Radiation Adverse Outcome pathways (AOPs): examining priority questions from an international horizon-style exercise.

PURPOSE: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Development Programme is being explored in the radiation field, as an overarching framework to identify and prioritize research needs that best support strengthening of radiation risk assessment and risk management strategies. To advance the use of AOPs, an international horizon-style exercise (HSE) was initiated through the Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group (JTG) formed by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) High-Level Group on Low Dose Research (HLG-LDR) under the auspices of the Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). The intent of the HSE was to identify key research questions for consideration in AOP development that would help to reduce uncertainties in estimating the health risks following exposures to low dose and low dose-rate ionizing radiation. The HSE was conducted in several phases involving the solicitation of relevant questions, a collaborative review of open-ended candidate questions and an elimination exercise that led to the selection of 25 highest priority questions for the stated purpose. These questions were further ranked by over 100 respondents through an international survey. This final set of questions was judged to provide insights into how the OECD's AOP approach can be put into practice to meet the needs of hazard and risk assessors, regulators, and researchers. This paper examines the 25 priority questions in the context of hazard/risk assessment framework for ionizing radiation. CONCLUSION: By addressing the 25 priority questions, it is anticipated that constructed AOPs will have a high level of specificity, making them valuable tools for simplifying and prioritizing complex biological processes for use in developing revised radiation hazard and risk assessment strategies.

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.

The ICRP, MELODI, and ALLIANCE workshop on effects of ionizing radiation exposure in offspring and next generations: a summary of discussions.

PURPOSE: Task Group 121 - Effects of ionizing radiation exposure in offspring and next generations - is a task group under the Committee 1 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), approved by the Main Commission on 18th November 2021. The main goals of Task Group 121 are to (1) review and update the scientific literature of relevance to radiation-related effects in the offspring of parent(s) exposed to ionizing radiation in both human and non-human biota; (2) to assess preconceptional and intrauterine effects of radiation exposure and related morbidity and mortality; and, (3) to provide advice about the level of evidence and how to consider these preconceptional and postconceptional effects in the system of radiological protection for humans and non-human biota. METHODS: The Task Group is reviewing relevant literature since Publication 90 'Biological effects after prenatal irradiation (embryo and fetus)' (2003) and will include radiation-related effects on future generations in humans, animals, and plants. This review will be conducted to account for the health effects on offspring and subsequent generations in the current system of radiological protection. Radiation detriment calculation will also be reviewed. Finally, preliminary recommendations will be made to update the integration of health effects in offspring and next generations in the system of radiological protection. RESULTS: A Workshop, jointly organized by ICRP Task Group 121 and European Radiation Protection Research Platforms MELODI and ALLIANCE was held in Budapest, Hungary, from 31st May to 2nd June 2022. Participants discussed four important topics: (1) hereditary and epigenetic effects due to exposure of the germ cell line (preconceptional exposure), (2) effects arising from exposure of the embryo and fetus (intrauterine exposure), (3) transgenerational effects on biota, and (4) its potential impact on the system of radiological protection. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the discussions and presentations during the breakout sessions, newer publications, and gaps on the current scientific literature were identified. For instance, there are some ongoing systematic reviews and radiation epidemiology reviews of intrauterine effects. There are newer methods of Monte Carlo simulation for fetal dosimetry, and advances in radiation genetics, epigenetics, and radiobiology studies. While the current impact of hereditary effects on the global detriment was reported as small, the questions surrounding the effects of radiation exposure on offspring and the next generation are crucial, recurring, and with a major focus on exposed populations. This article summarizes the workshop discussions, presentations, and conclusions of each topic and introduces the special issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology resulting from the discussions of the meeting.

Establishing national clinical diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for CT examinations in Brazil: A prospective study.

PURPOSE: Diagnostic reference levels (DRL) and achievable doses (AD) are important tools for radiation dose optimization. Therefore, a prospective study was performed which aimed to establish a multi-parametric, clinical indication based - DRL(DRLCI) and clinical indication - AD (ADCI) for adult CT in Brazil. METHODS: The prospective study included 4787 patients (50 ± 18 years old; male:female 2041:2746) at 13 Brazilian sites that have been submitted to head, paranasal sinus, cervical spine, chest, or abdomen-pelvis CT between January and October 2021 for 13 clinical indications. The sites provided the following information: patient age, gender, weight, height, body mass index[BMI], clinical indications, scanner information(vendor, model, detector configuration), scan parameters (number of scan phases, kV, mA, pitch) and dose-related quantities (CT dose index volume- CTDIvol, dose length product- DLP). Median(AD) and 75th(DRL) percentile CTDIvol and DLP values were estimated for each body region and clinical indications. Non-normal data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: In majority of Brazilian sites, body region and clinical indications based DRLs were at or lower than the corresponding DRLs in the US and higher than Europe. Although radiation doses varied significantly for patients in different body mass index groups (p < 0.001), within each body region, there were no differences in radiation doses for different clinical indications (p > 0.1). Radiation doses for 7/13 clinical indications were higher using iterative reconstruction technique than for the filtered back projection. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variation in Brazil DRLCI across different institutions with higher doses compared to the European standards. There was also a lack of clinical indication-based protocol and dose optimization based on different clinical indications for the same body region.

Radiological protection in human research ethics using a case study: toward update of the ICRP Publication 62.

The benefits of biomedical research involving humans are well recognised, along with the need for conformity to international standards of science and ethics. When human research involves radiation imaging procedures or radiotherapy, an extra level of expert review should be provided from the point of view of radiological protection. The relevant publication of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) is now three decades old and is currently undergoing an update. This paper aims to provoke discussions on how the risks of radiation dose and the benefits of research should be assessed, using a case study of diagnostic radiology involving volunteers for whom there is no direct benefit. Further, the paper provides the current understanding of key concepts being considered for review and revision-such as the dose constraint and the novel research methods on the horizon, including radiation biology and epidemiology. The analysis revisits the perspectives described in the ICRP Publication 62, and considers the recent progress in both radiological protection ethics and medical research ethics.

A Multimedia Strategy to Integrate Introductory Broad-Based Radiation Science Education in US Medical Schools.

US physicians in multiple specialties who order or conduct radiological procedures lack formal radiation science education and thus sometimes order procedures of limited benefit or fail to order what is necessary. To this end, a multidisciplinary expert group proposed an introductory broad-based radiation science educational program for US medical schools. Suggested preclinical elements of the curriculum include foundational education on ionizing and nonionizing radiation (eg, definitions, dose metrics, and risk measures) and short- and long-term radiation-related health effects as well as introduction to radiology, radiation therapy, and radiation protection concepts. Recommended clinical elements of the curriculum would impart knowledge and practical experience in radiology, fluoroscopically guided procedures, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and identification of patient subgroups requiring special considerations when selecting specific ionizing or nonionizing diagnostic or therapeutic radiation procedures. Critical components of the clinical program would also include educational material and direct experience with patient-centered communication on benefits of, risks of, and shared decision making about ionizing and nonionizing radiation procedures and on health effects and safety requirements for environmental and occupational exposure to ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Overarching is the introduction to evidence-based guidelines for procedures that maximize clinical benefit while limiting unnecessary risk. The content would be further developed, directed, and integrated within the curriculum by local faculties and would address multiple standard elements of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Radiation adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are on the horizon: advancing radiation protection through an international Horizon-Style exercise.

PURPOSE: The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework, a systematic tool that can link available mechanistic data with phenotypic outcomes of relevance to regulatory decision-making, is being explored in areas related to radiation risk assessment. To examine the challenges including the use of AOPs to support the radiation protection community, an international horizon-style exercise was initiated through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency High-Level Group on Low Dose Research Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group. The objective of the HSE was to facilitate the collection of ideas from a range of experts, to short-list a set of priority research questions that could, if answered, improve the description of the radiation dose-response relationship for low dose/dose-rate exposures, as well as reduce uncertainties in estimating the risk of developing adverse health outcomes following such exposures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HSE was guided by an international steering committee of radiation risk experts. In the first phase, research questions were solicited on areas that can be supported by the AOP framework, or challenges on the use of AOPs in radiation risk assessment. In the second phase, questions received were refined and sorted by the SC using a best-worst scaling method. During a virtual 3-day workshop, the list of questions was further narrowed. In the third phase, an international survey of the broader radiation protection community led to an orderly ranking of the top questions. RESULTS: Of the 271 questions solicited, 254 were accepted and categorized into 9 themes. These were further refined to the top 25 prioritized questions. Among these, the higher ranked questions will be considered as 'important' to drive future initiatives in the low dose radiation protection community. These included questions on the ability of AOPs to delineate responses across different levels of biological organization, and how AOPs could be applied to address research questions on radiation quality, doses or dose-rates, exposure time patterns and deliveries, and uncertainties in low dose/dose-rate effects. A better understanding of these concepts is required to support the use of the AOP framework in radiation risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Through dissemination of these results and considerations on next steps, the JTG will address select priority questions to advance the development and use of AOPs in the radiation protection community. The major themes observed will be discussed in the context of their relevance to areas of research that support the system of radiation protection.

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.

International expert group collaboration for developing an adverse outcome pathway for radiation induced leukemia.

PURPOSE: The concept of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) has recently gained significant attention as to its potential for incorporation of mechanistic biological information into the assessment of adverse health outcomes following ionizing radiation (IR) exposure. This work is an account of the activities of an international expert group formed specifically to develop an AOP for IR-induced leukemia. Group discussions were held during dedicated sessions at the international AOP workshop jointly organized by the MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative) and the ALLIANCE (European Radioecology Alliance) associations to consolidate knowledge into a number of biological key events causally linked by key event relationships and connecting a molecular initiating event with the adverse outcome. Further knowledge review to generate a weight of evidence support for the Key Event Relationships (KERs) was undertaken using a systematic review approach. CONCLUSIONS: An AOP for IR-induced acute myeloid leukemia was proposed and submitted for review to the OECD-curated AOP-wiki (aopwiki.org). The systematic review identified over 500 studies that link IR, as a stressor, to leukemia, as an adverse outcome. Knowledge gap identification, although requiring a substantial effort via systematic review of literature, appears to be one of the major added values of the AOP concept. Further work, both within this leukemia AOP working group and other similar working groups, is warranted and is anticipated to produce highly demanded products for the radiation protection research community.

Age effects on radiation response: summary of a recent symposium and future perspectives.

One of the principal uncertainties when estimating population risk of late effects from epidemiological data is that few radiation-exposed cohorts have been followed up to extinction. Therefore, the relative risk model has often been used to estimate radiation-associated risk and to extrapolate risk to the end of life. Epidemiological studies provide evidence that children are generally at higher risk of cancer induction than adults for a given radiation dose. However, the strength of evidence varies by cancer site and questions remain about site-specific age at exposure patterns. For solid cancers, there is a large body of evidence that excess relative risk (ERR) diminishes with increasing age at exposure. This pattern of risk is observed in the Life Span Study (LSS) as well as in other radiation-exposed populations for overall solid cancer incidence and mortality and for most site-specific solid cancers. However, there are some disparities by endpoint in the degree of variation of ERR with exposure age, with some sites (e.g., colon, lung) in the LSS incidence data showing no variation, or even increasing ERR with increasing age at exposure. The pattern of variation of excess absolute risk (EAR) with age at exposure is often similar, with EAR for solid cancers or solid cancer mortality decreasing with increasing age at exposure in the LSS. We shall review the human data from the Japanese LSS cohort, and a variety of other epidemiological data sets, including a review of types of medical diagnostic exposures, also some radiobiological animal data, all bearing on the issue of variations of radiation late-effects risk with age at exposure and with attained age. The paper includes a summary of several oral presentations given in a Symposium on "Age effects on radiation response" as part of the 67th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society, held virtually on 3-6 October 2021.

Strengthening radiation protection education and training of health professionals: conclusions from an IAEA meeting.

In March 2021 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organised an online Technical Meeting on Developing Effective Methods for Radiation Protection Education and Training of Health Professionals with attendance of 230 participants representing 66 Member States and 24 international organizations, professional bodies and safety alliances. By means of a pre-meeting survey, presentations by experts, topical panel discussions and post-meeting feedback to the meeting summary, the meeting identified strengths, common weaknesses and possible solutions and actions for improving radiation protection education and training of health professionals. Available guidelines and resources for radiation protection training were also reviewed. The meeting discussion resulted in a strong consensus for the need of: (a) international guidance on education and training in radiation protection and safety for health professionals, (b) an international description of minimum standards of initial and ongoing competence and qualification in radiation protection for relevant professional groups, considering the available recommendations at international and regional levels. The proposed actions include provisions for train-the-trainer credentialing and facility training accreditation, balance betwee the online and face-to-face training, improved on-the job training, as well as improved inclusion in training programmes of aspects related to application of new technologies, ethical aspects, development of communication skills, and use of software tools for improving justification and optimisation. The need for making the ongoing training practical, applicable, and useful to the trainee was highlighted. The international consultation initiated by the IAEA was appreciated as a good approach to understand and promote coordination and collaboration at all levels, for best results in education and training in radiation protection of health professionals. Implementing such a holistic approach to education and training in radiation protection would contribute towards qualification and competence of health professionals needed to ensure application of high standards for quality and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation.

Radiation exposures in pregnancy, health effects and risks to the embryo/foetus-information to inform the medical management of the pregnant patient.

Generally, intentional exposure of pregnant women is avoided as far as possible in both medical and occupational situations. This paper aims to summarise available information on sources of radiation exposure of the embryo/foetus primarily in medical settings. Accidental and unintended exposure is also considered. Knowledge on the effects of radiation exposure on the developing embryo/foetus remains incomplete-drawn largely from animal studies and two human cohorts but a summary is provided in relation to the key health endpoints of concern, severe foetal malformations/death, future cancer risk, and future impact on cognitive function. Both the specific education and training and also the literature regarding medical management of pregnant females is in general sparse, and consequently the justification and optimisation approaches may need to be considered on a case by case basis. In collating and reviewing this information, several suggestions for future basic science research, education and training, and radiation protection practice are identified.

Waardenburg Syndrome and Left Persistent Superior Vena Cava.

Waardenburg syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic disorder secondary to neural crest cell developmental abnormalities. It is predominantly described as an auditory-pigmentary syndrome with diverse patient presentation, typically involving congenital sensorineural hearing loss and pigmentation abnormalities of the skin, hair, and iris. Other developmental abnormalities that may be associated with this syndrome are Hirschsprung's disease and a myriad of cardiovascular congenital defects. We present a case of a young girl with WS who found to have a persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) draining into the coronary sinus. The prevalence of PLSVC is increased in patients with chromosomal and genetic abnormalities. However, we are the first to report its presence in association with WS while discussing the challenges that may arise during central venous catheter placement in patients with PLSVC.

Multiphase acquisitions in pediatric abdominal-pelvic CT are a common practice and contribute to unnecessary radiation dose.

BACKGROUND: Many patients at our pediatric hospital have had a contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis performed by an outside imaging facility before admission. We have noticed that many of these exams are multiphase, which may contribute to unnecessary radiation dose. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of multiphase acquisitions and radiation dose indices in contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis performed by outside imaging facilities in patients who were subsequently transferred to our pediatric hospital for care, and compare these metrics to contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis performed internally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis from outside imaging facilities uploaded to our picture archiving and communication system (PACS) between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015. CT images and dose pages were reviewed to determine the number of phases and dose indices (CT dose index-volume [CTDIvol], dose-length product, size-specific dose estimate). Exams for abdominal or pelvic mass, trauma or urinary leak indications were excluded. Data were compared to internally acquired contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis by querying the American College of Radiology (ACR) Dose Index Registry. This review was institutional review board and HIPAA compliant. RESULTS: There were 754 contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis from 104 outside imaging facilities. Fifty-three percent (399/754) had 2 phases, and 2% (14/754) had 3 or more phases. Of the 939 contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis performed internally, 12% (115) were multiphase exams. Of 88% (664) contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis from outside imaging facilities with dose data, CTDIvol was 2.7 times higher than our institution contrast-enhanced CTs of the abdomen and pelvis (939) for all age categories as defined by the ACR Dose Index Registry (mean: 9.4 vs. 3.5 mGy, P<0.0001). The majority (74%) of multiphase exams were performed by 9 of 104 outside imaging facilities. CONCLUSION: Multiphase acquisitions in routine contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis exams at outside imaging facilities are more frequent than those at a dedicated pediatric institution and contribute to unnecessary radiation dose. A contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis exam from an outside imaging facility with two passes may have as much as four times to six times the dose as the same exam performed with a single pass at a pediatric imaging center. We advocate for imaging facilities with high multiphase rates to eliminate multiple phases from routine contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis exams in children.

Using the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry to Evaluate Practice Patterns and Radiation Dose Estimates of Pediatric Body CT.

OBJECTIVE: Imaging registries afford opportunities to study large, heterogeneous populations. The purpose of this study was to examine the American College of Radiology CT Dose Index Registry (DIR) for dose-related demographics and metrics of common pediatric body CT examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-phase CT examinations of the abdomen and pelvis and chest submitted to the DIR over a 5-year period (July 2011-June 2016) were evaluated (head CT frequency was also collected). CT examinations were stratified into five age groups, and examination frequency was determined across age and sex. Standard dose indexes (volume CT dose index, dose-length product, and size-specific dose estimate) were categorized by body part and age. Contributions to the DIR were also categorized by region and practice type. RESULTS: Over the study period 411,655 single-phase pediatric examinations of the abdomen and pelvis, chest, and head, constituting 5.7% of the total (adult and pediatric) examinations, were submitted to the DIR. Head CT was the most common examination across all age groups. The majority of all scan types were performed for patients in the second decade of life. Dose increased for all scan types as age increased; the dose for abdominopelvic CT was the highest in each age group. Even though the DIR was queried for single-phase examinations only, as many as 32.4% of studies contained multiple irradiation events. When these additional scans were included, the volume CT dose index for each scan type increased. Among the studies in the DIR, 99.8% came from institutions within the United States. Community practices and those that specialize in pediatrics were nearly equally represented. CONCLUSION: The DIR provides valuable information about practice patterns and dose trends for pediatric CT and may assist in establishing diagnostic reference levels in the pediatric population.