My new doctor seemed upset with me when I questioned getting a CT Scan of the kidneys after having two occurrences of superficial BC, along with two 6-week rounds of BCG. It's been a year since my last bout of BC and I'm clean. My previous doctor used to have me get an ultra sound of the kidneys yearly, but this one tells me that it's not as effective as a CT Scan nor is an MRI and she kind of got her back up like I was questioning her expertise, which I wasn't--I merely hoped I could get a test done with as little radiation as possible. The CT Scan is the only one of those tests that involves a certain amount of ionizing radiation. I did research on what a CT scan involves and it stated that there was a very slight chance of developing cancer from it or getting chromosomal damage. It also mentioned that one CT scan is like getting 3 years of background radiation, which is why I called up my doc to ask about another type of test. My new doctor says "they" recommend a CT scan of the kidneys once a year. Who are "they"?
My question is, are most doctors recommending this test or do some prefer the Ultra Sounds or MRIs? I looked up information on all 3 tests and it seems like the latest MRIs are just as good as a CT scan and no radiation.
I have no sysmptoms of anything wrong with my kidneys and doc said their would only be a slight chance of ever developing anything so why would I go the CT Scan route, if there's a also a slight chance of developing chromosomal damage or cancer with the test?
Also, if one is allergic to shell fish can they still get a CT Scan or do all CT scans involve iodine? If so then would allergic people have to get either an Ultra Sound or MRI instead?
Thank you kindly, I'm new here and really am happy to have found this place.