NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

Questions about coronary artery calcium CT scans

Posted By


In an issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine that published several studies pointing out the risk of cancer associated with overuse of popular CT scans, there is also a strongly worded editorial about CT scan screening for coronary artery calcium – something some journalists seem to have fallen in love with.

Dr. Patrick G. O’Malley of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences wrote the editorial. Excerpts:

“Any screening for coronary artery calcification (CAC) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still an unproven strategy to improve health outcomes. … there is ample reason to be wary of screening for CAC. First, we do not know whether it results in improved outcomes. … There are members of our own profession who are not only endorsing this practice but also profiting from it. In short, screening coronary CT, as currently implemented, is a costly practice with unclear benefit and theoretical potential net harm….

Since it seems that the medical community is unwilling to self-regulate in this probably enormously wasteful endeavor, it will require policy makers to be more forceful in reining in the madness, whether it be the Food and Drug Administration or financiers of health care. To be fair, there are strong logic, rationale, and even promise for this technology, but any further resources invested in this area should first go to large randomized clinical trials to prove its clinical impact. Those trials that use change in calcification scores as a marker for atherosclerosis progression should clearly be using longer intervals than 1 year (likely at least 3 years) for repeated measurements.”

We have seen many stories – especially on TV news – that have glamorized these scans – sometimes by having reporters undergo the scans themselves as part of the story. It will be interesting to see how much attention this editorial and these new studies get.

You might also like


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.