Medical imaging dose optimisation from ground up: expert opinion of an international summit.

As in any medical intervention, there is either a known or an anticipated benefit to the patient from undergoing a medical imaging procedure. This benefit is generally significant, as demonstrated by the manner in which medical imaging has transformed clinical medicine. At the same time, when it comes to imaging that deploys ionising radiation, there is a potential associated risk from radiation. Radiation risk has been recognised as a key liability in the practice of medical imaging, creating a motivation for radiation dose optimisation. The level of radiation dose and risk in imaging varies but is generally low. Thus, from the epidemiological perspective, this makes the estimation of the precise level of associated risk highly uncertain. However, in spite of the low magnitude and high uncertainty of this risk, its possibility cannot easily be refuted. Therefore, given the moral obligation of healthcare providers, 'first, do no harm,' there is an ethical obligation to mitigate this risk. Precisely how to achieve this goal scientifically and practically within a coherent system has been an open question. To address this need, in 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organised a summit to clarify the role of Diagnostic Reference Levels to optimise imaging dose, summarised into an initial report (Järvinen et al 2017 Journal of Medical Imaging 4 031214). Through a consensus building exercise, the summit further concluded that the imaging optimisation goal goes beyond dose alone, and should include image quality as a means to include both the benefit and the safety of the exam. The present, second report details the deliberation of the summit on imaging optimisation.

Asymmetric breast dose in coronary angiography.

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate asymmetric radiation dose distribution to the breasts in coronary angiography. Gafchromic XR-QA2 film was used as an area dosimeter to capture the asymmetric dose distribution to the breasts at various tissue depths in an anthropomorphic phantom. A selection of tube angulations were used under a controlled experiment and during a mock coronary angiography procedure. The Gafchromic XR-QA2 film was able to confirm the asymmetric distribution of radiation dose to the breast and provide a normalized breast dose value. The right breast received the majority of dose for most of the tube angulations in the controlled experiment. However the left breast received the most radiation dose during the mock procedure. Asymmetric dose distribution to the breasts is normally not observed if Monte Carlo based simulations are performed because individual breast dose calculations are not available. The application of a typical coronary angiogram determined in the experiment showed the normalized left breast dose is 0.16 mGy/ Gy.cm2 and the right breast dose is 0.08 mGy/ Gy.cm2.

Validation of the Australian diagnostic reference levels for paediatric multi detector computed tomography: a comparison of RANZCR QUDI data and subsequent NDRLS data from 2012 to 2015.

The national diagnostic reference level service (NDRLS), was launched in 2011, however no paediatric data were submitted during the first calendar year of operation. As such, Australian national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs), for paediatric multi detector computed tomography (MDCT), were established using data obtained from a Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR), Quality Use of Diagnostic Imaging (QUDI), study. Paediatric data were submitted to the NDRLS in 2012 through 2015. An analysis has been made of the NDRLS paediatric data using the same method as was used to analyse the QUDI data to establish the Australian national paediatric DRLs for MDCT. An analysis of the paediatric NDRLS data has also been made using the method used to calculate the Australian national adult DRLs for MDCT. A comparison between the QUDI data and subsequent NDRLS data shows the NDRLS data to be lower on average for the Head and AbdoPelvis protocol and similar for the chest protocol. Using an average of NDRLS data submitted between 2012 and 2015 implications for updated paediatric DRLS are considered.

Patient dose monitoring and the use of diagnostic reference levels for the optimization of protection in medical imaging: current status and challenges worldwide.

Optimization is one of the key concepts of radiation protection in medical imaging. In practice, it involves compromising between the image quality and dose to the patient; the dose should not be higher than necessary to achieve an image quality (or diagnostic information) needed for the clinical task. Monitoring patient dose is a key requirement toward optimization. The concept of diagnostic reference level (DRL) was introduced by the International Commission on Radiological Protection as a practical tool for optimization. Unfortunately, this concept has not been applied consistently worldwide. To review the current strengths and weaknesses worldwide and to promote improvements, the International Atomic Energy Agency organized a Technical Meeting on patient dose monitoring and the use of DRLs on May 2016. This paper reports a summary of the findings and conclusions from the meeting. The strengths and weaknesses were generally different in less-developed countries compared with developed countries. Possible improvements were suggested in six areas: human resources and responsibilities, training, safety and quality culture, regulations, funding, and tools and methods. An overall conclusion was that radiation protection requires a patient-centric approach and a transfer from purely reactive to increasingly proactive optimization, whereby the best outcome is expected from good teamwork.

Derivation of Australian diagnostic reference levels for paediatric multi detector computed tomography.

Australian National Diagnostic Reference Levels for paediatric multi detector computed tomography were established for three protocols, Head, Chest and AbdoPelvis, across two age groups, Baby/Infant 0-4 years and Child 5-14 years by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency in 2012. The establishment of Australian paediatric DRLs is an important step towards lowering patient CT doses on a national scale. While Adult DRLs were calculated with data collected from the web based Australian National Diagnostic Reference Level Service, no paediatric data was submitted in the first year of service operation. Data from an independent Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Quality Use of Diagnostic Imaging paediatric optimisation survey was used. The paediatric DRLs were defined for CTDIvol (mGy) and DLP (mGy·cm) values that referenced the 16 cm PMMA phantom for the Head protocol and the 32 cm PMMA phantom for body protocols for both paediatric age groups. The Australian paediatric DRLs for multi detector computed tomography are for the Head, Chest and AbdoPelvis protocols respectively, 470, 60 and 170 mGy·cm for the Baby/Infant age group, and 600, 110 and 390 mGy·cm for the Child age group. A comparison with published international paediatric DRLs for computed tomography reveal the Australian paediatric DRLs to be lower on average. However, the comparison is complicated by misalignment of defined age ranges. It is the intention of ARPANSA to review the paediatric DRLs in conjunction with a review of the adult DRLs, which should occur within 5 years of their publication.

Radiation dose to PET technologists and strategies to lower occupational exposure.

OBJECTIVE: The use of PET in Australia has grown rapidly. We conducted a prospective study of the radiation exposure of technologists working in PET and evaluated the occupational radiation dose after implementation of strategies to lower exposure. METHODS: Radiation doses measured by thermoluminescent dosimeters over a 2-y period were reviewed both for technologists working in PET and for technologists working in general nuclear medicine in a busy academic nuclear medicine department. The separate components of the procedures for dose administration and patient monitoring were assessed to identify the areas contributing the most to the dose received. The impact on dose of implementing portable 511-keV syringe shields (primary shields) and larger trolley-mounted shields (secondary shields) was also compared with initial results using no shield. RESULTS: We found that the radiation exposure of PET technologists was higher than that of technologists performing general nuclear medicine studies, with doses averaging 771 +/- 147 and 524 +/- 123 microSv per quarter, respectively (P = 0.01). The estimated dose per PET procedure was 4.1 microSv (11 nSv/MBq). Injection of 18F-FDG contributed the most to radiation exposure. The 511-keV syringe shield reduced the average dose per injection from 2.5 to 1.4 microSv (P < 0.001). For the longer period of dose transportation and injection, the additional use of the secondary shield resulted in a significantly lower dose of radiation than did use of the primary shield alone or no shield (1.9 vs. 3.6 microSv [P = 0.01] and 3.4 microSv [P = 0.03], respectively). CONCLUSION: The radiation doses currently received by technologists working in PET are within accepted occupational health guidelines, but improved shielding can further reduce the dose.

Sources of funding for adult and paediatric CT procedures at a metropolitan tertiary hospital: How much do Medicare statistics really cover?

INTRODUCTION: The radiation dose to the Australian paediatric population as a result of medical imaging is of growing concern, in particular the dose from CT. Estimates of the Australian population dose have largely relied on Medicare Australia statistics, which capture only a fraction of those imaging procedures actually performed. The fraction not captured has been estimated using a value obtained for a survey of the adult population in the mid-1990s. To better quantify the fraction of procedures that are not captured by Medicare Australia, procedure frequency and funding data for adult and paediatric patients were obtained from a metropolitan tertiary teaching and research hospital. METHODS: Five calendar years of data were obtained with a financial class specified for each individual procedure. The financial classes were grouped to give the percentage of Medicare Australia billable procedures for both adult and paediatric patients. The data were also grouped to align with the Medicare Australia age cohorts. RESULTS: The percentage of CT procedures billable to Medicare Australia increased from 16% to 28% between 2008 and 2012. In 2012, the percentage billable for adult and paediatric patients was 28% and 33%, respectively; however, many adult CT procedures are performed at stand-alone clinics, which bulk bill. CONCLUSION: Using Medicare Australia statistics alone, the frequency of paediatric CT procedures performed on the Australian paediatric population will be grossly under estimated. A correction factor of 4.5 is suggested for paediatric procedures and 1.5 for adult procedures. The fraction of actual procedures performed that are captured by Medicare Australia will vary with time.

Australian diagnostic reference levels for multi detector computed tomography.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is undertaking web based surveys to obtain data to establish national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for diagnostic imaging. The first set of DRLs to be established are for multi detector computed tomography (MDCT). The survey samples MDCT dosimetry metrics: dose length product (DLP, mGy.cm) and volume computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol, mGy), for six common protocols/habitus: Head, Neck, Chest, AbdoPelvis, ChestAbdoPelvis and Lumbar Spine from individual radiology clinics and platforms. A practice reference level (PRL) for a given platform and protocol is calculated from a compliant survey containing data collected from at least ten patients. The PRL is defined as the median of the DLP/CTDIvol values for a single compliant survey. Australian National DRLs are defined as the 75th percentile of the distribution of the PRLs for each protocol and age group. Australian National DRLs for adult MDCT have been determined in terms of DLP and CTDIvol. In terms of DLP the national DRLs are 1,000 mGy cm, 600 mGy cm, 450 mGy cm, 700 mGy cm, 1,200 mGy cm, and 900 mGy cm for the protocols Head, Neck, Chest, AbdoPelvis, ChestAbdoPelvis and Lumbar Spine respectively. Average dose values obtained from the European survey Dose Datamed I reveal Australian doses to be higher by comparison for four out of the six protocols. The survey is ongoing, allowing practices to optimise dose delivery as well as allowing the periodic update of DRLs to reflect changes in technology and technique.

Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cancer risk in children and adolescents following exposure to low dose ionising radiation from diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans. DESIGN: Population based, cohort, data linkage study in Australia. COHORT MEMBERS: 10.9 million people identified from Australian Medicare records, aged 0-19 years on 1 January 1985 or born between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 2005; all exposures to CT scans funded by Medicare during 1985-2005 were identified for this cohort. Cancers diagnosed in cohort members up to 31 December 2007 were obtained through linkage to national cancer records. MAIN OUTCOME: Cancer incidence rates in individuals exposed to a CT scan more than one year before any cancer diagnosis, compared with cancer incidence rates in unexposed individuals. RESULTS: 60,674 cancers were recorded, including 3150 in 680,211 people exposed to a CT scan at least one year before any cancer diagnosis. The mean duration of follow-up after exposure was 9.5 years. Overall cancer incidence was 24% greater for exposed than for unexposed people, after accounting for age, sex, and year of birth (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.29); P<0.001). We saw a dose-response relation, and the IRR increased by 0.16 (0.13 to 0.19) for each additional CT scan. The IRR was greater after exposure at younger ages (P<0.001 for trend). At 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15 or more years since first exposure, IRRs were 1.35 (1.25 to 1.45), 1.25 (1.17 to 1.34), 1.14 (1.06 to 1.22), and 1.24 (1.14 to 1.34), respectively. The IRR increased significantly for many types of solid cancer (digestive organs, melanoma, soft tissue, female genital, urinary tract, brain, and thyroid); leukaemia, myelodysplasia, and some other lymphoid cancers. There was an excess of 608 cancers in people exposed to CT scans (147 brain, 356 other solid, 48 leukaemia or myelodysplasia, and 57 other lymphoid). The absolute excess incidence rate for all cancers combined was 9.38 per 100,000 person years at risk, as of 31 December 2007. The average effective radiation dose per scan was estimated as 4.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: The increased incidence of cancer after CT scan exposure in this cohort was mostly due to irradiation. Because the cancer excess was still continuing at the end of follow-up, the eventual lifetime risk from CT scans cannot yet be determined. Radiation doses from contemporary CT scans are likely to be lower than those in 1985-2005, but some increase in cancer risk is still likely from current scans. Future CT scans should be limited to situations where there is a definite clinical indication, with every scan optimised to provide a diagnostic CT image at the lowest possible radiation dose.

The implementation of diagnostic reference levels to Australian radiology practice.

At the present time, there is no national surveillance of the increasing ionising radiation dose to the population from diagnostic imaging procedures. As the number of procedures undertaken is increasing, it is expected that the population dose will also increase. A substantial component of that contribution is from multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) systems. The Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) estimates that the growth in MDCT scans, based on Medicare Benefits Schedule data, is increasing at approximately 9% per annum, with over 2 million MDCT scans being performed in 2009. The caput effective dose (mSv) from this modality is expected to be approaching 1.2 mSv per annum. If current dose-detriment models are accurate, the risk of induction of carcinogenic detriment from current MDCT scanning patterns is a significant public health issue that requires a concerted and ongoing response. For the application of ionising radiation in medicine, the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends the conservative philosophy of Justification and Optimisation via the measurement of 'Diagnostic Reference Levels' to limit the potential overexposure of patients and decrease the overall population burden. The Australian government has commissioned ARPANSA to survey, calculate and construct representative national diagnostic reference levels for diagnostic imaging modalities that use ionising radiation. This will be achieved in close consultation with the professional organisations who represent the professionals responsible for the use of ionising radiation in diagnostic imaging.

Multidetector CT dose: clinical practice improvement strategies from a successful optimization program.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to collect data relating to radiation dose delivered by multidetector CT scanning at 10 hospitals and private practices in Queensland, Australia, and to test methods for dose optimization training, including audit feedback and didactic, face-to-face, small-group teaching of optimization techniques. METHODS: Ten hospital-based public and private sector radiology practices, with one CT scanner per site, volunteered for the project. Data were collected for a variety of common adult and pediatric CT scanning protocols, including tube current-time product, pitch, collimation, tube voltage, the use of dose modulation, and scan length. A one-day feedback and optimization training workshop was conducted for participating practices and was attended by the radiologist and medical imaging technologist responsible for the project at each site. Data were deidentified for the workshop presentation. During the feedback workshop, a detailed analysis and discussion of factors contributing to dose for higher dosing practices for each protocol occurred. The postoptimization training data collection phase allowed changes to median and spread of doses to be measured. RESULTS: During the baseline survey period, data for 1,208 scans were collected, and data from 1,153 scans were collected for the postoptimization dose survey for the 4 adult protocols (noncontrast brain CT, CT pulmonary angiography , CT lumbar spine, and CT urography). A mean decrease in effective dose was achieved with all scan protocols. Average reductions of 46% for brain CT, 28% for CT pulmonary angiography, 29% for CT lumbar spine, and 24% CT urography were calculated. It proved impossible to collect valid pediatric data from most sites, because of the small numbers of children presenting for multidetector CT, and phantom data were acquired during the preoptimization and postoptimization phase. Substantial phantom dose reductions were demonstrated at all sites. CONCLUSION: Audit feedback and small-group teaching about optimization enabled clinically meaningful dose reduction for a variety of common adult scans. However, access to medical radiation physicists, assistance with time-consuming data collection, and technical support from a medical imaging technologist were costly and critical to the success of the program.