu YH, Xiao GB and Sun QF: Radiation dose in the thyroid and the thyroid cancer risk attributable to CT scans for pediatric patients in one general hospital of China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 11:2793–2803. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
56	Brenner DJ and Hall EJ: Cancer risks from CT scans: Now we have data, what next. Radiology. 265:330–331. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
57	Shakeel O, Pace N, Chambers TM, Scheurer ME, Ganguly AA, Lupo PJ and Bunin GR: Medical radiation exposure and risk of sporadic retinoblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 67(e28633)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
58	Frija G, Damilakis J, Paulo G, Loose R and Vano E: European Society of Radiology (ESR). Cumulative effective dose from recurrent CT examinations in Europe: Proposal for clinical guidance based on an ESR EuroSafe Imaging survey. Eur Radiol. 31:5514–5523. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
59	Siegel JA, Sacks B, Pennington CW and Welsh JS: Dose optimization to minimize radiation risk for children undergoing CT and nuclear medicine imaging is misguided and detrimental. J Nucl Med. 58:865–868. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar