Effective doses and risks from medical diagnostic x-ray examinations for male and female patients from childhood to old age

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward

Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.

Dose, dose, dose, but where is the patient dose?

The article reviews the historical developments in radiation dose metrices in medical imaging. It identifies the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of current-day metrices. The actions on shifting focus from International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Reference-Man-based population-average phantoms to patient-specific computational phantoms have been proposed and discussed. Technological developments in recent years involving AI-based automatic organ segmentation and 'near real-time' Monte Carlo dose calculations suggest the feasibility and advantage of obtaining patient-specific organ doses. It appears that the time for ICRP and other international organizations to embrace 'patient-specific' dose quantity representing risk may have finally come. While the existing dose metrices meet specific demands, emphasis needs to be also placed on making radiation units understandable to the medical community.

Estimation of maternal and foetal risk of radiation-induced cancer from a survey of computed tomography pulmonary angiography and ventilation/perfusion lung scanning for diagnosing pulmonary embolism during pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

While there are many papers on maternal and foetal radiation doses from computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) lung scanning examinations for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in pregnant patients, few have used clinical data to examine the patient lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of different cancer types. This paper aims to estimate the cancer risk from maternal radiation doses from CTPA and V/Q examinations and associated foetal doses.

METHODS

Dosimetric data were determined for 267 pregnant patients who received CTPA and/or V/Q examinations over 8 years. Organ and foetal doses were determined using software allowing patient size variations for CTPA and using two different activity-to-organ dose conversion methods for V/Q scans. The LAR of cancer incidence was estimated using International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) modelling including estimates of detriment.

RESULTS

Estimated total cancer incidence was 23 and 22 cases per 100,000 for CTPA and V/Q examinations, respectively, with detriment estimates of 18 and 20 cases. Cancer incidence was evenly divided between lung and breast cancer for CTPA with lung cancer being 80% of all cancer for V/Q. The median foetal doses were 0.03 mSv for CTPA and 0.29 mSv for V/Q. Significant differences in estimated foetal dose for V/Q scans were obtained by the two different methods used. The differences in dose between the modes of CTPA scan acquisition highlight the importance of optimisation.

CONCLUSION

Maternal cancer incidence and detriment were remarkably similar for each examination. Optimisation of examinations is critical for low-dose outcomes, particularly for CTPA examination.

Radiation exposure of patients during endourological procedures

PURPOSE

Considering the existing gaps in the literature regarding patient radiation dose (RD) and its associated risks, a systematic review of the literature on RD was conducted, focusing on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and ureteroscopy (URS).

METHODS

Two authors conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies on RD during endourological procedures. Two thousand two hundred sixty-six articles were screened. Sixty-five publications met the inclusion criteria using the PRISMA standards.

RESULTS

RD was generally highest for PCNL, reaching levels up to 33 mSv, 28,700 mGycm2, and 430.8 mGy. This was followed by SWL, with RD reaching up to 7.32 mSv, 13,082 mGycm2, and 142 mGy. URS demonstrated lower RD, reaching up to 6.07 mSv, 8920 mGycm2, and 46.99 mGy. Surgeon experience and case load were inversely associated with RD. Strategies such as optimizing fluoroscopy settings, implementing ultrasound (US), and following the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle minimized RD.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review analyzing RD, which was generally highest during PCNL, followed by SWL and URS. There is no specific RD limit for these procedures. Implementation of strategies such as optimizing fluoroscopy settings, utilizing US, and adhering to the ALARA principle proved effective in reducing RD. However, further research is needed to explore the factors influencing RD, assess their impact on patient outcomes, and establish procedure-specific reference levels for RD.

Towards the establishment of national diagnostic reference levels for abdomen, KUB, and lumbar spine x-ray examinations in Sri Lanka: a multi-centric study

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable doses (ADs) provide guidance to optimise radiation doses for patients undergoing medical imaging procedures. This multi-centre study aimed to compare institutional DRLs (IDRLs) across hospitals, propose ADs and multi-centric DRLs (MCDRLs) for four common x-ray examinations in Sri Lanka, and assess the potential for dose reduction. A prospective cross-sectional study of 894 adult patients referred for abdomen anteroposterior (AP), kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) AP, lumbar spine AP, and lumbar spine lateral (LAT) x-ray examinations was conducted. Patient demographic information (age, sex, weight, BMI) and exposure parameters (tube voltage, tube current-exposure time product) were collected. Patient dose indicators were measured in terms of kerma-area product (PKA) using a PKAmeter. IDRLs, ADs, and MCDRLs were calculated following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, with ADs and MCDRLs defined as the 50th and 75th percentiles of the median PKAdistributions, respectively. IDRL ranges varied considerably across hospitals: 1.42-2.42 Gy cm2for abdomen AP, 1.51-2.86 Gy cm2for KUB AP, 0.83-1.65 Gy cm2for lumbar spine AP, and 1.76-4.10 Gy cm2for lumbar spine LAT. The proposed ADs were 1.82 Gy cm2(abdomen AP), 2.03 Gy cm2(KUB AP), 1.27 Gy cm2(lumbar spine AP), and 2.21 Gy cm2(lumbar spine LAT). MCDRLs were 2.24 Gy cm2(abdomen AP), 2.40 Gy cm2(KUB AP), 1.43 Gy cm2(lumbar spine AP), and 2.38 Gy cm2(lumbar spine LAT). Substantial intra- and inter-hospital variations in PKAwere observed for all four examinations. Although ADs and MCDRLs in Sri Lanka were comparable to those in the existing literature, the identified intra- and inter-hospital variations underscore the need for dose reduction without compromising diagnostic information. Hospitals with high IDRLs are recommended to review and optimise their practices. These MCDRLs serve as preliminary national DRLs, guiding dose optimisation efforts by medical professionals and policymakers.

Characterizing imaging radiation risk in a population of 8918 patients with recurrent imaging for a better effective dose

An updated extension of effective dose was recently introduced, namely relative effective dose ( E r ), incorporating age and sex factors. In this study we extended E r application to a population of about 9000 patients who underwent multiple CT imaging exams, and we compared it with other commonly used radiation protection metrics in terms of their correlation with radiation risk. Using Monte Carlo methods, E r , dose-length-product based effective dose ( E DLP ), organ-dose based effective dose ( E OD ), and organ-dose based risk index ( RI ) were calculated for each patient. Each metric's dependency to RI was assessed in terms of its sensitivity and specificity. E r showed the best sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with RI (R2 = 0.97); while E DLP yielded the lowest specificity and, along with E OD , the lowest sensitivity. Compared to other metrics, E r provided a closer representation of patient and group risk also incorporating age and sex factors within the established framework of effective dose.

The scientific basis for the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model at low doses and dose rates in radiological protection

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was introduced into the radiological protection system about 60 years ago, but this model and its use in radiation protection are still debated today. This article presents an overview of results on effects of exposure to low linear-energy-transfer radiation in radiobiology and epidemiology accumulated over the last decade and discusses their impact on the use of the LNT model in the assessment of radiation-related cancer risks at low doses. The knowledge acquired over the past 10 years, both in radiobiology and epidemiology, has reinforced scientific knowledge about cancer risks at low doses. In radiobiology, although certain mechanisms do not support linearity, the early stages of carcinogenesis comprised of mutational events, which are assumed to play a key role in carcinogenesis, show linear responses to doses from as low as 10 mGy. The impact of non-mutational mechanisms on the risk of radiation-related cancer at low doses is currently difficult to assess. In epidemiology, the results show excess cancer risks at dose levels of 100 mGy or less. While some recent results indicate non-linear dose relationships for some cancers, overall, the LNT model does not substantially overestimate the risks at low doses. Recent results, in radiobiology or in epidemiology, suggest that a dose threshold, if any, could not be greater than a few tens of mGy. The scientific knowledge currently available does not contradict the use of the LNT model for the assessment of radiation-related cancer risks within the radiological protection system, and no other dose-risk relationship seems more appropriate for radiological protection purposes.

The DNA damage response to radiological imaging: from ROS and γH2AX foci induction to gene expression responses in vivo

Candidate ionising radiation exposure biomarkers must be validated in humans exposed in vivo. Blood from patients undergoing positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan (PET-CT) and skeletal scintigraphy (scintigraphy) was drawn before (0 h) and after (2 h) the procedure for correlation analyses of the response of selected biomarkers with radiation dose and other available patient information. FDXR, CDKN1A, BBC3, GADD45A, XPC, and MDM2 expression was determined by qRT-PCR, DNA damage (γH2AX) by flow cytometry, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels by flow cytometry using the 2', 7'-dichlorofluorescein diacetate test in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). For ROS experiments, 0- and 2-h samples were additionally exposed to UVA to determine whether diagnostic irradiation conditioned the response to further oxidative insult. With some exceptions, radiological imaging induced weak γH2AX foci, ROS and gene expression fold changes, the latter with good coherence across genes within a patient. Diagnostic imaging did not influence oxidative stress in PBMC successively exposed to UVA. Correlation analyses with patient characteristics led to low correlation coefficient values. γH2AX fold change, which correlated positively with gene expression, presented a weak positive correlation with injected activity, indicating a radiation-induced subtle increase in DNA damage and subsequent activation of the DNA damage response pathway. The exposure discrimination potential of these biomarkers in the absence of control samples as frequently demanded in radiological emergencies, was assessed using raw data. These results suggest that the variability of the response in heterogeneous populations might complicate identifying individuals exposed to low radiation doses.