Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At Sea Level
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
---------------------------------------------------
Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
Background Radiation At Sea Level
Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201 Thallous
Chloride (with contaminants)
Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9 mrem
Tc-99m Sestamibi
Chest X-Ray PA -- .04 mSv or 4 mrem
Chest X-Ray PA + Lat -- .24 mSv or 24 mrem
Annual Background Radiation at Sea Level = 3 mSv or 300 mrem
<http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_stress_test>
Another set of figures:
Stress tests using radiological agents confer low long-term risk of cancer,
but patients undergoing such examinations often receive little or inaccurate
information about these risks. A sestamibi scan is approximately 12 mSv. A
thallium scan is approximately 25 mSv.
(For comparison, the annual background radiation per annum a person receives
is approximately 3 mSv.) A thallium scan corresponds the dose of 250 chest
x rays, or an extra cancer risk of about 1 in 16000 exposed patients (A. de
González). The lifetime risk of fatal cancer development is 4%/Sv or
0.004%/mSv or about 0.1% for a thallium scan. Therefore, frequent usage of
these tests has to balance the benefits against the risks of radiation.
1 mSv [millisievert] = 100 mrem [millirems]
<http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
<http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/radiation/dosim/res-centre/conversion/index_e.html>
<http://www.radiation-scott.org/radsource/2-0.htm >
Pete
study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
vs benefits basis. You should also ask questions of the physician who
ordered the test to make sure he feels it really needs to be done.
There is nothing wrong with bringing up your questions about radiation.
Andrew Kerr
I've already answered these questions for this guy. For some reason he
keeps asking them.
Andrew
D. Spencer Hines
misleading.
DSH
"Andrew Kerr" <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KaZTj.76514$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Physicians don't know the details. One admitted to me he hadn't known them
since he took his boards and crammed them into his noodle.
How about asking the guy who actually runs the teat -- the nuclear medicine
technician?
DSH
---------------------------
"Pete" <pete....@3dvolumetrics.net> wrote in message
news:574aa8c1-e3dc-4cb5...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines
But my interest goes far beyond that issue.
I need to know more of the technical details -- such as PA Chest X-Ray
equivalents and multiples of annual background radiation at sea level.
It's not sufficient to just say "I trust the doctor who says I need this
test."
DSH
D. Spencer Hines
Yes I fully understand that.
Physicians don't know the details. One admitted to me he hadn't known them
since he took his boards and crammed them into his noodle.
How about asking the guy who actually runs the test -- the nuclear medicine
technician?
I consider him to be the expert.
DSH
---------------------------
"Pete" <pete....@3dvolumetrics.net> wrote in message
news:574aa8c1-e3dc-4cb5...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The question to ask yourself is what is the risk of not having the
> study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
Andrew Kerr
> Does this look correct and clear?
>
> DSH
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
> Background Radiation At Sea Level
>
> Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201 Thallous
> Chloride (with contaminants)
No, Myoview is not the same as thallium. Myoview (tetrofosmin) is a
technetium-99m labeled product. Thallium-201 is a separate isotope.
Look up my previous post if you need too, I explained all this last time.
> Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9 mrem
> Tc-99m Sestamibi
Again, use google groups and look for my previous posts. I can't
remember off the top of my head if that value is correct, but it looks a
bit low. I'm not inclined to repeat the calculations.
> Chest X-Ray PA -- .04 mSv or 4 mrem
>
> Chest X-Ray PA + Lat -- .24 mSv or 24 mrem
I don't know what they're quoting for chest x-ray procedures these days.
> Annual Background Radiation at Sea Level = 3 mSv or 300 mrem
That looks about right.
You are going to get different values depending on your source. They
should all be in the same ballpark however.
I gave you a fairly exhaustive and detailed answer to these questions
the last time you asked them.
Andrew
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Andrew Kerr" <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DS4Uj.76615$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Right?
Cheers,
DSH
--------------------------------------------------------
Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
Background Radiation at Sea Level
Thallium Scan = 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201 Thallous
Chloride (with contaminants)
Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9 mrem
Tc-99m Sestamibi
Chest X-Ray PA -- .04 mSv or 4 mrem
Chest X-Ray PA + Lat -- .24 mSv or 24 mrem
Annual Background Radiation at Sea Level = 3 mSv or 300 mrem
<http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
Adam White
It's like pulling teeth, isn't it?
Adam White
D. Spencer Hines
So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
Radiation.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Imabug
> O.K.
>
> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> Radiation.
>
> DSH
I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
as a factor of 2 depending on size).
I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
comparing radiation doses though.
my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
cancer risk.
Eugene
D. Spencer Hines
news:b38911ce-54f4-4561...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> O.K.
>>
>> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
>> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
>> Radiation.
>>
>> DSH
>
> I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> as a factor of 2 depending on size).
Very interesting.
Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
counterintuitive.
> I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> comparing radiation doses though.
How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
> my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> cancer risk.
>
> Eugene
True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined may
want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
DSH
Pete
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The thing is.. for each patient and for each dose it will be
different. The only way to tell would be to meter the test
individually. There is no way to judge or guess what a test will do
with any degree of accuracy. This is why you are having trouble
getting an answer. That leaves only the risk vs benefit argument. The
one to contact for sure is the radiation physicist.. not a
physician... this may help http://www.rtstudents.com/Radiology_Radiation_Physics.htm
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Pete" <pete....@3dvolumetrics.net> wrote in message
news:834a04a6-a56f-4e0d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines
news:b38911ce-54f4-4561...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> O.K.
>>
>> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
>> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
>> Radiation.
>>
>> DSH
>
> I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> as a factor of 2 depending on size).
Very interesting.
Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
counterintuitive.
> I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> comparing radiation doses though.
How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
DSH
Imabug
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
The units of dose are absorbed energy per unit mass. More mass
exposed -> less dose
D. Spencer Hines
Thanks.
DSH
"Imabug" <euge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6f972be-4846-4ad8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
JohnQuincyAdams (JQA)
> Does this look correct and clear?
>
> DSH
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And
> Annual Background Radiation At Sea Level
>
> Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201
> Thallous Chloride (with contaminants)
>
> Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9
> mrem Tc-99m Sestamibi
>
Thallium Scan is NOT done with Myoview (Tetrofosmin), which is labelled with
Tc-99m.
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"JohnQuincyAdams (JQA)" <adams.j.q.at.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48354977$0$5249$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...