Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients’ awareness about radiation risks?

Patient's knowledge regarding radiation exposure from various imaging modalities: a pilot study

To determine patients' knowledge about ionising radiation used in diagnostic imaging and whether they were adequately informed about the procedure they were referred to. A cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital Merkur, Zagreb, Croatia during 2019-20. A questionnaire with 14 questions was given to patients in waiting rooms for imaging examinations. Statistical analysis was conducted using the standard software package. Chi-square with Yates correction was used to determine differences in patients' answers between those who received the explanation about the procedure and those who did not. The differences depending on the educational level were also evaluated. The survey was completed by 374 participants (200 women, 174 men) with a mean age of 55.45 ± 15.92 y. Of all patients, 8.63% had no formal education or only finished elementary school, 52.83% had finished high school and 38.55% had a college or a higher degree. The referring physicians informed 63.66% of participants about the radiological exam they were being referred to, and 226 thought that the given explanation was sufficient. Most patients knew that some radiological procedures use ionising radiation. Only 47.37% of respondents correctly identified MRI as a non-ionising method, whereas 37.40% of participants recognised chest X-ray as the modality with the lowest radiation dose. Higher-educated patients had better knowledge of radiological procedures and the potential risks. The study demonstrated suboptimal patients' knowledge about ionising radiation, and additional efforts in their education are needed.

Communicating radiation dose in medical imaging: How to best inform our patients?

Background

The newly adopted European directive DE59/2013 mandates adequate patient information in procedures involving ionising radiation. Patient interest in knowing about their radiation dose and an effective communication method for dose exposure remain poorly investigated.

Purpose

This study is aimed at investigating both patient interest in radiation dose and an effective method to communicate radiation dose exposure.

Material and methods

The present analysis is based on a multi-centre cross-sectional data collection involving 1,084 patients from four different hospitals ‒ two general and two paediatric hospitals. Anonymous questionnaires were administered, consisting of an initial overview of radiation use in imaging procedures, a patient data section, and an explanatory section providing information in four modalities.

Results

1009 patients were included in the analysis, with 75 refusing participation; 173 participants were relatives of paediatric patients. Initial information provided to patients was considered comprehensible. The information modality with symbols was considered the most readily understandable format by patients, with no appreciable differences in comprehension attributable to social or cultural background. The modality including dose numbers and diagnostic reference levels was preferred by patients with higher socio-economic background. The option 'None of those' was selected by one-third of our sample population, composed of four different clusters: female, over 60 years old, unemployed, and from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated a high level of interest amongst patients in knowing about radiation dose exposure. Pictorial representations were well understood by patients from a variety of different ages and education levels. However, a universally comprehensible model of communicating radiation dose information remains to be elucidated.

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

IMPORTANCE

Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patients' knowledge about medical radiation and related risks.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Survey respondents' basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues.

RESULTS

Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866). Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.03; P < .001) and having a higher educational level (intermediate vs low: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P < .001; high vs low: OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.09-3.43; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this survey suggest that patients undergoing medical imaging procedures have overall limited knowledge about medical radiation. Intervention to achieve better patient awareness of radiation risks related to medical exposures may be beneficial.

Awareness of radiation hazards in patients attending radiology departments

Evaluating the knowledge of patients attending radiology departments regarding ionizing radiation used in medical imaging and its associated hazards can provide knowledge of the patient's awareness level of the associated risk of the radiation used in medical imaging. The aims of this study were to evaluate the awareness of patients regarding medical radiation types used in medical diagnostic imaging and its influence on their decision to proceed with that procedure. Over an 8-months period, a total of 418 patients, 48% Men and 52% Women, presenting for diagnostic imaging in the department of radiology, completed a 15-point questionnaire. The questionnaire included demographic and radiation awareness sections. Less than 32% of the participants had a potential risk of radiation explained by the doctor before the procedure. 59% of the participants expressed that the potential risk of radiation makes them anxious; less than about 25% of the participants showed that the potential risk of radiation affects their decision to have the procedure. Overall, the data collected from this survey indicate that there is a lack of information about radiation risk provided to the patients prior to the diagnostic procedure. Efforts should be made to ensure that patients receiving multiple medical imaging tests are aware of the radiation they are receiving.

A three-dimensional measurement method on MR arthrography of the hip to classify femoro-acetabular impingement

PURPOSE

(1) To investigate correlations between different types of FAI and the ratio of acetabular volume (AV) to femoral head volume (FV) on MR arthrography. (2) To assess 2D/3D measurements in identifying different types of FAI by means of cut-off values of AV/FV ratio (AFR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Alpha angle, cranial acetabular version, acetabular depth, lateral center edge angle, AV, and FV of 52 hip MR arthrography were measured. ANOVA test correlated different types of FAI with AFR. ROC curves classified FAI by cut-off values of AFR. Accuracy of 2D/3D measurements was calculated.

RESULTS

ANOVA test showed a significant difference of AFR (p value < 0.001) among the three types of FAI. The mean values of AFR were 0.64, 0.74, and 0.89 in cam, mixed, and pincer types, respectively. Cut-off values of AFR were 0.70 to distinguish cam types from mixed and pincer types, and 0.79 to distinguish pincer types from cam and mixed types. Cut-off values identified 100%, 73.9%, and 55.6% of pincer, cam, and mixed types. 2D and 3D classifications of FAI showed accuracy of 40.4% and 73.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

3D measurements were clearly more accurate than 2D measurements. Distinct cut-off values of AFR discriminated cam types from pincer types and identified pincer types in all cases. Cam and mixed types were not accurately recognized.

Medical radiological procedures: which information would be chosen for the report?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to properly define the information regarding patient exposure to Ionizing Radiations in the radiological report, according to the European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (EU 2013/59 art.58(b)). For this purpose, we evaluated the results from other Member States EU 2013/59 transpositions and from Guidelines recommendation published by International Organizations involved in diagnostic radiology. A practical way for implementing art.58 is also traced.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dosimetric quantities, such as exposure, absorbed dose and effective dose which may be included in radiological report, were first analyzed; then, in order to define international state of art of Member States EU 2013/59 transposition, a Web research using French, English, Spanish and German key words was performed.

RESULTS

EU 2013/59 transposition for 5 Member States was reported. Especially regarding art.58, a European project reports that few European countries (11 of 28) have identified the dose metrics to be used in radiological report. Scientific organizations supporting clinical radiologists and medical physicists have published Guidelines reporting parameters useful to quantify the radiation output and to assess patient dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research revealed that there is not a shared interpretation of patient exposure information to be included in radiological report. Nevertheless, according to scientific community, authors believe that the exposure is the most appropriate information that could be included in radiological report. Alternatively, but with more expensiveness, a risk index based on effective dose could be used. Moreover, the systematic exposure information recorded could be useful for dose estimates of population from medical exposure.

Practical recommendations for the application of DE 59/2013

The changes introduced with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom will require European Member States adapt their regulations, procedures and equipment to the new high standards of radiation safety. These new requirements will have an impact, in particular, on the radiology community (including medical physics experts) and on industry. Relevant changes include new definitions, a new dose limit for the eye lens, non-medical imaging exposures, procedures in asymptomatic individuals, the use and regular review of diagnostic reference levels (including interventional procedures), dosimetric information in imaging systems and its transfer to the examination report, new requirements on responsibilities, the registry and analysis of accidental or unintended exposure and population dose evaluation (based on age and gender distribution). Furthermore, the Directive emphasises the need for justification of medical exposure (including asymptomatic individuals), introduces requirements concerning patient information and strengthens those for recording and reporting doses from radiological procedures, the use of diagnostic reference levels, the availability of dose-indicating devices and the improved role and support of the medical physics experts in imaging.

Overdiagnosis and overimaging: an ethical issue for radiological protection

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyse the key factors that influence the overimaging using X-ray such as self-referral, defensive medicine and duplicate imaging studies and to emphasize the ethical problem that derives from it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we focused on the more frequent sources of overdiagnosis such as the total-body CT, proposed in the form of screening in both public and private sector, the choice of the most sensitive test for each pathology such as pulmonary embolism, ultrasound investigations mostly of the thyroid and of the prostate and MR examinations, especially of the musculoskeletal system.

RESULTS

The direct follow of overdiagnosis and overimaging is the increase in the risk of contrast media infusion, radiant damage, and costs in the worldwide healthcare system. The theme of the costs of overdiagnosis is strongly related to inappropriate or poorly appropriate imaging examination.

CONCLUSIONS

We underline the ethical imperatives of trust and right conduct, because the major ethical problems in radiology emerge in the justification of medical exposures of patients in the practice. A close cooperation and collaboration across all the physicians responsible for patient care in requiring imaging examination is also important, balancing possible ionizing radiation disadvantages and patient benefits in terms of care.