Estimated Radiation Risks Potentially Associated with Full-Body CT Screening

PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related cancer mortality risks associated with single or repeated full-body computed tomographic (CT) examinations by using standard radiation risk estimation methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated dose to the lung or stomach from a single full-body CT examination is 14–21 mGy, which corresponds to a dose region for which there is direct evidence of increased cancer mortality in atomic bomb survivors. Total doses for repeated examinations are correspondingly higher. The authors used estimated cancer risks in a U.S. population derived from atomic bomb–associated cancer mortality data, together with calculated organ doses from a full-body CT examination, to estimate the radiation risks associated with single and multiple full-body CT examinations.

RESULTS: A single full-body CT examination in a 45-year-old adult would result in an estimated lifetime attributable cancer mortality risk of around 0.08%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 3.2 in either direction. A 45-year-old adult who plans to undergo annual full-body CT examinations up to age 75 (30 examinations) would accrue an overall estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer mortality of about 1.9%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 2 in either direction.

CONCLUSION: The authors provide estimates of lifetime cancer mortality risks from both single and annual full-body CT examinations. These risk estimates are needed to assess the utility of full-body CT examinations from both an individual and a public health perspective.

© RSNA, 2004


  • 1 Food and Drug Administration. Full-body CT scans: what you need to know. DHHS Publication FDA (03)-0001. Available at: Accessed October 2003. Google Scholar
  • 2 Brant-Zawadzki M. CT screening: why I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:319-326. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Illes J, Fan E, Koenig BA, Raffin TA, Kann D, Atlas SW. Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. Radiology 2003; 228:346-351. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Holtz A. Whole-body CT screening: scanning or scamming? Oncol Times 2003; 25:5-7. Google Scholar
  • 5 Berland LL, Berland NW. Whole-body computed tomography screening. Semin Roentgenol 2003; 38:65-76. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Casola G, Furtado CD, Stamato S, Lee P, Dang D, Sani F. Whole body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P):317. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. CT: an increasingly important slice of the medical exposure of patients. Br J Radiol 1993; 66:1067-1068. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60, International Commission on Radiological Protection Oxford, England: Pergamon, 1991. Google Scholar
  • 9 Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 2000; 154:178-186. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality—1950–1997. Radiat Res 2003; 160:381-407. Google Scholar
  • 11 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Evaluation of the linear nonthreshold dose-response model for ionizing radiation Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2001. Google Scholar
  • 12 Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:13761-13766. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:289-296. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR V Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990. Google Scholar
  • 15 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Influence of dose and its distribution in time on dose-response relationships for low-LET radiations Washington, DC: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1980. Google Scholar
  • 16 Ullrich RL, Jernigan MC, Satterfield LC, Bowles ND. Radiation carcinogenesis: time-dose relationships. Radiat Res 1987; 111:179-184. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Howe GR. Lung cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with lung cancer mortality in the atomic bomb survivors study. Radiat Res 1995; 142:295-304. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fishman EK, Horton KM. What application should you offer in a whole body CT screening center? Available at: Accessed October 2003. Google Scholar
  • 19 Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Survey of CT practice in the UK: normalised organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques Harwell UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 1991. Available at: Accessed October 2003. Google Scholar
  • 20 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Uncertainties in fatal cancer risk estimates used in radiation protection Report 126. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 21 Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 2001; 28:1449-1454. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure of the population in the United States and Canada from natural background radiation NCRP Report 94. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1988. Google Scholar
  • 23 Thompson DE, Mabuchi K, Ron E, et al. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II. Solid tumors, 1958–1987. Radiat Res 1994; 137(suppl 2):S17-S67. Google Scholar
  • 24 Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 2004; 231:440-445. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001; 49:1-113. Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Sept 2004