Don't let radiation scare trump patient care: 10 ways you can harm your patients by fear of radiation-induced cancer from diagnostic imaging

The Future of Radioactive Medicine

The discovery of X rays in the late 19th century heralded the beginning of a new age in medicine, and the advent of channeling the power of radiation to diagnose and treat human disease. Radiation has been leveraged in medicine in a multitude of ways and is a critical element of cancer care including screening, diagnosis, surveillance, and interventional treatments. Modern radiotherapy techniques include a multitude of methodologies utilizing both externally and internally delivered radiation from a variety of approaches. This review provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary radiotherapy methodologies, the field of radiopharmaceuticals and theranostics, effects of low dose radiation and highlights the phenomena of fear of exposure to radiation and its impact in modern medicine.

Ionizing radiation protection and the linear No-threshold controversy: Extent of support or counter to the prevailing paradigm

This study has developed a relationship that categorized radiation protection and allows for a proper, clear, and concise review of the different classifications in terms of principles of protection, dose criteria, categories, fundamental tools, exposure situations, applications and control measures. With the groundwork laid, advances of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model which has attracted attention in the field of radiobiology and epidemiology were examined in detail. Various plausible dose-response relationship scenarios were x-rayed under low-dose extrapolation. Intensive review of factors opposing the LNT model involving radiophobia (including misdiagnosis, alternative surgery/imaging, suppression of ionizing radiation (IR) research); radiobiology (including DNA damage repair, apoptosis/necrosis, senescence protection) and cost issues (including-high operating cost of LNT, incorrect prioritization, exaggeration of LNT impact, risk-to-benefit analysis) were performed. On the other hand, factors supporting the use of LNT were equally examined, they include regulatory bodies' endorsement, insufficient statistical significance, partial DNA repair, variability of irradiated bodies, different latency periods for cancer, dynamic nature of threshold and conflicting interests. After considering the gaps in the scientific investigations that either support or counter the scientific paradigm on the use of LNT model, further research and advocacy is recommended that will ultimately lead to the acceptance of an alternative paradigm by the international regulators.

Very-Low-Dose Radiation and Clinical Molecular Nuclear Medicine

Emerging molecular and precision medicine makes nuclear medicine a de facto choice of imaging, especially in the era of target-oriented medical care. Nuclear medicine is minimally invasive, four-dimensional (space and time or dynamic space), and functional imaging using radioactive biochemical tracers in evaluating human diseases on an anatomically configured image. Many radiopharmaceuticals are also used in therapies. However, there have been concerns over the emission of radiation from the radionuclides, resulting in wrongly neglecting the potential benefits against little or any risks at all of imaging to the patients. The sound concepts of radiation and radiation protection are critical for promoting the optimal use of radiopharmaceuticals to patients, and alleviating concerns from caregivers, nuclear medicine staff, medical colleagues, and the public alike.

Radiation Absorbed Dose to the Embryo and Fetus from Radiopharmaceuticals

Nuclear medicine procedures are generally avoided during pregnancy out of concern for the radiation dose to the fetus. However, for clinical reasons, radiopharmaceuticals must occasionally be administered to pregnant women. The procedures most likely to be performed voluntarily during pregnancy are lung scans to diagnose pulmonary embolism and 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (18F-FDG) scans for the staging of cancers. This article focuses on the challenges of fetal dose calculation after administering radiopharmaceuticals to pregnant women. In particular, estimation of the fetal dose is hampered by the lack of fetal biokinetic data of good quality and is subject to the variability associated with methodological choices in dose calculations, such as the use of various anthropomorphic phantoms and modeling of the maternal bladder. Despite these sources of uncertainty, the fetal dose can be reasonably calculated within a range that is able to inform clinical decisions. Current dose estimates suggest that clinically justified nuclear medicine procedures should be performed even during pregnancy because the clinical benefits for the mother and the fetus outweigh the small and purely hypothetical radiation risk to the fetus. In addition, the fetal radiation dose should be minimized without compromising image quality, such as by encouraging bladder voiding and by using positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices or high-sensitivity PET scanners that generate images of good quality with a lower injected activity.

Imaging for the Initial Staging and Post-Treatment Surveillance of Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Although relatively rare in the United States, penile squamous cell carcinoma is encountered worldwide at a higher rate. Initial diagnosis is often made on clinical exam, as almost all of these lesions are externally visible and amenable to biopsy. In distinction to other types of malignancies, penile cancer relies heavily on clinical nodal staging of the inguinal lymph node chains. As with all cancers, imaging plays a role in the initial staging, restaging, and surveillance of these patients. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight the applications, advantages, and limitations of different imaging modalities in the evaluation of penile cancer, including ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography.

Artificial intelligence in CT for quantifying lung changes in the era of CFTR modulators

RATIONALE

Chest computed tomography (CT) remains the imaging standard for demonstrating cystic fibrosis airway structural disease in vivo. However, visual scorings as an outcome measure are time-consuming, require training, and lack high reproducibility.

OBJECTIVE

To validate a fully automated artificial intelligence-driven scoring of cystic fibrosis lung disease severity.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected in three cystic fibrosis reference centers, between 2008 and 2020, in 184 patients 4 to 54-years-old. An algorithm using three two-dimensional convolutional neural networks was trained with 78 patients' CTs (23 530 CT slices) for the semantic labeling of bronchiectasis, peribronchial thickening, bronchial mucus, bronchiolar mucus, and collapse/consolidation. 36 patients' CTs (11 435 CT slices) were used for testing versus ground-truth labels. The method's clinical validity was assessed in an independent group of 70 patients with or without lumacaftor/ivacaftor treatment (n=10 and 60, respectively) with repeat examinations. Similarity and reproducibility were assessed using Dice coefficient, correlations using Spearman test, and paired comparisons using Wilcoxon rank test.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

The overall pixelwise similarity of artificial intelligence-driven versus ground-truth labels was good (Dice coefficient=0.71). All artificial intelligence-driven volumetric quantifications had moderate to very good correlations to a visual imaging scoring (p<0.001) and fair to good correlations to FEV1% at pulmonary function test (p<0.001). Significant decreases in peribronchial thickening (p=0.005), bronchial mucus (p=0.005), bronchiolar mucus (p=0.007) volumes were measured in patients with lumacaftor/ivacaftor. Conversely, bronchiectasis (p=0.002) and peribronchial thickening (p=0.008) volumes increased in patients without lumacaftor/ivacaftor. The reproducibility was almost perfect (Dice>0.99).

CONCLUSION

Artificial intelligence allows a fully automated volumetric quantification of cystic fibrosis-related modifications over an entire lung. The novel scoring system could provide a robust disease outcome in the era of effective CFTR modulator therapy.

Chest imaging findings of chronic respiratory disease in HIV-infected adolescents on combined anti retro viral therapy

Early treatment with combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has improved survival of children perinatally infected with HIV into adolescence. This population is at risk of long term complications related to HIV infection, particularly chronic respiratory disease. Limited data on chest imaging findings in HIV-infected adolescents, suggest that the predominant disease is of small and large airways: predominantly bronchiolitis obliterans or bronchiectasis. Single cases of emphysema have been reported. Lung fibrosis, lymphocytic interstitial pneumonitis, post tuberculous apical fibrocystic changes and malignancies do not feature in this population. Chest radiograph (CXR) is easily accessible and widely used, especially in resource limited settings, such as sub Saharan Africa, where the greatest burden of HIV disease occurs. Lung ultrasound has been described for the diagnosis of pneumonia in children, pulmonary oedema and interstitial lung disease [1-3]. The use of this modality in chronic respiratory disease in adolescents where the predominant finding is small airway disease and bronchiectasis has however not been described. CXR is useful to evaluate structural/post infective changes, parenchymal opacification and nodules, hyperinflation or extensive bronchiectasis. CXR however, is inadequate for diagnosing small airway disease, for which high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the modality of choice. Where available, low dose HRCT should be used early in the course of symptomatic disease in adolescents and for follow up in children who are non responsive to treatment or clinically deteriorating. This article provides a pictorial review of the spectrum of CXR and HRCT imaging findings of chronic pulmonary disease in perinatally HIV-infected adolescents on cART and guidelines for imaging.

Intergroupe francophone de cancérologie thoracique, Société de pneumologie de langue française, and Société d'imagerie thoracique statement paper on lung cancer screening

Following the American National Lung Screening Trial results in 2011 a consortium of French experts met to edit a statement. Recent results of other randomized trials gave the opportunity for our group to meet again in order to edit updated guidelines. After literature review, we provide here a new update on lung cancer screening in France. Notably, in accordance with all international guidelines, the experts renew their recommendation in favor of individual screening for lung cancer in France as per the conditions laid out in this document. In addition, the experts recommend the very rapid organization and funding of prospective studies, which, if conclusive, will enable the deployment of lung cancer screening organized at the national level.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?

There are pressures to avoid use of radiological imaging throughout all healthcare due to the notion that all radiation is carcinogenic. This perception stems from the long-standing use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption of risk associated with radiation exposures. This societal perception has led to relentless efforts to avoid and reduce radiation exposures to patients at great costs. Many radiation reduction campaigns have been launched to dissuade doctors from using radiation imaging. Lower-dose imaging techniques and practices are being advocated. Alternate imaging procedures are encouraged. Are these efforts warranted? Based on recent evidence, LNT ideology is shown to be defunct for risk assessment at low-dose exposure ranges which includes X-rays and CT scans. In fact, the best evidence that was once used to support LNT ideology, including the Life Span Study data, now indicates thresholds for cancer induction are high; therefore, low-dose X-rays cannot cause harm. Current practices are safe as exposures currently encountered are orders of magnitude below threshold levels shown to be harmful. As long as imaging is medically warranted, it is shown that efforts to reduce exposures that are within background radiation levels and that are also shown to enhance health by upregulating natural adaptive protection systems are definitively wasted resources.

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

Radiographic imaging for scoliosis screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management is the gold standard assessment tool. Scoliosis patients receive many repeat radiographs, typically 10-25 and as many as 40-50, equating to a maximum 50 mGy of cumulative exposure. It is argued this amount of radiation exposure is not carcinogenic to scoliosis patients for 5 main reasons: 1. Estimated theoretical cumulative effective doses remain below the carcinogenic dose threshold; 2. Scoliosis patient x-rays are delivered in serial exposures and therefore, mitigate any potential cumulative effect; 3. Linear no-threshold cancer risk estimates from scoliosis patient cohorts are flawed due to faulty science; 4. Standardized incidence/mortality ratios demonstrating increased cancers from aged scoliosis cohorts are confounded by the effects of the disease entity itself making it impossible to claim cause and effect resulting from low-dose radiation exposures from spinal imaging; 5. Children are not more susceptible to radiation damage than adults. Radiophobia concerns from patients, parents, and doctors over repeat imaging for scoliosis treatment and management is not justified; it adds unnecessary anxiety to the patient (and their parents) and interferes with optimal medical management. X-rays taken in the evidence-based management of scoliosis should be taken without hesitation or concern about negligible radiation exposures.

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

All too often the family physician, orthopedic surgeon, dentist or chiropractor is met with radiophobic concerns about X-ray imaging in the clinical setting. These concerns, however, are unwarranted fears based on common but ill-informed and perpetuated ideology versus current understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation exposures. Themes of X-ray hesitancy come in 3 forms: 1. All radiation exposures are harmful (i.e. carcinogenic); 2. Radiation exposures are cumulative; 3. Children are more susceptible to radiation. Herein we address these concerns and find that low-dose radiation activates the body's adaptive responses and leads to reduced cancers. Low-dose radiation is not cumulative as long as enough time (e.g. 24 hrs) passes prior to a repeated exposure, and any damage is repaired, removed, or eliminated. Children have more active immune systems; the literature shows children are no more affected than adults by radiation exposures. Medical X-rays present a small, insignificant addition to background radiation exposure that is not likely to cause harm. Doctors and patients alike should be better informed of the lack of risks from diagnostic radiation and the decision to image should rely on the best evidence, unique needs of the patient, and the expertise of the physician-not radiophobia.

Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma: WSES-AAST guidelines

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree injuries are rare in both adult and pediatric trauma patients, and due to their anatomical location, associated injuries are very common. Mortality is primarily related to associated injuries, but morbidity remains high even in isolated injuries. Optimal management of duodeno-bilio-pancreatic injuries is dictated primarily by hemodynamic stability, clinical presentation, and grade of injury. Endoscopic and percutaneous interventions have increased the ability to non-operatively manage these injuries. Late diagnosis and treatment are both associated to increased morbidity and mortality. Sequelae of late presentations of pancreatic injury and complications of severe pancreatic trauma are also increasingly addressed endoscopically and with interventional radiology procedures. However, for moderate and severe extrahepatic biliary and severe duodeno-pancreatic injuries, immediate operative intervention is preferred as associated injuries are frequent and commonly present with hemodynamic instability or peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) duodenal, pancreatic, and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma management guidelines.

A Critical Assessment of the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: Its Validity and Applicability for Use in Risk Assessment and Radiation Protection

The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging convened a task group to examine the evidence for the risk of carcinogenesis from low-dose radiation exposure and to assess evidence in the scientific literature related to the overall validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis and its applicability for use in risk assessment and radiation protection. In the low-dose and dose-rate region, the group concluded that the LNT hypothesis is invalid as it is not supported by the available scientific evidence and, instead, is actually refuted by published epidemiology and radiation biology. The task group concluded that the evidence does not support the use of LNT either for risk assessment or radiation protection in the low-dose and dose-rate region.

Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced cancer was adopted by national and international advisory bodies in the 1950s and has guided radiation protection policies worldwide since then. The resulting strict regulations have increased the compliance costs for the various uses of radiation, including nuclear medicine. The concerns about low levels of radiation due to the absence of a threshold have also resulted in adverse consequences. Justification of the LNT model was based on the concept that low levels of radiation increase mutations and that increased mutations imply increased cancers. This concept may not be valid. Low-dose radiation boosts defenses such as antioxidants and DNA repair enzymes. The boosted defenses would reduce the endogenous DNA damage that would have occurred in the subsequent period, and so the result would be reduced DNA damage and mutations. Whereas mutations are necessary for causing cancer, they are not sufficient since the immune system eliminates cancer cells or keeps them under control. The immune system plays an extremely important role in preventing cancer, as indicated by the substantially increased cancer risk in immune-suppressed patients. Hence, since low-dose radiation enhances the immune system, it would reduce cancers, resulting in a phenomenon known as radiation hormesis. There is considerable evidence for radiation hormesis and against the LNT model, including studies of atomic bomb survivors, background radiation, environmental radiation, cancer patients, medical radiation, and occupational exposures. Though Commentary 27 published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements concluded that recent epidemiologic studies broadly support the LNT model, a critical examination of the studies has shown that they do not. Another deficiency of Commentary 27 is that it did not consider the vast available evidence for radiation hormesis. Other advisory body reports that have supported the LNT model have similar deficiencies. Advisory bodies are urged to critically evaluate the evidence supporting both sides and arrive at an objective conclusion on the validity of the LNT model. Considering the strength of the evidence against the LNT model and the weakness of the evidence for it, the present analysis indicates that advisory bodies would be compelled to reject the LNT model. Hence, we may be approaching the end of the LNT model era.

Radiophobia: 7 Reasons Why Radiography Used in Spine and Posture Rehabilitation Should Not Be Feared or Avoided

Evidence-based contemporary spinal rehabilitation often requires radiography. Use of radiography (X-rays or computed tomography scans) should not be feared, avoided, or have their exposures lessened to decrease patient dose possibly jeopardizing image quality. This is because all fears of radiation exposures from medical diagnostic imaging are based on complete fabrication of health risks based on an outdated, invalid linear model that has simply been propagated for decades. We present 7 main arguments for continued use of radiography for routine use in spinal rehabilitation: (1) the linear no-threshold model for radiation risk estimates is invalid for low-dose exposures; (2) low-dose radiation enhances health via the body's adaptive response mechanisms (ie, radiation hormesis); (3) an X-ray with low-dose radiation only induces 1 one-millionth the amount of cellular damage as compared to breathing air for a day; (4) radiography is below inescapable natural annual background radiation levels; (5) radiophobia stems from unwarranted fears and false beliefs; (6) radiography use leads to better patient outcomes; (7) the risk to benefit ratio is always beneficial for routine radiography. Radiography is a safe imaging method for routine use in patient assessment, screening, diagnosis, and biomechanical analysis and for monitoring treatment progress in daily clinical practice.

Optimizing Communication With Parents on Benefits and Radiation Risks in Pediatric Imaging

Effective radiation risk communication is a core competency for radiology care providers and can prevent and resolve potential conflicts while helping achieve effective public health safeguards. The authors present a synopsis of the challenges to holding such dialogue and review published methods for strengthening and maintaining this discourse. Twelve strategies are discussed in this article that can help alleviate concerns about the iatrogenic risk associated with medical imaging using radiation exposure.

Use of the d-dimer for Detecting Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Assessment for pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) remains complex, involving clinical decision tools, blood tests, and imaging.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to examine the test characteristics of the high-sensitivity d-dimer for the diagnosis of PE at our institution and evaluate use of the d-dimer and factors associated with a falsely elevated d-dimer.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on adult patients evaluated with a d-dimer and computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiogram or ventilation perfusion scan at two EDs between June 4, 2012 and March 30, 2016. We collected symptoms (dyspnea, unilateral leg swelling, hemoptysis), vital signs, and medical and social history (cancer, recent surgery, medications, history of deep vein thrombosis or PE, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking). We calculated test characteristics, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for the assay using conventional threshold and with age adjustment, and performed a univariate analysis.

RESULTS

We found 3523 unique visits with d-dimer and imaging, detecting 198 PE. Imaging was pursued on 1270 patients with negative d-dimers, revealing 9 false negatives, and d-dimer was sent on 596 patients for whom negative Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) were documented with 2% subsequent radiographic detection of PE. The d-dimer showed a sensitivity of 95.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91-98%), specificity of 40.0% (95% CI 38-42%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.11 (95% CI 0.06-0.21), and positive likelihood ratio of 1.59 (95% CI 1.53-1.66) for the radiographic detection of PE. With age adjustment, 347 of the 2253 CT scans that were pursued in patients older than 50 years with an elevated d-dimer could have been avoided without missing any additional PE. Many risk factors, such as age, history of PE, recent surgery, shortness of breath, tachycardia and hypoxia, elevated the d-dimer, regardless of the presence of PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with negative d-dimer and PERC still received imaging. Our data support the use of age adjustment, and perhaps adjustment for other factors seen in patients evaluated for PE.

Paediatric lung imaging: the times they are a-changin'

Until recently, functional tests were the most important tools for the diagnosis and monitoring of lung diseases in the paediatric population. Chest imaging has gained considerable importance for paediatric pulmonology as a diagnostic and monitoring tool to evaluate lung structure over the past decade. Since January 2016, a large number of papers have been published on innovations in chest computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology, acquisition techniques, image analysis strategies and their application in different disease areas. Together, these papers underline the importance and potential of chest imaging and image analysis for today's paediatric pulmonology practice. The focus of this review is chest CT and MRI, as these are, and will be, the modalities that will be increasingly used by most practices. Special attention is given to standardisation of image acquisition, image analysis and novel applications in chest MRI. The publications discussed underline the need for the paediatric pulmonology community to implement and integrate state-of-the-art imaging and image analysis modalities into their structure-function laboratory for the benefit of their patients.

Readiness for Radiological and Nuclear Events among Emergency Medical Personnel

Background

Among medical providers, even though radiological and nuclear events are recognized as credible threats, there is a lack of knowledge and fear about the medical consequences among medical personnel which could significantly affect the treatment of patients injured and/or contaminated in such scenarios. This study was conducted to evaluate the relative knowledge, willingness to respond, and familiarity with nuclear/radiological contamination risks among U.S. and Japanese emergency medical personnel.

Methods

An institutional review board-approved anonymous paper survey was distributed at various medical and disaster conferences and medicine courses in Japan and in the U.S. The surveys were written in Japanese and English and collected information on the following four categories: generalized demographics, willingness to manage, knowledge of disaster systems, and contamination risks.

Results

A total of 418 surveys were completed and collected. Demographics showed that physicians and prehospital responders were the prevalent survey responders. The majority of responders, despite self-professed disaster training, were still very uncomfortable with and unaware how to respond to a radiological/nuclear event.

Conclusion

Despite some educational coverage in courses and a limited number of disaster events, it is concluded that there is a lack of comfort and knowledge regarding nuclear and radiological events among the medical community. It is recommended that considerable development and subsequent distribution is needed to better educate and prepare the medical community for inevitable upcoming radiological/nuclear events.

Surveillance Scans in Lymphoma: Friend or Foe?

OPINION STATEMENT

Advancements in the treatment of lymphoma over the last few decades have allowed more patients to achieve a remission after the completion of therapy. Due to the improvement in response rates, methods to detect recurrence early and accurately during follow-up, especially in patients with potential curable aggressive lymphomas, are a key. Observation has always involved close clinical follow-up with the use of physical exams and routine labs, but rapid changes in technology have allowed CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs to become an integral part of managing patients with lymphoma. While the utility of scans in initial staging and immediately after completion of therapy is well established, the use of these imaging modalities for monitoring recurrence in lymphoma patients is still controversial. Patient advocacy groups and other regulatory committees have questioned the frequency and in some cases even the need for these tests in patients without evidence of active disease given the concern for radiation-associated health risks. Additionally, the extent to which this form of testing impacts the psyche of our patients is not completely known. Given the numerous questions raised about the benefits, safety, and cost-effectiveness of CT imaging, firm guidelines are needed at this time in standard practice and within our clinical trials to limit the use of surveillance imaging. Such efforts are expected to improve the utility of these scans in asymptomatic patients, reduce healthcare costs, and reduce patient exposure to radiation.

An update on pediatric bronchiectasis

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence and awareness of bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis (CF) is increasing and it is now recognized as a major cause of respiratory morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilization worldwide. The need to elucidate the early origins of bronchiectasis is increasingly appreciated and has been identified as an important research priority. Current treatments for pediatric bronchiectasis are limited to antimicrobials, airway clearance techniques and vaccination. Several new drugs targeting airway inflammation are currently in development. Areas covered: Current management of pediatric bronchiectasis, including discussion on therapeutics, non-pharmacological interventions and preventative and surveillance strategies are covered in this review. We describe selected adult and pediatric data on bronchiectasis treatments and briefly discuss emerging therapeutics in the field. Expert commentary: Despite the burden of disease, the number of studies evaluating potential treatments for bronchiectasis in children is extremely low and substantially disproportionate to that for CF. Research into the interactions between early life respiratory tract infections and the developing immune system in children is likely to reveal risk factors for bronchiectasis development and inform future preventative and therapeutic strategies. Tailoring interventions to childhood bronchiectasis is imperative to halt the disease in its origins and improve adult outcomes.

Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: A Non Sequitur of Non-Trivial Proportion

Radiologic imaging is claimed to carry an iatrogenic risk of cancer, based on an uninformed commitment to the 70-y-old linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH). Credible evidence of imaging-related low-dose (<100 mGy) carcinogenic risk is nonexistent; it is a hypothetical risk derived from the demonstrably false LNTH. On the contrary, low-dose radiation does not cause, but more likely helps prevent, cancer. The LNTH and its offspring, ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), are fatally flawed, focusing only on molecular damage while ignoring protective, organismal biologic responses. Although some grant the absence of low-dose harm, they nevertheless advocate the "prudence" of dose optimization (i.e., using ALARA doses); but this is a radiophobia-centered, not scientific, approach. Medical imaging studies achieve a diagnostic purpose and should be governed by the highest science-based principles and policies. The LNTH is an invalidated hypothesis, and its use, in the form of ALARA dosing, is responsible for misguided concerns promoting radiophobia, leading to actual risks far greater than the hypothetical carcinogenic risk purportedly avoided. Further, the myriad benefits of imaging are ignored. The present work calls for ending the radiophobia caused by those asserting the need for dose optimization in imaging: the low-dose radiation of medical imaging has no documented pathway to harm, whereas the LNTH and ALARA most assuredly do.

Utility and Associated Risk of Pulmonary Embolism Computed Tomography Scans in the Michigan Lupus Cohort

OBJECTIVE

Systemic lupus erythematosus patients are frequently evaluated for chest pain and may have multiple pulmonary embolism (PE) computed tomography (CT) scans. This study was undertaken to determine the incidence of pulmonary embolism in the University of Michigan Lupus Cohort patients who have undergone PE CT scans and to estimate the associated increased risk of breast and lung cancer from radiation exposure.

METHODS

We reviewed records of patients in the University of Michigan Lupus Cohort (n = 854) and determined the number and outcome of PE CT scans. Radimetrics software was used to perform individualized calculations of radiation dose to the lung and breast of each patient. We used this dose information, the patient's age at the time of scan, and risks according to the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, report VII, to estimate the increased incidence risks of breast and lung cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 182 of 856 patients (21%) underwent 357 PE CT scans. The overall rate of positivity was 7.5%. For patients undergoing their first through third scans, the rate of positivity for PE was 8.8%, whereas patients undergoing their fourth through tenth scans had 1.6% positivity. The highest increase in incidence risk was 0.87% for breast and 0.62% for lung.

CONCLUSION

Patients with multiple previous PE CT scans had lower likelihood of a positive result on subsequent scans and higher risks of malignancy. The magnitude of risk should not discourage performance of PE CT when clinically indicated.

Answers to Common Questions About the Use and Safety of CT Scans

Articles in the scientific literature and lay press over the past several years have implied that computed tomography (CT) may cause cancer and that physicians and patients must exercise caution in its use. Although there is broad agreement on the latter point--unnecessary medical tests of any type should always be avoided--there is considerable controversy surrounding the question of whether, or to what extent, CT scans can lead to future cancers. Although the doses used in CT are higher than those used in conventional radiographic examinations, they are still 10 to 100 times lower than the dose levels that have been reported to increase the risk of cancer. Despite the fact that at the low doses associated with a CT scan the risk either is too low to be convincingly demonstrated or does not exist, the magnitude of the concern among patients and some medical professionals that CT scans increase cancer risk remains unreasonably high. In this article, common questions about CT scanning and radiation are answered to provide physicians with accurate information on which to base their medical decisions and respond to patient questions.

Novel outcome measures for clinical trials in cystic fibrosis

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common inherited condition caused by mutations in the gene encoding the CF transmembrane regulator protein. With increased understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying CF and the development of new therapies there comes the need to develop new outcome measures to assess the disease, its progression and response to treatment. As there are limitations to the current endpoints accepted for regulatory purposes, a workshop to discuss novel endpoints for clinical trials in CF was held in Anaheim, California in November 2011. The pros and cons of novel outcome measures with potential utility for evaluation of novel treatments in CF were critically evaluated. The highlights of the 2011 workshop and subsequent advances in technologies and techniques that could be used to inform the development of clinical trial endpoints are summarized in this review. Pediatr Pulmonol. © 2014 The Authors. Pediatric Pulmonology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Are Risks From Medical Imaging Still too Small to Be Observed or Nonexistent?

Several radiation-related professional societies have concluded that carcinogenic risks associated with doses below 50-100 mSv are either too small to be detected, or are nonexistent. This is especially important in the context of doses from medical imaging. Radiation exposure to the public from medical imaging procedures is rising around the world, primarily due to increased utilization of computed tomography. Professional societies and advisory bodies consistently recommend against multiplying small doses by large populations to predict excess radiation-induced cancers, in large part because of the potential for sensational claims of health impacts which do not adequately take the associated uncertainties into account. Nonetheless, numerous articles have predicted thousands of future cancers as a result of CT scanning, and this has generated considerable concern among patients and parents. In addition, some authors claim that we now have direct epidemiological evidence of carcinogenic risks from medical imaging. This paper critically examines such claims, and concludes that the evidence cited does not provide direct evidence of low-dose carcinogenicity. These claims themselves have adverse public health impacts by frightening the public away from medically justified exams. It is time for the medical and scientific communities to be more assertive in responding to sensational claims of health risks.