Cumulative effective dose from recurrent CT examinations in Europe: proposal for clinical guidance based on an ESR EuroSafe Imaging survey.
Clinical audit
Clinical decision support systems
Radiation exposure
Surveys and questionnaires
X-ray computed tomography
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
29
09
2020
accepted:
17
12
2020
revised:
24
11
2020
pubmed:
13
3
2021
medline:
14
7
2021
entrez:
12
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In recent years, the issue of cumulative effective dose received from recurrent computed tomography examinations has become a subject of increasing concern internationally. Evidence, predominantly from the USA, has shown that a significant number of patients receive a cumulative effective dose of 100 mSv or greater. To obtain a European perspective, EuroSafe Imaging carried out a survey to collect European data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent computed tomography examinations. The survey found that a relatively low percentage of patients (0.5%) received a cumulative effective dose equal to or higher than 100 mSv from computed tomography, most of them having an oncological disease. However, there is considerable variation between institutions as these values ranged from 0 to 2.72%, highlighting that local practice or, depending on the institution and its medical focus, local patient conditions are likely to be a significant factor in the levels of cumulative effective dose received, rather than this simply being a global phenomenon. This paper also provides some practical actions to support the management of cumulative effective dose and to refine or improve practice where recurrent examinations are required. These actions are focused around increasing awareness of referring physicians through encouraging local dialogue, actions focused on optimisation where a team approach is critical, better use of modern equipment and the use of Dose Management and Clinical Decision Support Systems together with focused clinical audits. The proper use of cumulative effective dose should be part of training programmes for referrers and practitioners, including what information to give to patients. Radiation is used to the benefit of patients in diagnostic procedures such as CT examinations, and in therapeutic procedures like the external radiation treatment for cancer. However, radiation is also known to increase the risk of cancer. To oversee this risk, the cumulative effective dose (CED) received by a patient from imaging procedures over his or her life is important. In this paper, the authors, on behalf of EuroSafe Imaging, report on a survey carried out in Europe that aims to estimate the proportion of patients that undergo CT examinations and are exposed to a CED of more than 100 mSv. At the same time, the survey enquires about and underlines radiologists' measures and radiology departments' strategies to limit such exposure. Over the period of 2015-2018, respondents reported that 0.5% (0-2.72%) of patients were exposed to a CED of ≥ 100 mSv from imaging procedures. The background radiation dose in Europe depends on the location, but it is around 2.5 mSv per year. It is obvious that patients with cancer, chronic diseases and trauma run the highest risk of having a high CED. However, even if the number of patients exposed to ≥ 100 mSv is relatively low, it is important to lower this number even further. Measures could consist in using procedures that do not necessitate radiation, using very low dose procedures, being very critical in requiring imaging procedures and increasing awareness about the issue. KEY POINTS: • A relatively low percentage of patients (0.5%) received a cumulative effective dose from CT computed tomography equal to or greater than 100 mSv, in Europe, most of them having an oncological disease. • There is a wide range in the number of patients who receive cumulative effective dose equal to or greater than 100 mSv (0-2.72%) and optimisation should be improved. • Increasing the awareness of referring physicians through encouraging local dialogue, concrete actions focused on optimisation and development of dose management systems is suggested.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33710370
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07696-1
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-07696-1
pmc: PMC8270793
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5514-5523Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Brambilla M, Vassileva J, Kuchcinska A, Rehani M (2020) Multinational data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent radiological procedures: call for action. Eur Radiol 30:2493–2501
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06528-7
Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER et al (2019) Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. Eur Radiol 30:1828–1836
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06523-y
Durand DJ, Dixon RL, Morin RL (2012) Utilization strategies for cumulative dose estimates: a review and rational assessment. J Am Coll Radiol 9(7):480–485
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.03.003
Walsh L, Shore R, Auvinen A, Jung T, Wakeford R (2014) Risks from CT scans–what do recent studies tell us? J Radiol Prot 34:E1–E5
doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/34/1/E1
Vano E (2020) Recurrent imaging procedures with ionising radiation on the same patient. Should we pay more attention? J Radiol Prot 40(2):E14–E17
doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab7fbb
United Nations World Population Prospects (2019) Available via https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ . Accessed 23 Sep 2020
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2019) Medical radiation exposure of patients in the United States, NCRP report 184. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda
Smith-Bindman R, Wang Y, Chu P et al (2019) International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: prospective cohort study. BMJ 364:k493
European Commission Tender Project EUCLID – European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference Levels for X-ray Medical Imaging (2017). Available via http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/euclid . Accessed 23 Sep 2020
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Rehani MM, Melick ER, Alvi RM et al (2020) Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. Eur Radiol 30(4):1839–1846
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8
Brambilla M, De Mauri A, Leva L, Carriero A, Picano E (2013) Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in chronic adult patients. Am J Med 126:480–486
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.10.025
De Mauri A, Brambilla M, Izzo C et al (2012) Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in kidney transplant patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27:3645–3651
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfs145
Desmond AN, McWilliams S, Maher MM, Shanahan F, Quigley EM (2012) Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging among patients with gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:259–265
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.007
Brambilla M, Cerini P, Lizio D, Vigna L, Carriero A, Fossaceca R (2015) Cumulative radiation dose and radiation risk from medical imaging in patients subjected to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Radiol Med 120:563–570
doi: 10.1007/s11547-014-0485-x
Manning BJ, O’Neill SM, Haider SN, Colgan MP, Madhavan P, Moore DJ (2009) Duplex ultrasound in aneurysm surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparison with computed tomography aortography. J Vasc Surg 49:60–65
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.07.079
European Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom on basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation (2014). Official Journal of the European Union L13;57:1–73 Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:013:0001:0073:EN:PDF
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (2016) Appropriate Use Criteria Program. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-InitiativesPatient-Assessment-Instruments/Appropriate-Use-CriteriaProgram/index.html . Accessed 7 Nov 2019
Moriarity AK, Klochko C, Obrien M, Halabi S (2015) The effect of clinical decision support for advanced inpatient imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 12(4):358–363
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.11.013
Palen TE, Sharpe RE Jr, Shetterly SM, Steiner JF (2019) Randomized clinical trial of a clinical decision support tool for improving the appropriateness scores for ordering imaging studies in primary and specialty care ambulatory clinics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:1015–1020
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21511
Loose RW, Vano E, Mildenberger P et al. Dose management – requirements and recommendations for users. EuroSafe Imaging 2020 / ESI-11078. https://doi.org/10.26044/esi2020/ESI-11078 Available via https://epos.myesr.org/poster/esr/eurosafeimaging2020/ESI-11078 Accessed 27 Jun 2020
The ESR Clinical Audit booklet Esperanto (2019) Available via https://www.myesr.org/media/2835 . Accessed 13 Oct 2020
Brambilla M, De Mauri A, Lizio D et al (2014) Cumulative radiation dose estimates from medical imaging in paediatric patients with non-oncologic chronic illnesses. A systematic review. Phys Med 30:403–412
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2013.12.005
The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332