Assessing Radiology and Radiation Therapy Needs for Cancer Care in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: Insight From a Global Survey of Departmental and Institutional Leaders.

Purpose: The global cancer burden and mortality rates are increasing, with significant disparities in access to care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to identify radiology and radiation therapy needs in LMICs from the perspective of departmental and institutional leaders. Methods and Materials: A survey was developed and conducted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Global Needs Assessment Committee and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine International Council. The survey, organized into 5 sections (Introduction, Infrastructure Needs, Education Needs, Research Needs, and General Information), was open to respondents from March 1, to August 16, 2022. Results: A total of 175 responses were received from 6 global regions: Africa (31.4%), the Americas (17.7%), the Eastern Mediterranean (14.3%), Europe (9.1%), Southeast Asia (23.4%), and the Western Pacific (4.0%). The greatest reported need was for new or updated equipment, particularly positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging technology. There was also a high demand for clinical and equipment training. Approximately 25% of institutions reported a lack of radiology-based cancer screening programs because of high health care costs and a shortage of specialized equipment. Many institutions that expressed interest in research face funding and grant challenges. Conclusions: The findings highlight critical areas where organizations can support LMICs in enhancing radiology and radiation therapy services to mitigate the growing cancer burden.

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.

Pediatric craniosynostosis computed tomography: an institutional experience in reducing radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality.

BACKGROUND: Children with craniosynostosis may undergo multiple computed tomography (CT) examinations for diagnosis and post-treatment follow-up, resulting in cumulative radiation exposure. OBJECTIVE: To reduce the risks associated with radiation exposure, we evaluated the compliance, radiation dose reduction and clinical image quality of a lower-dose CT protocol for pediatric craniosynostosis implemented at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The standard of care at our institution was modified to replace pediatric head CT protocols with a lower-dose CT protocol utilizing 100 kV, 5 mAs and iterative reconstruction. Study-ordered, protocol-utilized and radiation-dose indices were collected for studies performed with routine pediatric brain protocols (n=22) and with the lower-dose CT protocol (n=135). Two pediatric neuroradiologists evaluated image quality in a subset (n=50) of the lower-dose CT studies by scoring visualization of cranial structures, confidence of diagnosis and the need for more radiation dose. RESULTS: During the 30-month period, the lower-dose CT protocol had high compliance, with 2/137 studies performed with routine brain protocols. With the lower-dose CT protocol, volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) was 1.1 mGy for all patients (0-9 years old) and effective dose ranged from 0.06 to 0.22 mSv, comparable to a 4-view skull radiography examination. CTDIvol was reduced by 98% and effective dose was reduced up to 67-fold. Confidence in diagnosing craniosynostosis was high and more radiation dose was considered unnecessary in all studies (n=50) by both radiologists. CONCLUSION: Replacing the routine pediatric brain CT protocol with a lower-dose CT craniosynostosis protocol substantially reduced radiation exposure without compromising image quality or diagnostic confidence.

Protocol for the measurement of the absorbed dose rate to water for a planar 32P beta emitting brachytherapy source: A multi-institutional validation.

PURPOSE: This is a multi-institutional report on inter-observer and inter-instrument variation in the calibration of the absorbed dose rate for a planar 32P beta emitting brachytherapy source. Measurement accuracy is essential since the dose profile is steep and the source is used for the treatment of tumors that are located in close proximity to healthy nervous system structures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An RIC-100 32P source was calibrated by three institutions using their own equipment and following their standard procedures. The first institution calibrated the source with an electron diode and EBT3 film. The second institution used an electron diode. The third institution used HD810 film. Additionally, each institution was asked to calibrate the source using an electron diode and procedure that was shared among all institutions and shipped along with the radiation source. The dose rate was reported in units of cGy*min-1 at a water equivalent depth of 1 mm. RESULTS: Close agreement was observed in the measurements from different users and equipment. The variation across all diode detectors and institutions had a standard deviation of 1.8% and maximum difference of 4.6%. The observed variation among two different diode systems used within the same institution had a mean difference of 1.6% and a maximum variation of 1.8%. The variations among film and diode systems used within the same institution had a mean difference of 2.9% and a maximum variation of 4.3% CONCLUSIONS: The absorbed dose rate measurement protocol of the planar beta-emitting 32P source permits consistent dosimetry across three institutions and five different electron diode and radiochromic film systems. The methodologies presented herein should enable measurement consistency among other clinical users, which will help ensure high quality patient treatments and outcomes analysis.

Patient size matters: Effect of tube current modulation on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in low-dose lung cancer screening CT.

PURPOSE: We compare the effect of tube current modulation (TCM) and fixed tube current (FTC) on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) for patients of all sizes. METHODS: Initially, 107 lung screening examinations were performed using FTC, which satisfied the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol ) limit of 3.0 mGy for standard-sized patients. Following protocol modification, 287 examinations were performed using TCM. Patient size and examination parameters were collected and water-equivalent diameter (Dw ) and SSDE were determined for each patient. Regression models were used to correlate CTDIvol and SSDE with Dw . Objective and subjective image quality were measured in 20 patients who had consecutive annual screenings with both FTC and TCM. RESULTS: CTDIvol was 2.3 mGy for all FTC scans and increased exponentially with Dw (range = 0.96-4.50 mGy, R2  = 0.73) for TCM scans. As patient Dw increased, SSDE decreased for FTC examinations (R2  = 1) and increased for TCM examinations (R2  = 0.54). Image quality measurements were superior with FTC for smaller sized patients and with TCM for larger sized patients (R2  > 0.5, P < 0.005). Radiologist graded all images acceptable for diagnostic evaluation of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Although FTC protocol offered a consistently low CTDIvol for all patients, it yielded unnecessarily high SSDE for small patients and increased image noise for large patients. Lung cancer screening with LDCT using TCM produces radiation doses that are appropriately reduced for small patients and increased for large patients with diagnostic image quality for all patients.

Low-dose Lung Cancer Screening at an Academic Medical Center: Initial Experience and Dose Reduction Strategies.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Implementation of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programs has followed the demonstration of reduced lung cancer mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial and subsequent consensus screening recommendations. Here we aim to assess the initial results of a screening program at an academic medical center, to discuss the challenges of implementing such a program, and suggest strategies for reducing patient dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients who underwent LDCT lung cancer screening at our institution between March 2015 and July 2016 was performed to assess the lung cancer detection rate, the spectrum of imaging findings (nodule or mass characteristics, degree of emphysema, etc.), and patient radiation dose indices. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were screened during the study period. Approximately 50% (n = 135) were women. The lung cancer detection rate was 2.2% (n = 6). One patient underwent chemoradiation therapy, whereas the remainder underwent uneventful thoracoscopic resection. Approximately, 80% of screened patients met United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria for LDCT screening. The median pack-years of smoking was 42 pack-years. The mean volume CT dose index for the screening CTs was 3.12 mGy. Utilizing tube current modulation and iterative reconstruction, where available, resulted in lower patient doses. CONCLUSION: Initial LDCT lung cancer screening at our institution yielded results similar to those of the National Lung Screening Trial. Thorough prescreening evaluation, joint decision-making, centralized coordination of screening-related care, and patient size conscious scanning protocols are critical elements of a safe and successful lung cancer screening program.