Probability of receiving a high cumulative radiation dose and primary clinical indication of CT examinations: a 5-year observational cohort study

What proportion of CT scan patients are alive or deceased after 10 years?

PURPOSE

When discussing radiation risks for patients who undergo many CT examinations, some question the risks, believing that most of these patients are already very sick and likely to die within a few years, thus negating worry about radiation risk. This study seeks to evaluate the validity of this notion.

METHODS

In this retrospective single large-hospital study, patients who received CT exams in 2013 were sorted into four cumulative effective dose (CED) groups: Group A (>0 to <10 mSv), Group B (10 to <50 mSv), Group C (50 to < 100 mSv), and Group D (≥100 mSv). The death rates of patients in each group were analyzed, up to December 2023.

RESULTS

36,545 patients underwent CT examinations in 2013 (mean age, 56 ± 20 years, 51.4 % men). Death rates for all dose groups peaked in the year of imaging or 1 year after. At one year after imaging, Group D had 6.7 times and Group C had 4.3 times the death rate of Group A. However, a significant portion of these patients are alive after 10 years, with 1324/2756 patients (48.0 %) in Group C and 282/769 patients (36.7 %) in Group D with the potential to face radiation effects.

CONCLUSIONS

While it is true that patients receiving relatively higher doses (≥50 mSv) are more likely to die within the first two years of receiving such doses, nearly one-third to half remain alive a decade after their CT scans, potentially facing the effects of radiation. This knowledge may help policymakers and practitioners.

Cumulative radiation exposure from multimodality recurrent imaging of CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention, and nuclear medicine

OBJECTIVES

To assess cumulative effective dose (CED) over a 4-year period in patients undergoing multimodality recurrent imaging at a major hospital in the USA.

METHODS

CED from CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention (FGI), and nuclear medicine was analyzed in consecutive exams in a tertiary care center in 2018-2021. Patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv were classified by age and body habitus (underweight, healthy weight, overweight, obese), as per body mass index percentiles < 5th, 5th to < 85th, 85th to < 95th, and ≥ 95th (age 2-19 years), and its ranges < 18.5, 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, and ≥ 30 (≥ 20 years), respectively.

RESULTS

Among a total of 205,425 patients, 5.7% received CED ≥ 100 mSv (mean 184 mSv, maximum 1165 mSv) and their ages were mostly 50-64 years (34.1%), followed by 65-74 years (29.8%), ≥ 75 years (19.5%), 20-49 years (16.3%), and ≤ 19 years (0.29%). Body habitus in decreasing occurrence was obese (38.6%), overweight (31.9%), healthy weight (27.5%), and underweight (2.1%). Classification by dose indicated 172 patients (≥ 500 mSv) and 3 (≥ 1000 mSv). In comparison, 5.3% of 189,030 CT patients, 1.6% of 18,963 FGI patients, and 0.19% of 41,401 nuclear-medicine patients received CED ≥ 100 mSv from a single modality.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of total dose from CT, FGI, and nuclear medicine of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv indicates major (89%) contribution of CT to CED with 70% of cohort being obese and overweight, and 64% of cohort aged 50-74 years.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Multimodality recurrent exams are common and there is a lack of information on patient cumulative radiation exposure. This study attempts to address this lacuna and has the potential to motivate actions to improve the justification process for enhancing patient safety.

KEY POINTS

• In total, 5.7% of patients undergoing multimodality recurrent imaging (CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention, nuclear medicine) incurred a dose of ≥ 100 mSv. • Mean dose was 184 mSv, with 15 to 18 times contribution from CT than that from fluoroscopically guided intervention or nuclear medicine. • In total, 70% of those who received ≥ 100mSv were either overweight or obese.

A New Algorithm for Automatically Calculating Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Contrast Image Quality Metrics: Proof-of-Concept and Agreement With Subjective Scores in Phantom and Clinical Abdominal CT

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to develop a proof-of-concept computer algorithm to automatically determine noise, spatial resolution, and contrast-related image quality (IQ) metrics in abdominal portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) imaging and to assess agreement between resulting objective IQ metrics and subjective radiologist IQ ratings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An algorithm was developed to calculate noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ parameters. The algorithm was subsequently used on 2 datasets of anthropomorphic phantom CT scans, acquired on 2 different scanners (n = 57 each), and on 1 dataset of patient abdominal CT scans (n = 510). These datasets include a range of high to low IQ: in the phantom dataset, this was achieved through varying scanner settings (tube voltage, tube current, reconstruction algorithm); in the patient dataset, lower IQ images were obtained by reconstructing 30 consecutive portal venous phase scans as if they had been acquired at lower mAs. Five noise, 1 spatial, and 13 contrast parameters were computed for the phantom datasets; for the patient dataset, 5 noise, 1 spatial, and 18 contrast parameters were computed. Subjective IQ rating was done using a 5-point Likert scale: 2 radiologists rated a single phantom dataset each, and another 2 radiologists rated the patient dataset in consensus. General agreement between IQ metrics and subjective IQ scores was assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. Likert scores were grouped into 2 categories, "insufficient" (scores 1-2) and "sufficient" (scores 3-5), and differences in computed IQ metrics between these categories were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The algorithm was able to automatically calculate all IQ metrics for 100% of the included scans. Significant correlations with subjective radiologist ratings were found for 4 of 5 noise (R2 range = 0.55-0.70), 1 of 1 spatial resolution (R2 = 0.21 and 0.26), and 10 of 13 contrast (R2 range = 0.11-0.73) parameters in the phantom datasets and for 4 of 5 noise (R2 range = 0.019-0.096), 1 of 1 spatial resolution (R2 = 0.11), and 16 of 18 contrast (R2 range = 0.008-0.116) parameters in the patient dataset. Computed metrics that significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" categories were 4 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, 9 and 10 of 13 contrast parameters for phantom the datasets and 3 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, and 10 of 18 contrast parameters for the patient dataset.

CONCLUSION

The developed algorithm was able to successfully calculate objective noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ metrics of both phantom and clinical abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, multiple calculated IQ metrics of all 3 categories were in agreement with subjective radiologist IQ ratings and significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" IQ scans. These results demonstrate the feasibility and potential of algorithm-determined objective IQ. Such an algorithm should be applicable to any scan and may help in optimization and quality control through automatic IQ assessment in daily clinical practice.

Accounting for radiation exposure from previous CT exams while deciding on the next exam: What do referring clinicians think?

PURPOSE

To obtain clinicians' views of the need to account for radiation exposure from previous CT scans and the advisability of a regulatory mechanism to control the number of CT scans for an individual patient.

METHODS

A convenience survey was conducted by emailing a link to a three-question electronic survey to clinicians in many countries, mostly through radiology and radiation protection contacts.

RESULTS

505 responses were received from 24 countries. 293 respondents (58%) understand that current regulations do not limit the number of CT scans that can be prescribed for a single patient in a year. When asked whether there should be a regulation to limit the number of CT scans that can be prescribed for a single patient in one year, only a small fraction (143, 28%) answered 'No', 182 (36%) answered 'Maybe' and 166 (33%) answered 'Yes'. Most respondents (337; 67%) think that radiation risk should form part of the consideration when deciding whether to request a CT exam. A minority (138; 27%) think the decision should be based only on the medical indication for the CT exam. Comparison among the 4 countries (South Korea, Hungary, USA and Canada) with the largest number of respondents indicated wide variations in responses.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of the surveyed clinicians consider radiation risk, in addition to clinical factors, when prescribing CT exams. Most respondents are in favor of, or would consider, regulation to control the number of CT scans that could be performed on a patient annually.

Comparison of patient effective doses from multiple CT examinations based on different calculation methods

The aim of this study is to compare effective dose (E) estimations based on different methods for patients with recurrent computed tomography (CT) examinations. Seventeen methods were used to determine the E of each phase as well as the total E of the CT examination. These included three groups of estimations: based on the use of published E, calculated from typical or patient-specific values of volume computed tomography dose index (CTDI_vol) and dose-length product (DLP) multiplied by conversion coefficients, and based on patient-specific calculations with use of software. The E from a single phase of the examination varied with a ratio from 1.3 to 6.8 for small size patients, from 1.2 to 6.5 for normal size patients, and from 1.7 up to 18.1 for large size patients, depending on the calculation method used. The cumulative effective dose (CED) ratio per patient for the different size groups varied as follows: from 1.4 to 2.5 (small), from 1.7 to 4.3 (normal), and from 2.2 up to 6.3 (large). The minimum CED across patients varied from 38 up to 200 mSv, while the variation of maximum CED was from 122 up to 538 mSv. Although E is recommended for population estimations, it is sometimes needed and used for individual patients in clinical practice. Its value is highly dependent on the method applied. Individual estimations of E can vary up to 18.1 times and CED estimations can differ up to 6 times. The related large uncertainties should always be taken into account.

The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging

Medical imaging professionals have an accountability for both quality and safety in the care of patients that have unexpected or anticipated repeated imaging examinations that use ionizing radiation. One measure in the safety realm for repeated imaging is cumulative effective dose (CED). CED has been increasingly scrutinized in patient populations, including adults and children. Recognizing the challenges with effective dose, including the cumulative nature, effective dose is still the most prevalent exposure currency for recurrent imaging examinations. While the responsibility for dose monitoring incorporates an element of tracking an individual patient cumulative radiation record, a more complex aspect is what should be done with this information. This challenge also differs between the pediatric and adult population, including the fact that high cumulative doses (e.g.,>100 mSv) are reported to occur much less frequently in children than in the adult population. It is worthwhile, then, to review the general construct of CED, including the comparison between the relative percentage occurrence in adult and pediatric populations, the relevant pediatric medical settings in which high CED occurs, the advances in medical care that may affect CED determinations in the future, and offer proposals for the application of the CED paradigm, considering the unique aspects of pediatric care.

Assessment of patients' cumulative doses in one year and collective dose to population through CT examinations

PURPOSE

To estimate percentage of patients undergoing multiple CT exams leading to cumulative effective dose (CED) of more than 25, 50, 75 and 100 mSv in one year and assess per capita and the collective effective dose.

METHODS

Data from a regional hospital network was collected retrospectively using radiation dose monitoring system at 6 facilities with 8 CT scanners. The data was analyzed to find number of patients in different dose groups, their age, gender, number of CT exams and exams needed to reach 100 mSv based on age groups.

RESULTS

In one year 43,010 patients underwent 75,252 CT examinations. The number of exams per 1000 population was 153. Further 27% of the patients were younger than 55- years and 15.9% of them were younger than 45-year-old. A total of 0.67% of patients received a CED > 100 mSv; 3.5% had CED > 50 mSv, 11.9% with CED > 25 mSv and the maximum CED was 529 mSv. The minimum time to reach 100 mSv was a single CT exam. Seven patients received > 100 mSv in a single CT exam. 0.36% of patients had 10 or more CT exams in one year and 3.8% had 5 or more CT exams. The mean CED was 12.3 mSv, the average individual effective dose was 1.1 mSv and the collective effective dose was 521.3 person-Sv.

CONCLUSIONS

The alarming high CED received by large number of patients and with high collective dose to population requires urgent actions by all stake holders in the best interest of patient radiation safety.

Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed?

This review summarises the current knowledge about recurrent radiological imaging and associated cumulative doses to patients. The recent conservative estimates are for around 0.9 million patients globally who cumulate radiation doses above 100 mSv, where evidence exists for cancer risk elevation. Around one in five is estimated to be under the age of 50. Recurrent imaging is used for managing various health conditions and chronic diseases such as malignancies, trauma, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, Crohn's disease, urolithiasis, cystic pulmonary disease. More studies are needed from different parts of the world to understand the magnitude and appropriateness. The analysis identified areas of future work to improve radiation protection of individuals who are submitted to frequent imaging. These include access to dose saving imaging technologies; improved imaging strategies and appropriateness process; specific optimisation tailored to the clinical condition and patient habitus; wider utilisation of the automatic exposure monitoring systems with an integrated option for individual exposure tracking in standardised patient-specific risk metrics; improved training and communication. The integration of the clinical and exposure history data will support improved knowledge about radiation risks from low doses and individual radiosensitivity. The radiation protection framework will need to respond to the challenge of recurrent imaging and high individual doses. The radiation protection perspective complements the clinical perspective, and the risk to benefit analysis must account holistically for all incidental and long-term benefits and risks for patients, their clinical history and specific needs. This is a step toward the patient-centric health care.

Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging

Millions of patients benefit from medical imaging every single day. However, we have entered an unprecedented era in imaging practices wherein 1 out of 125 patients can be exposed to effective dose >50 mSv from a single CT exam and 3 out of 10,000 patients undergoing CT exams could potentially receive cumulative effective doses > 100 mSv in a single day. Recurrent imaging with CT, fluoroscopically guided interventions, and hybrid imaging modalities such as positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is more prevalent today than ever before. Presently, we do not know the cumulative doses that patients may be receiving across all imaging modalities combined. Furthermore, patients with diseases with longer life expectancies are being exposed to high doses of radiation enabling radiation effects to manifest over a longer time period. The emphasis in the past on improving justification of imaging and optimization of technique and practice has proved useful. While that must continue, the current situation requires imaging device manufacturers to urgently develop imaging technologies that are safer for patients as high doses have been observed in patients where imaging has been justified through clinical decision-support and optimized by keeping doses below the national benchmark doses. There is a need to have a critical look at the fundamental principles of radiation protection as cumulative doses are likely to increase in the coming years.