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.

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.

Summary of NCRP 2019 Annual Meeting, NCRP Meeting the Challenge at 90: Providing Best Answers to Your Most Pressing Questions About Radiation.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) held its 55 Annual Meeting 1-2 April 2019 in Bethesda, Maryland. The 2019 meeting was a special year for NCRP as it marked the 90 Anniversary of the founding of the predecessor organization, US Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection. Leaders for the scientific portion of the meeting were Fred A. Mettler, Jr., M.D. (Chair), University of New Mexico School of Medicine; Jerrold T. Bushberg, Ph.D. (Co-Chair), University of California Davis; and Richard J. Vetter, Ph.D. (Co-Chair), Mayo Clinic. The meeting was designed to explore important areas of inquiry associated with use of ionizing radiation relevant to radiation protection, addressing frequently asked questions and concerns from both members of the public and radiation professionals. The meeting was organized into six sessions plus three honorary lectures and a special presentation. This paper summarizes the scientific content of the six sessions and is based on the notes of the co-chairs and the slides of the speakers. The three honorary lectures are included as other papers in this issue.

Uses of Effective Dose: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.

Effective dose (E) is a risk-adjusted dosimetric quantity developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. It is a key metric for practical management of the risk of stochastic health effects in a comprehensive radiation protection program. The International Commission on Radiological Protection and others have emphasized repeatedly that E is not intended to represent an actual radiation dose and should not be used as a risk-related metric for a specific person or population. The cancer risk uncertainties in the low-dose range and the underlying approximations, simplifications, and sex- and age-averaging used in generating E make it unsuitable for this purpose. However, in practice, medical imaging professionals and authors of peer-reviewed medical publications frequently and incorrectly use E as a surrogate for whole-body dose in order to calculate cancer risk estimates for specific patients or patient populations. This frequent misuse has popularized E for uses for which it was neither designed nor intended. Alternatives to E have been proposed that attempt to account for known age and sex differences in radiation sensitivity. E has also been proposed as a general indicator for communicating radiation risk to patients, if its limitations are kept in mind. Forthcoming guidance from the International Commission on Radiological Protection will likely clarify if, when, and how some form of E may be used as a rough indicator of the risk of a stochastic effect, possibly with some modifications for the substantial variations in risk known to exist with respect to age, sex, and population group.

Nuclear/radiological terrorism: emergency department management of radiation casualties.

Recent world events have increased concern that hospitals must be prepared for radiological emergencies. Emergency departments (EDs) must be ready to treat patients suffering from injuries in combination with radiation exposure or contamination with radioactive material. Every hospital should have a Radiological Emergency Medical Response Plan, tested through periodic drills, which will allow effective handling of contaminated and injured patients. Treatment of life-threatening or severe traumatic injuries must take priority over radiation-related issues. The risk to ED staff from radioactive contamination is minimal if universal precautions are used. The likelihood of significant radiation exposure to staff under most circumstances is small. Educating medical staff on the magnitude of the radiological hazards allows them to promptly and confidently provide the necessary patient care. Measures must be taken to prevent the "worried well" and uninjured people with radioactive contamination from overwhelming the ED.

RF Safety Analysis of a Novel Ultra-wideband Fetal Monitoring System.

The LifeWave Ultra-Wideband RF sensor (LWUWBS) is a monitoring solution for a variety of physiologic assessment applications, including maternal fetal monitoring in both the antepartum and intrapartum periods. The system uses extremely low power radio frequency (RF) ultra-wide band (UWB) signals to provide continuous fetal heart rate and contractions monitoring during labor and delivery. Even with the incorporation of three very conservative assumptions, (1) concentration of the RF energy in 1 cm, (2) minimal (2.5 cm) maternal tissue attenuation of fetal exposure, and (3) absence of normal thermoregulatory compensation, the maternal whole body spatial-averaged specific absorption rate (WBSAR) would be 34,000 times below the FCC public exposure limit of 0.08 W kg and, at 8 wk or more gestation, the peak spatial-averaged specific absorption rate (PSSAR) in the fetus would be more than 160 times below the localized exposure limit of 1.6 mW g. Even when using very conservative assumptions, an analysis of the LWUWBS's impact on tissue heating is a factor of 7 lower than what is allowed for fetal ultrasound and at least a factor of 650 compared to fetal MRI. The actual transmitted power levels of the LWUWBS are well below all Federal safety standards, and the potential for tissue heating is substantially lower than associated with current ultrasonic fetal monitors and MRI.

Eleventh annual Warren K. Sinclair keynote address-science, radiation protection and NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future.

The many reports and other authoritative documents developed and published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have been of great service to the nation and the radiation protection community since its Congressional charter was signed into law 50 y ago. There will be a continuing need for NCRP to identify the principles upon which radiation protection is to be based and to provide guidance on best practices for the practical application of those principles for the many beneficial uses of radiation in society. The unique and invaluable resource that is NCRP is in large part due to the selfless dedication and numerous contributions of its Council and scientific committee members. The multidisciplinary composition of these leading experts and their collective input on complex questions provide a unique synergy that results in a comprehensive and well-balanced approach to addressing current and future radiation protection challenges. Subsequent articles in these proceedings covering a broad range of relevant topics will review sentinel accomplishments of the past as well as current work and future challenges that are in keeping with NCRP's mission to advance the science of radiation protection in the public interest.

Answers to Common Questions About the Use and Safety of CT Scans.

Articles in the scientific literature and lay press over the past several years have implied that computed tomography (CT) may cause cancer and that physicians and patients must exercise caution in its use. Although there is broad agreement on the latter point--unnecessary medical tests of any type should always be avoided--there is considerable controversy surrounding the question of whether, or to what extent, CT scans can lead to future cancers. Although the doses used in CT are higher than those used in conventional radiographic examinations, they are still 10 to 100 times lower than the dose levels that have been reported to increase the risk of cancer. Despite the fact that at the low doses associated with a CT scan the risk either is too low to be convincingly demonstrated or does not exist, the magnitude of the concern among patients and some medical professionals that CT scans increase cancer risk remains unreasonably high. In this article, common questions about CT scanning and radiation are answered to provide physicians with accurate information on which to base their medical decisions and respond to patient questions.

IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation--COMAR technical information statement radiofrequency safety and utility Smart Meters.

This Technical Information Statement describes Smart Meter technology as used with modern electric power metering systems and focuses on the radio frequency (RF) emissions associated with their operation relative to human RF exposure limits. Smart Meters typically employ low power (-1 W or less) transmitters that wirelessly send electric energy usage data to the utility company several times per day in the form of brief, pulsed emissions in the unlicensed frequency bands of 902-928 MHz and 2.4-2.48 GHz or on other nearby frequencies. Most Smart Meters operate as wireless mesh networks where each Smart Meter can communicate with other neighboring meters to relay data to a data collection point in the region. This communication process includes RF emissions from Smart Meters representing energy usage as well as the relaying of data from other meters and emissions associated with maintaining the meter's hierarchy within the wireless network. As a consequence, most Smart Meters emit RF pulses throughout the day, more at certain times and less at others. However, the duty cycle associated with all of these emissions is very small, typically less than 1%, and most of the time far less than 1%, meaning that most Smart Meters actually transmit RF fields for only a few minutes per day at most. The low peak power of Smart Meters and the very low duty cycles lead to the fact that accessible RF fields near Smart Meters are far below both U.S. and international RF safety limits whether judged on the basis of instantaneous peak power densities or time-averaged exposures. This conclusion holds for Smart Meters alone or installed in large banks of meters.

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.