黑料网

JAMA Network Open recently published a rebuttal comment from Mahadevappa Mahesh, MS, PhD, F黑料网, Chair of the 黑料网® Commission on Medical Physics, correcting a poorly supported claim that stated, “individuals with 3 to 4 lifetime CT studies have similar cancer risks to that of nuclear bombing survivors in Japan. 

The journal also published comments submitted by Donald P. Frush, MD, F黑料网, chair, Image Gently Alliance, and emergency medicine physicians, Jennifer M. Frush, MD, and Andrew Mittelman, MD.

In the comment, (select “COMMENTS” at top right of the article), Dr. Mahesh and commission members Cynthia H. McCollough, PhD, and Ehsan Samei, PhD, called this passage “misleading and unnecessarily alarming.

The medical physics experts added that, “some bomb survivors received very high effective doses (several hundred mSv or more, where an increased incidence of cancer has been shown) and some received negligible amounts (<5 mSv, where increased risk has not been shown). Thus, comparing head CT recipients to atomic bomb survivors across such a wide range of doses is meaningless without context.”

Frush, et al, took issue with the statement by the JAMA paper authors that, “the use of CTH in patients with AMS was very high, but the positive yield on those CTH studies was low.” Frush and colleagues wrote that, “interpretations and resultant messages consisting of misrepresentation of radiation risk, provider awareness of risk, as well as overutilization only serve to unnecessarily promote radiation angst and obscure the high value of medical imaging, even when normal.”