Estimation of Radiation Doses and Lifetime Attributable Risk of Radiation-induced Cancer from A Single Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Computed Tomography Angiography

COVID-19 and cancer risk arising from ionizing radiation exposure through CT scans: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The surge in the utilization of CT scans for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring during the pandemic is undeniable. This increase has brought to the forefront concerns about the potential long-term health consequences, especially radiation-induced cancer risk. This study aimed to quantify the potential cancer risk associated with CT scans performed for COVID-19 detection.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study data from a total of 561 patients, who were referred to the radiology center at Imam Hossein Hospital in Shahroud, was collected. CT scan reports were categorized into three groups based on the radiologist's interpretation. The BEIR VII model was employed to estimate the risk of radiation-induced cancer.

RESULTS

Among the 561 patients, 299 (53.3%) were males and the average age of the patients was 49.61 ± 18.73 years. Of the CT scans, 408 (72.7%) were reported as normal. The average age of patients with normal, abnormal, and potentially abnormal CT scans was 47.57 ± 19.06, 54.80 ± 16.70, and 58.14 ± 16.60 years, respectively (p-value < 0.001). The average effective dose was 1.89 ± 0.21 mSv, with 1.76 ± 0.11 mSv for males and 2.05 ± 0.29 mSv for females (p-value < 0.001). The average risk of lung cancer was 3.84 ± 1.19 and 9.73 ± 3.27 cases per 100,000 patients for males and females, respectively. The average LAR for all cancer types was 10.30 ± 6.03 cases per 100,000 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the critical issue of increased CT scan usage for COVID-19 diagnosis and the potential long-term consequences, especially the risk of cancer incidence. Healthcare policies should be prepared to address this potential rise in cancer incidence and the utilization of CT scans should be restricted to cases where laboratory tests are not readily available or when clinical symptoms are severe.

The diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with and without previous coronary interventions

BACKGROUND

Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the gold standard for imaging coronary arteries and the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has undergone remarkable progress in the diagnosis of CAD.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of prior vs no previous coronary interventions on the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA as an alternative to ICA to improve health outcomes for patients with suspected CAD.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was carried out among patients suspected of CAD and for evaluation of grafts and stents to investigate recurrent ischemic symptoms. 120 patients imaged by CCTA were then referred to ICA, which is considered the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CCTA were assessed relative to ICA.

RESULTS

Based on a per-patient analysis, the comparison with ICA reveals variations in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of CCTA. In patients without any previous coronary interventions, the sensitivity was 97.8%, and specificity was 95.6%. The PPV and NPV were 97.8% and 95.5%, respectively. Regarding patients with coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG), the sensitivity was 95% and specificity 100%. The PPV and NPV were 100% and 90.9%, respectively. Regarding patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the results were a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 77.8%, PPV of 84.6% and NPV of 77.8%.

CONCLUSION

CCTA is a powerful diagnostic tool, especially for the evaluation of the major coronary arteries and evaluation of patients with prior CABG. ICA is recommended for evaluation of patients with an intracoronary stent.