Awareness of radiation risks by medical students & referrers requesting radiological examinations in the North of Scotland: an audit.

INTRODUCTION: Radiological imaging has played an important role in diagnostic medicine for over a century, though it is known to contribute to dermatological conditions, cataracts, and cancer. The associated risk of harm has led to the introduction of protective regulations around the world. Present-day NHS clinicians are increasingly requesting and relying on diagnostic imaging. Knowledge surrounding the radiation doses of common radiological investigations and the associated risks is imperative, and on a global level has been found to be inadequate. Consequently, there is a need for the formal inclusion of teaching within training programmes. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: This prospective audit aims to establish the knowledge of radiation doses and risks of common radiological investigations of both medical students and referrers within four NHS Health Boards based in the North of Scotland. It also seeks to establish prior teaching and the preference for further educational interventions. AUDIT STANDARD: Referrers should have adequate knowledge of radiation doses and the risks associated with common radiological investigations. AUDIT TARGET: The standard should be achieved by 90% of referrers. METHODS: A 19-question online survey was devised to include subjective and objective questions on ionising radiation awareness, education preference, and respondent demographics, based on RCR (Royal College of Radiologists) audit criteria and previous studies. Data collection was conducted between the 22/02/23 to the 22/03/2023 and the questionnaire was distributed to senior medical students and radiological referrers of different grades within NHS Grampian, NHS Highland, NHS Shetland, and NHS Orkney. A descriptive analysis of the data was undertaken using Microsoft Excel Version 16.71. RESULTS: Two hundred eight questionnaires were completed. 22.11% (n = 46) of the sample population had received no prior teaching on the topic of ionising radiation. Over half of the respondents (51.92%, n = 108) rated the importance of radiation risks as either important or extremely important, with 69.71% (n = 145) of participants rating their perceived knowledge as limited or average. Most correctly identified that a CT scan (n = 203), PET-CT scan (n = 199) and a chest x-ray (n = 196) exposed patients to ionising radiation. A small proportion of the participants incorrectly thought that an MRI scan (n = 21) and an ultrasound scan (n = 2) involved ionising radiation. The results obtained failed to meet the RCR audit target, which states that 90% of doctors should be aware of common radiological doses. It was observed that only 17.79% (n = 37) of survey respondents scored over 50% in the knowledge assessment, with the median knowledge score of the whole cohort being 2.5 out of 9 (27.78%). Respondents who had prior teaching on the topic performed better those who had no prior teaching, with average scores of 3.19 (35.44%) and 2.04 (22.67%) respectively. Senior clinicians performed better when compared to junior clinicians and medical students. CONCLUSION & FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS: This audit found that the knowledge of radiation risks within the North of Scotland in the selected sample population was insufficient across all levels of the clinical team. Further, continuous education around the topic and future audit opportunities may help to optimise knowledge and training.

Assessing the role of the universal addition of CT thorax to CT abdomen and pelvis in the COVID era. A retrospective multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The SARS-CoV2 infection is associated with high mortality for individuals who undergo emergency surgery. The United Kingdom surgical associations and Colleges of Surgeons collectively recommended the addition of CT Thorax to all emergency CT abdomen/pelvis imaging in order to help identify possible COVID-19 patients. Early identification of these patients would lead to optimal treatment strategies for the patient and protection for staff members. However, an extension of CT would be associated with increased irradiation doses for the patient, and its diagnostic relevance was unclear. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational review looking at all surgical admissions that required a CT Thorax/Abdomen/Pelvis across 7 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic, across four Scottish Hospitals. CT thorax investigations (of non-surgical patients) were also re-assessed by a single radiologist to assess the extent of pathology identified at the lung bases (and therefore would be included in a standard CT abdomen and pelvis). RESULTS: Of 216 patients identified who had a CT thorax/Abdomen/Pelvis during the timeframe, 5 were diagnosed with COVID-19. During this timeframe, 77 patients underwent solely CT thorax. Across the entire cohort, 98% of COVID pathology was identified at the lung bases. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of CT thorax was 60 and 86.4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a region with relatively low prevalence of SARS-COV2 infection, inclusion of CT Thorax in surgical admission imaging does not significantly contribute to identification and management of SARS-COV2 patients. We therefore suggest that imaging the lung bases can be sufficient to raise clinical suspicion of COVID-19. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper adds further evidence to that from other single UK centres that the addition of CT chest for all patients does not yield any further diagnostic information regarding coronavirus. Additionally, rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing in the UK (which is currently widely available) further demonstrates that inclusion of the entire chest during CT examination of the acute abdomen is not required.

Low vs. standard dose computed tomography in suspected acute appendicitis: Is it time for a change?

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnosis is accurate in only 80% of patients with suspected appendicitis with negative appendectomy rates of up to 21%. In the UK the use of standard-dose CT (SDCT) is conservative due to concerns over radiation exposure and resource implications. The use of low dose computer tomography (LDCT) instead of standard dose computer tomography (SDCT) may partially address these concerns. AIM: To compare LDCT and SDCT in the diagnosis of appendicitis. METHODS: A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases in July 2015 was conducted using the keywords 'low dose CT' and 'appendicitis'. Data were analysed and p values calculated using the Chi-square test. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be significant. RESULTS: LDCT (1.2-5.3 mSv) was not inferior to SDCT (5.2-10.2 mSv) in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and proposing alternative diagnoses. SDCT was superior to LDCT in the negative predictive value of diagnosis of appendiceal perforation. There was no significant difference between LDCT and SDCT in negative appendectomy rate, appendiceal perforation rate and the need for additional imaging. CONCLUSION: LDCT is not inferior to SDCT in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and proposing alternative diagnoses. Further studies are recommended to further assess the potential role of LDCT & its cost effectiveness. Its use may improve the current management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

F-18-FDG and C-11-Choline Positron Emission Tomography in Human Esophago-Gastric Cancer: Prediction of Response to Therapy.

BACKGROUND: To determine the utility of F-18-FDG and C-11-Choline uptake, in patients with esophageal and esophago-gastric junction tumors who are to undergo either neo-adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy, in predicting response (pathological and survival). METHODS: Eighteen patients with biopsy proven cancer were recruited prospectively. Patients underwent PET imaging before and during the first cycle of chemotherapy (seven and 14 days) with both F-18-FDG and C-11-Choline. Tracer uptake was quantified using Standardized Uptake Values. Pathological tumor response was determined using the Mandard criteria. Cellular proliferation was determined using ki-67 immunohistochemistry. Relationships between tracer uptake and response, one-year survival and cellular proliferation were determined. RESULTS: All 18 tumors were imaged by F-18-FDG PET compared to 16/18 with C-11-Choline. Change in uptake of either tracer did not correlate with pathological response. Pathological response did not influence survival (median-survival, responders = 16.1 months; non-responders = 19.0 months, p = 0.978). There was no significant correlation of change in tracer uptake with survival. C-11-Choline tumor uptake did not correlate with cellular proliferation. CONCLUSION: F-18-FDG PET is superior for imaging of the primary tumor. Neither F-18-FDG nor C-11-Choline PET was able to predict response accurately.