“Computed Tomography) uses Xrays to look at the liver. Triple phase contrast scans are usually conducted to look cancer. Doing one from time to time is low risk, but CT is not ideal for regular follow up in cirrhotic patients at high risk of liver cancer.”

They have really backed off with the CT scans with me and I now get by with ultrasounds. I understand that CT produces up to 200 times radiation of normal x-rays?

Risk benefit wise how do doctors weigh up whether another one is worth it?

Is having a large gap between them mean a reduction in risk, but there still is a cumulative effect?

J.

P.S.

for anyone reading this and still considering starting treatment, include these calculations in your thoughts – don’t wait for your liver to become cirrhotic.

Hello sabrecat,

Yes there is a small, but real risk that having a CT will give you cancer.

For an adult the risk is roughly 1:10,000 per year post exposure with the risk being cumulative so more scans (say 10) might make this 1:1000. This was the results of a really large Australian study into the risks:

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2360

This compares to a 3% 3:100 per annum risk of a cirrhotic patient getting cancer.

So the risk benefit analysis that HCC is relatively likely (for cirrhotics) and the chances of the scan doing harm are small. So we do the scan.

For a child, who has a CT of their brain there is a 1:500 risk of that giving them brain cancer, so, it is very rare that we would take that risk (we would MRI).

Patients don’t typically have the small risk of CT explained, but their doctor (if they are any good) will have considered the risk/benefit – it’s basically what we do all the time.