Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.
Diagnostic imaging
Ionizing radiation
Radiation protection
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Apr 2024
09 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
01
11
2023
accepted:
23
01
2024
revised:
17
12
2023
medline:
9
4
2024
pubmed:
9
4
2024
entrez:
9
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38592419
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10659-x
pii: 10.1007/s00330-024-10659-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ et al (2011) Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology 258:889–905
pubmed: 21163918
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101157
(2022) UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume I: Evaluation of Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
Vassileva J, Holmberg O (2021) Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed? Br J Radiol 94:20210477
pubmed: 34161167
pmcid: 9328070
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210477
Brambilla M, Vassileva J, Kuchcinska A, Rehani MM (2020) Multinational data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent radiological procedures: call for action. Eur Radiol 30:2493–2501
pubmed: 31792583
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06528-7
Brower C, Rehani MM (2021) Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging. Br J Radiol 94:20210389
pubmed: 34161140
pmcid: 9328055
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210389
(2021) Joint Position Statement and Call for Action for Strengthening Radiation Protection of Patients Undergoing Recurrent Radiological Imaging Procedures. International Atomic Energy Agency. Available via https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/position_statement_final_endorsed.pdf Last accessed 12.16.23
(2021) AAPM/ACR/HPS Joint Statement on Proper Use of Radiation Dose Metric Tracking for Patients Undergoing Medical Imaging Exams. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Available via https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=1533 Last accessed 12.16.23
Frush D (2021) The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging. Br J Radiol 94:20210478
pubmed: 34520223
pmcid: 9328059
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210478
(2014) Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3, Vienna
Martin CJ, Harrison JD, Rehani MM (2020) Effective dose from radiation exposure in medicine: Past, present, and future. Phys Med 79:87–92
pubmed: 33197830
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.10.020
Harrison JD, Balonov M, Bochud F et al (2021) ICRP Publication 147: use of dose quantities in radiological protection. Ann ICRP 50:9–82
pubmed: 33653178
doi: 10.1177/0146645320911864
Harrison JD, Haylock RGE, Jansen JTM, Zhang W, Wakeford R (2023) Effective doses and risks from medical diagnostic x-ray examinations for male and female patients from childhood to old age. J Radiol Prot 43
Niwa O, Barcellos-Hoff MH, Globus RK et al (2015) ICRP Publication 131: stem cell biology with respect to carcinogenesis aspects of radiological protection. Ann ICRP 44:7–357
pubmed: 26637346
doi: 10.1177/0146645315595585
Frush DP, Frija G (2022) Looking critically at the paradigm of radiation exposure from multiple imaging examinations. Eur Radiol 32:4335–4336
pubmed: 35118529
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08557-1
Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER et al (2020) Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. Eur Radiol 30:1828–1836
pubmed: 31792585
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06523-y
(2021) Proper use of radiation dose metric tracking for patients undergoing medical imaging exams: frequently asked questions. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Available via https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/documents/EffectiveDose_FAQ.pdf Last accessed 12.16.23
(2023) Patient radiation exposure monitoring in medical imaging, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
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 30:1839–1846
pubmed: 31792584
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8
Rehani MM, Hauptmann M (2020) Estimates of the number of patients with high cumulative doses through recurrent CT exams in 35 OECD countries. Phys Med 76:173–176
pubmed: 32693353
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.07.014
Li X, Rehani MM, Marschall TA, Yang K, Liu B (2023) Cumulative radiation exposure from multimodality recurrent imaging of CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention, and nuclear medicine. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10299-7
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10299-7
pubmed: 38133674
pmcid: 10957607
Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD et al (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection. J Radiol Prot 38:1217–1233
pubmed: 30004025
doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/aad348
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Daniels RD, Cardis E et al (2020) Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: rationale and framework for the monograph and overview of eligible studies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2020:97–113
pubmed: 32657348
pmcid: 7610154
doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa009
Little MP, Wakeford R, Bouffler SD et al (2022) Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses. Environ Int 159:106983
pubmed: 34959181
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106983
Rühm W, Laurier D, Wakeford R (2022) Cancer risk following low doses of ionising radiation - Current epidemiological evidence and implications for radiological protection. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 873:503436
pubmed: 35094811
doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2021.503436
Martin CJ, Barnard M (2022) How much should we be concerned about cumulative effective doses in medical imaging? J Radiol Prot 42
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
pubmed: 24440537
Silva M, Milanese G, Sestini S et al (2021) Lung cancer screening by nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1: negative baseline CT yields potential for increased screening interval. Eur Radiol 31:1956–1968
pubmed: 32997182
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07275-w
Perisinakis K, Seimenis I, Tzedakis A, Karantanas A, Damilakis J (2018) Radiation burden and associated cancer risk for a typical population to be screened for lung cancer with low-dose CT: A phantom study. Eur Radiol 28:4370–4378
pubmed: 29651767
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5373-7
Brambilla M, Frush DP, Rehani MM (2020) Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in children with noncancerous disease. J Am Coll Radiol 17:1547–1548
pubmed: 32590016
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.05.024
IAEA (2020) Summary of the IAEA technical meeting on the justification and optimization of protection of patients requiring multiple imaging procedures
IAEA Recurrent Imaging. International Atomic Energy Association. Available via https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/resources/recurrent-imaging Last accessed 12.16.23
IAEA (2018) Radiation Protection and Safety in Medical Uses of Ionizing Radiation, Vienna
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Pasqual E, Veiga L (2021) Epidemiological studies of CT scans and cancer risk: the state of the science. Br J Radiol 94:20210471
pubmed: 34545766
pmcid: 9328069
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210471
Grant EJ, Brenner A, Sugiyama H et al (2017) Solid cancer incidence among the life span study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958–2009. Radiat Res 187:513–537
pubmed: 28319463
pmcid: 10320812
doi: 10.1667/RR14492.1
Brenner AV, Preston DL, Sakata R et al (2022) Comparison of all solid cancer mortality and incidence dose-response in the life span study of atomic bomb survivors, 1958–2009. Radiat Res 197:491–508
pubmed: 35213725
pmcid: 10273292
doi: 10.1667/RADE-21-00059.1
Boice JD Jr, Preston D, Davis FG, Monson RR (1991) Frequent chest X-ray fluoroscopy and breast cancer incidence among tuberculosis patients in Massachusetts. Radiat Res 125:214–222
pubmed: 1996380
doi: 10.2307/3577890
Ronckers CM, Land CE, Miller JS, Stovall M, Lonstein JE, Doody MM (2010) Cancer mortality among women frequently exposed to radiographic examinations for spinal disorders. Radiat Res 174:83–90
pubmed: 20681802
pmcid: 3982592
doi: 10.1667/RR2022.1
John EM, Phipps AI, Knight JA et al (2007) Medical radiation exposure and breast cancer risk: findings from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Int J Cancer 121:386–394
pubmed: 17372900
doi: 10.1002/ijc.22668
Hauptmann M, Byrnes G, Cardis E et al (2023) Brain cancer after radiation exposure from CT examinations of children and young adults: results from the EPI-CT cohort study. Lancet Oncol 24:45–53
pubmed: 36493793
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00655-6
Bosch de Basea Gomez M, Thierry-Chef I, Harbron R et al (2023) Risk of hematological malignancies from CT radiation exposure in children, adolescents and young adults. Nat Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02620-0
doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02620-0
Leuraud K, Richardson DB, Cardis E et al (2015) Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study. Lancet Haematol 2:e276-281
pubmed: 26436129
pmcid: 4587986
doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00094-0
Richardson DB, Leuraud K, Laurier D et al (2023) Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study. BMJ 382:e074520
pubmed: 37586731
pmcid: 10427997
doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-074520
Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284:120–133
pubmed: 28221093
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161911
Kanal KM, Butler PF, Chatfield MB et al (2022) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 pediatric CT examinations. Radiology 302:E6
Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP Publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP 46:1–144
pubmed: 29065694
doi: 10.1177/0146645317717209
EUR-Lex (2013) Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Available via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/59/oj Last accessed 12.16.23
K-W. Cho M-CC, C. Kurihara-Saio, B. Le Guen, N. Martinez, D. Oughton, T. Schneider, R. Toohey, F. Zölzer (2018) Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann ICRP 47(1)
WHO WHO called to return to the Declaration of Alma-Ata. World health Organization. Available via https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/declaration-of-alma-ata Last accessed 12.16.23
Merck LH, Hauck MG, Houry DE, Lowery-North DW, Hemphill RR, Applegate KE (2011) Informed consent for computed tomography. Am J Emerg Med 29:230–232
pubmed: 21115314
doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2010.09.006
Merck LH, Ward LA, Applegate KE, Choo E, Lowery-North DW, Heilpern KL (2015) Written informed consent for computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis is associated with decreased CT utilization in low-risk emergency department patients. West J Emerg Med 16:1014–1024
pubmed: 26759646
pmcid: 4703183
doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.9.27612
Lam DL, Larson DB, Eisenberg JD, Forman HP, Lee CI (2015) Communicating potential radiation-induced cancer risks from medical imaging directly to patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:962–970
pubmed: 26295534
doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.15057
Graff JW (2015) Patient perspectives on radiation dose: reporting a survey of patient opinions. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 165:25–29
pubmed: 25823969
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv023
Hamilton M, Kendall E (2023) Radiation exposure from the patient perspective: An Argument for the Inclusion of Dose History. Health Phys 125:198–201
pubmed: 37195183
doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001705
Rehani MM (2023) Losing the balance in risk-benefit analysis. J Radiol Prot 43
Widmann G, Beyer A, Jaschke W et al (2023) Identification and characterization of patients being exposed to computed-tomography associated radiation-doses above 100 mSv in a real-life setting. Eur J Radiol Open 10:100470
pubmed: 36590327
doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2022.100470
Frija G, Damilakis J, Paulo G, Loose R, Vano E (2021) Cumulative effective dose from recurrent CT examinations in Europe: proposal for clinical guidance based on an ESR EuroSafe Imaging survey. Eur Radiol 31:5514–5523
pubmed: 33710370
pmcid: 8270793
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07696-1
Brambilla M, Matheoud R, Margiotta-Casaluci G et al (2023) Cumulative radiation exposure from radiological imaging in patients with Hodgkin and diffuse large b-cell lymphoma not submitted to radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230106:20230106
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20230106:20230106
pubmed: 37493259
Harrison JD, Balonov MI, Bochud FO et al (2021) The use of dose quantities in radiological protection: ICRP Publication 147 Ann ICRP 50(1) 2021. J Radiol Prot. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/abe548
doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/abe548
pubmed: 34284364
(2007) IAEA, Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology: An International Code of Practice, Technical Reports Vienna, Austria. Available via https://www.iaea.org/publications/7638/dosimetry-in-diagnostic-radiology-an-international-code-of-practice Last accessed 12.16.23
Samei E, Applegate K, Bochud F, Mahesh M, Martin C, Paquet F, Ponte MAL, Vanhavere F, Zhuo W (2022) Towards potential harm assessment from the individual patient radiation doses in imaging procedures: A proposal for a new quantity. Medical Physics International 10:71–74
Kachelrieß M, Rehani MM (2020) Is it possible to kill the radiation risk issue in computed tomography? Phys Med 71:176–177
pubmed: 32163886
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.02.017
Tilly H, Gomes da Silva M, Vitolo U et al (2015) Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(Suppl 5):v116-125
pubmed: 26314773
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv304
(2018) Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica. Linee guida linformi Available via https://www.aiom.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018_LG_AIOM_Linfomi.pdf Last accessed 12.16.23
Eichenauer DA, Aleman BMP, André M et al (2018) Hodgkin lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 29:iv19-iv29