Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.

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.

Patient Exposure from Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures in the United States and Worldwide: 2009-2018.

The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) conducted a retrospective assessment of the U.S. data, and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) performed a similar worldwide assessment for 2009-2018 (with most data from 2014 to 2017). Using the data from those reports, the frequency of radiologic and nuclear medicine studies, annual collective, and per capita effective dose in the United States for 2016 were compared with worldwide estimates from 2009 to 2018. There were an estimated 691 million radiologic, CT, dental, and nuclear medicine studies performed in the United States in 2016, which represented 16.5% of the 4.2 billion performed worldwide. The United States also accounted for 74 million CT procedures (18% of the world's estimated total), 275 million conventional radiology procedures (11% of the world's total), 8.1 million interventional radiologic procedures (34% of the world's total), 320 million dental radiography procedures (29% of the world's total), and 13.5 million nuclear medicine procedures (34% of the world's total). The U.S. collective effective dose was 717 000 person-sieverts (17.6% of the world's total). The average annual individual effective dose in the United States was 2.2 mSv compared with 0.56 mSv worldwide. The United States accounts for a large and disproportionate share of global medical radiation procedures and collective effective dose, but use of CT has increased more in other countries compared with the United States.

Proposed Priorities for Low-Dose Radiation Research and Their Relevance to the Practice of Radiology.

Because ionizing radiation is widely used in medical imaging and in military, industry, and commercial applications, programmatic management and advancement in knowledge is needed, especially related to the health effects of low-dose radiation. The U.S. Congress in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy called on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to develop a long-term strategic and prioritized agenda for low-dose radiation research. Low doses were defined as dose amounts less than 100 mGy or low-dose rates less than 5 mGy per hour. The 2022 NASEM report was divided into sections detailing the low-dose radiation exposure and health effects, scientific basis for radiation protection, status of low-dose radiation research, a prioritized radiation research agenda, and essential components of a low-dose radiation research program, including resources needed and recommendations for financial recourse. The purpose of this review is to summarize this report and examine the recommendations to assess how these pertain to the practice of radiology and medicine.

Quality management, quality assurance, and quality control in medical physics.

The historic and ongoing evolution of the practice, technology, terminology, and implementation of programs related to quality in the medical radiological professions has given rise to the interchangeable use of the terms Quality Management (QM), Quality Assurance (QA), and Quality Control (QC) in the vernacular. This White Paper aims to provide clarification of QM, QA, and QC in medical physics context and guidance on how to use these terms appropriately in American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, generalizable to other guidance initiatives. The clarification of these nuanced terms in the radiology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine environments will not only boost the comprehensibility and usability of the Medical Physics Technical Standards and Practice Parameters, but also provide clarity and a foundation for ACR's clinical, physician-led Practice Parameters, which also use these important terms for monitoring equipment performance for safety and quality. Further, this will support the ongoing development of the professional practice of clinical medical physics by providing a common framework that distinguishes the various types of responsibilities borne by medical physicists and others in the medical radiological environment. Examples are provided of how QM, QA, and QC may be applied in the context of ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards.

An Analysis of Computed Tomography-Related Radiation Exposure in Pediatric Trauma Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation doses used for pediatric computed tomography (CT) scans at community-based referring facilities (RF) to those at a designated pediatric trauma center (PTC) to assess the consistency of radiation exposure. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients 0 to 18 years of age with CT imaging performed either at a RF or at a PTC from January 1, 2015, to January 5, 2016, were identified. Data about patients, CT radiation dose, and characteristics of the RFs were compared. RESULTS: We identified 502 patients (156 RF, 346 PTC) with 281 head CTs (79 RF, 202 PTC) and 86 abdominal/pelvis CTs (28 RF, 58 PTC). The radiation dose (measured in mean dose-length product [DLP] ± 1 standard deviation) was significantly higher for RF scans compared with PTC scans (head, RF DLP = 545 ± 334 vs PTC DLP = 438 ± 186 (P < 0.001); abdomen/pelvis, RF DLP = 279 ± 160 vs PTC DLP = 181 ± 201 [P = 0.027]). There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower head CT radiation dosages at RFs with a dedicated pediatric emergency department compared with RFs without a pediatric emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that CT scans performed at RFs expose pediatric patients to significantly higher doses of radiation when compared with a PTC. These data support further study to identify factors associated with increased radiation and educational outreach to RFs.

Patient Exposure from Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures in the United States: Procedure Volume and Effective Dose for the Period 2006-2016.

Background Comprehensive assessments of the frequency and associated doses from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures are rarely conducted. The use of these procedures and the population-based radiation dose increased remarkably from 1980 to 2006. Purpose To determine the change in per capita radiation exposure in the United States from 2006 to 2016. Materials and Methods The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements conducted a retrospective assessment for 2016 and compared the results to previously published data for the year 2006. Effective dose values for procedures were obtained from the literature, and frequency data were obtained from commercial, governmental, and professional society data. Results In the United States in 2006, an estimated 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations were performed. This value remained essentially the same for 2016 even though the U.S. population had increased by about 24 million people. The number of CT scans performed increased from 67 million to 84 million, but the number of other procedures (eg, diagnostic fluoroscopy) and nuclear medicine procedures decreased from 17 million to 13.5 million. The number of dental radiographic and dental CT examinations performed was estimated to be about 320 million in 2016. Using the tissue-weighting factors from Publication 60 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the U.S. annual individual (per capita) effective dose from diagnostic and interventional medical procedures was estimated to have been 2.9 mSv in 2006 and 2.3 mSv in 2016, with the collective doses being 885 000 and 755 000 person-sievert, respectively. Conclusion The trend from 1980 to 2006 of increasing dose from medical radiation has reversed. Estimated 2016 total collective effective dose and radiation dose per capita dose are lower than in 2006. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Einstein in this issue.

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation of the inner bore of a CT gantry.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and practicality of ultraviolet (UV) germicidal irradiation of the inner bore of a computed tomography (CT) gantry as a means of viral decontamination. METHOD: A UV lamp (PADNUT 38 W, 253 nm UV-C light tube) and UV-C dosimeter (GENERAL UV-C Digital Light Meter No. UV512C) were used to measure irradiance throughout the inner bore of a CT scanner gantry. Irradiance (units µW/cm2 ) was related to the time required to achieve 6-log viral kill (10-6 survival fraction). RESULTS: A warm-up time of ~120 s was required for the lamp to reach stable irradiance. Irradiance at the scan plane (z = 0 cm) of the CT scanner was 580.9 µW/cm2 , reducing to ~350 µW/cm2 at z = ±20 cm toward the front or back of the gantry. The angular distribution of irradiation was uniform within 10% coefficient of variation. A conservative estimate suggests at least 6-log kill (survival fraction ≤ 10-6 ) of viral RNA within ±20 cm of the scan plane with an irradiation time of 120 s from cold start. More conservatively, running the lamp for 180 s (3 min) or 300 s (5 min) from cold start is estimated to yield survival fraction <<10-7 survival fraction within ±20 cm of the scan plane. CONCLUSION: Ultraviolet irradiation of the inner bore of the CT gantry can be achieved with a simple UV-C lamp attached to the CT couch. Such practice could augment manual wipe-down procedures, improve safety for CT technologists or housekeeping staff, and could potentially reduce turnover time between scanning sessions.

Essential Role of a Medical Physicist in the Radiology Department.

The medical physicist plays a number of essential roles in the radiology department. These roles can be examined under the tripartite mission of a radiology department: patient care, teaching, and research. Under patient care, the role of a medical physicist involves quality and safety activities, which include performing acceptance testing, conducting periodic evaluation of imaging modalities for regulatory and accreditation compliance, and providing patient dose estimations. Regulation and accreditation requirements that paved the way for the medical physicist's role are discussed. As for teaching, medical physicists are typically involved in teaching radiology residents and radiation technologists and also providing in-service education to staff and others. A number of emerging roles are propelling the medical physicist to be the "go-to person" with regard to not only regulatory compliance but also the safety and quality of imaging. ©RSNA, 2018.

Feasibility of Dose-reduced Chest CT with Photon-counting Detectors: Initial Results in Humans.

Purpose To investigate whether photon-counting detector (PCD) technology can improve dose-reduced chest computed tomography (CT) image quality compared with that attained with conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) technology in vivo. Materials and Methods This was a HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved study, with informed consent from patients. Dose-reduced spiral unenhanced lung EID and PCD CT examinations were performed in 30 asymptomatic volunteers in accordance with manufacturer-recommended guidelines for CT lung cancer screening (120-kVp tube voltage, 20-mAs reference tube current-time product for both detectors). Quantitative analysis of images included measurement of mean attenuation, noise power spectrum (NPS), and lung nodule contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Images were qualitatively analyzed by three radiologists blinded to detector type. Reproducibility was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). McNemar, paired t, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare image quality. Results Thirty study subjects were evaluated (mean age, 55.0 years ± 8.7 [standard deviation]; 14 men). Of these patients, 10 had a normal body mass index (BMI) (BMI range, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2; group 1), 10 were overweight (BMI range, 25.0-29.9 kg/m2; group 2), and 10 were obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2, group 3). PCD diagnostic quality was higher than EID diagnostic quality (P = .016, P = .016, and P = .013 for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively), with significantly better NPS and image quality scores for lung, soft tissue, and bone and with fewer beam-hardening artifacts (all P < .001). Image noise was significantly lower for PCD images in all BMI groups (P < .001 for groups 1 and 3, P < .01 for group 2), with higher CNR for lung nodule detection (12.1 ± 1.7 vs 10.0 ± 1.8, P < .001). Inter- and intrareader reproducibility were good (all ICC > 0.800). Conclusion Initial human experience with dose-reduced PCD chest CT demonstrated lower image noise compared with conventional EID CT, with better diagnostic quality and lung nodule CNR. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Approaches to enhancing radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Education, justification, and optimization are the cornerstones to enhancing the radiation safety of medical imaging. Education regarding the benefits and risks of imaging and the principles of radiation safety is required for all clinicians in order for them to be able to use imaging optimally. Empowering patients with knowledge of the benefits and risks of imaging will facilitate their meaningful participation in decisions related to their health care, which is necessary to achieve patient-centered care. Limiting the use of imaging to appropriate clinical indications can ensure that the benefits of imaging outweigh any potential risks. Finally, the continually expanding repertoire of techniques that allow high-quality imaging with lower radiation exposure should be used when available to achieve safer imaging. The implementation of these strategies in practice is necessary to achieve high-quality, patient-centered imaging and will require a shared effort and investment by all stakeholders, including physicians, patients, national scientific and educational organizations, politicians, and industry.

The utility of computed tomography in the management of fever and neutropenia in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequent use and radiation exposure of computed tomography (CT) scans, there is little information on patterns of CT use and their utility in the management of pediatric patients with fever and neutropenia (FN). We examined the contribution of either the commonly employed pan-CT (multiple anatomical locations) or targeted CT (single location) scanning to identify possible infectious etiologies in this challenging clinical scenario. Procedure Pediatric patients with an underlying malignancy admitted for fever (temperature ≥ 38.3 °C) and an absolute neutrophil count <500 cells/µL from 2003-2009 were included. Risk factors associated with utilization, results, and effects on clinical management of CT scans were identified. Results Charts for 635 admissions for FN from 263 patients were reviewed. Overall, 139 (22%) admissions (93 individuals) had at least one scan. Of 188 scans, 103 (55%) were pan-scans. Changes in management were most strongly associated with the identification of evidence consistent with infection (OR = 12.64, 95% CI: 5.05-31.60, P < 0.001). Seventy-eight (41%) of all CT scans led to a change in clinical management, most commonly relating to use of antibiotic (N = 41, 53%) or antifungal/antiviral medications (N = 33, 42%). The odds of a change in clinical management did not differ for those receiving a pan-scan compared to those receiving a targeted scan (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.61-2.46; P = 0.57). Conclusions When CT is clinically indicated, it is important for clinicians to strongly consider utilizing a targeted scan to reduce radiation exposure to patients as well as to decrease costs without compromising care.

Update on radiation safety and dose reduction in pediatric neuroradiology.

The number of medical X-ray imaging procedures is growing exponentially across the globe. Even though the overall benefit from medical X-ray imaging procedures far outweighs any associated risks, it is crucial to take all necessary steps to minimize radiation risks to children without jeopardizing image quality. Among the X-ray imaging studies, except for interventional fluoroscopy procedures, CT studies constitute higher dose and therefore draw considerable scrutiny. A number of technological advances have provided ways for better and safer CT imaging. This article provides an update on the radiation safety of patients and staff and discusses dose optimization in medical X-ray imaging within pediatric neuroradiology.

How I do it: managing radiation dose in CT.

Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging test that is widely used worldwide to establish medical diagnoses and perform image-guided interventions. More recently, concern has been raised about the risk of carcinogenesis from medical radiation, with a focus on CT. The purpose of this article is to (a) describe the importance of educating radiology personnel, patients, and referring clinicians about the concerns over CT radiation, (b) describe commonly used CT parameters and radiation units, (c) discuss the importance of establishing a dedicated radiology team to manage CT radiation, and (d) describe specific CT techniques to minimize radiation while providing diagnostic examinations.

Applications of justification and optimization in medical imaging: examples of clinical guidance for computed tomography use in emergency medicine.

Availability, reliability, and technical improvements have led to continued expansion of computed tomography (CT) imaging. During a CT scan, there is substantially more exposure to ionizing radiation than with conventional radiography. This has led to questions and critical conclusions about whether the continuous growth of CT scans should be subjected to review and potentially restraints or, at a minimum, closer investigation. This is particularly pertinent to populations in emergency departments, such as children and patients who receive repeated CT scans for benign diagnoses. During the last several decades, among national medical specialty organizations, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American College of Radiology have each formed membership working groups to consider value, access, and expedience and to promote broad acceptance of CT protocols and procedures within their disciplines. Those efforts have had positive effects on the use criteria for CT by other physician groups, health insurance carriers, regulators, and legislators.