Radiation concerns in frequent flyer patients: Should imaging history influence decisions about recurrent imaging?

Radiation Exposure from the Patient Perspective: An Argument for the Inclusion of Dose History

ABSTRACT

Patients in diagnostic imaging departments often ask about the risk of injury from x radiation. They are referred to wall posters or consent forms that declare (rightly) that the risk of harm from the proposed exam is very small and is far outweighed by the benefit. If a comparative risk value is provided, most likely it is based on a single exposure and derived from population estimates of cancer incidence and mortality. But is that information the most relevant for the patient? In a recent position statement, the AAPM recommends that only current exam risk should be considered, and that risk is independent of previous exams. We argue that if an exam carries risk of a negative event, the likelihood that a negative event occurred over all events increases with the number of exams. This cumulative risk, though still very small, must be a relevant consideration for health management.Health Phys. 000(0):000-000; 2023.

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.

Communication of radiation risk from imaging studies: an IAEA-coordinated international survey

The purpose of this IAEA-coordinated international study was to understand aspects related to the communication of radiation risk from imaging studies, such as how often imaging department personnel and referring physicians are asked about radiation risks in diagnostic imaging, who asks about these risks, how often professionals are able to provide satisfactory answers using qualitative metrics and how often quantitative risk estimates are needed. A web-based questionnaire with ten questions was completed by 386 healthcare professionals from 63 countries from all four continents, including clinicians/referring physicians (42.5%), radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians (26.7%), medical physicists (23.1%), radiographers/radiological technologists (6.2%) and others (1.6%). The results indicate that radiation risk-related questions are largely asked by patients (73.1%) and parents of child patients (38.6%), and 78% of the professionals believe they are able to answer those questions using qualitative metrics such as very small/minimal, small, medium rather than number of cancers likely occurring. The vast majority, with over three times higher frequency, indicated the purpose of knowing previous radiological exams as 'both clinical information and radiation exposure history' rather than 'only clinical information'. Nearly two-thirds of the clinicians/referring physicians indicated that knowing the radiation exposure history of the patient will affect their decision-making for the next exam, as against only about one-fifth who said 'no, it will not affect their decision-making'. The same question, when addressed to radiologists, resulted in a slightly larger fraction of about three-quarters who said 'yes', as opposed to a smaller fraction of about 12% who said 'no, it will not affect their decision-making'. Mapping the present situation of communication of benefits and risks for patients is important and may be the basis of further analysis, regular monitoring and possibly a target for clinical audits. Further studies focused on specific professional groups might help in obtaining á deeper understanding of the need for practical communication tools.

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.