In the 1940s to 1960s, children with an upper respiratory
illness were often thought to have an enlarged thymus gland (in the neck), and
were given some radiation therapy to settle it down. The thymus shrank after being
irradiated and the kids generally got better, so the practice continued. It didn't matter that this was not a real disease, or that the treatment was not
appropriate, or that the kids would have improved anyway; doctors did something and
the patients got better. That, and some cockamamie biological explanation, was
all the doctors needed. Well, that and some insurance to cover the medical
costs of the kids who got cancer as a result of the radiation.
This
study followed up children who had been irradiated for an enlarged thymus
in the 50s, about 40 years later. The increase in thyroid cancers was present
for all groups, right down to the lowest doses. The rate remained higher than
expected nearly 60 years later as reported by this study.
Unfortunately, radiation was given for many more conditions
around the head and neck of children, including enlarged tonsils and scalp
conditions such as tinea. The thyroid gland is known to develop cancer after
exposure to ionising radiation, particularly in children, where the risk gets
higher, the younger they are. This
study summarises the risks for children, and shows that the risk of
developing thyroid cancer after exposure exists even for very low doses of
radiation, and the risk remains elevated even at 40 years from the time of
exposure.
It is well
known that radiation treatment for cancer can cause later, different
cancers (like leukaemia and lung cancer), but in those cases, it is likely that
the benefits of the radiation outweigh the risk of later cancer. My problem
with the cancers caused from irradiating children with benign conditions is with
the decision making process. The patients in these cases either had conditions
that were self-limiting, treatable by other means, or non-existent (‘enlarged
thymus’). Not only was the thymus probably not enlarged (it is normally larger
in children), it didn’t cause any of the conditions it was blamed for (such as
asthma and sudden infant death). This didn’t stop some doctors at the time
suggesting that chest radiation therapy be given to all newborn children (the
next time some says that “prevention is better than cure”, think twice). Click here for a
historical overview.
The bottom line
The decision to use radiation therapy for benign conditions in
children is about as good an example of overestimating the benefits and
underestimating the harms as you can get, and with all the hallmarks of bad
treatment that we see today: confirmation bias, the false attribution of cause
and effect, herd instinct and a general lack of application of scientific
principles.
Good post.
ReplyDeleteI see a similar, modern parallel with the use of antibiotics for a self-limiting illnesses. Albeit, this probably won't contribute to cancer (maybe), but it can screw a lot of other things up that we hold dear.
Agree. Overuse of antibiotics, particularly for colds and flu has far reaching consequences, but it is driven by patients wanting them, doctors wanting to give them, and little restraint on giving them.
Delete