Notifications and alerts in patient dose values for computed tomography and fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures.

The terms "notifications" and "alerts" for medical exposures are used by several national and international organisations. Recommendations for CT scanners have been published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Some interventional radiology societies as well as national authorities have also published dose notifications for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Notifications and alerts may also be useful for optimisation and to avoid unintended and accidental exposures. The main interest in using these values for high-dose procedures (CT and interventional) is to optimise imaging procedures, reducing the probability of stochastic effects and avoiding tissue reactions. Alerts in X-ray systems may be considered before procedures (as in CT), during procedures (in some interventional radiology systems), and after procedures, when the patient radiation dose results are known and processed. This review summarises the different uses of notifications and alerts to help in optimisation for CT and for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures as well as in the analysis of unintended and accidental medical exposures. The paper also includes cautions in setting the alert values and discusses the benefits of using patient dose management systems for the alerts, their registry and follow-up, and the differences between notifications, alerts, and trigger levels for individual procedures and the terms used for the collective approach, such as diagnostic reference levels. KEY POINTS: • Notifications and alerts on patient dose values for computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures (FGIP) allow to improve radiation safety and contribute to the avoidance of radiation injuries and unintended and accidental exposures. • Alerts may be established before the imaging procedures (as in CT) or during and after the procedures as for FGIP. • Dose management systems should include notifications and alerts and their registry for the hospital quality programmes.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Use of Chest Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19: A WHO Rapid Advice Guide.

The World Health Organization (WHO) undertook the development of a rapid guide on the use of chest imaging in the diagnosis and management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The rapid guide was developed over 2 months by using standard WHO processes, except for the use of "rapid reviews" and online meetings of the panel. The evidence review was supplemented by a survey of stakeholders regarding their views on the acceptability, feasibility, impact on equity, and resource use of the relevant chest imaging modalities (chest radiography, chest CT, and lung US). The guideline development group had broad expertise and country representation. The rapid guide includes three diagnosis recommendations and four management recommendations. The recommendations cover patients with confirmed or who are suspected of having COVID-19 with different levels of disease severity, throughout the care pathway from outpatient facility or hospital entry to home discharge. All recommendations are conditional and are based on low certainty evidence (n = 2), very low certainty evidence (n = 2), or expert opinion (n = 3). The remarks accompanying the recommendations suggest which patients are likely to benefit from chest imaging and what factors should be considered when choosing the specific imaging modality. The guidance offers considerations about implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, and also identifies research needs. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The use of imaging in COVID-19-results of a global survey by the International Society of Radiology.

OBJECTIVES: This survey conducted by the International Society of Radiology and supported by the European Society of Radiology aimed to collect information regarding radiology departments' current practices in the management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Responses from 50 radiology departments involved in the management of COVID-19 patients representing 33 countries across all continents were analyzed. The analysis revealed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world for different disease severity and various clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions do not image) but is used at the end of confinement (in 60% of institutions). In the majority of institutions, chest imaging is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19 (89% and 94%). All imaging departments involved in this survey reported the use of imaging in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill. However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. The use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations in 98% of institutions with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. The vast majority of institutions reported a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the imaging department's routine activity (83%). CONCLUSION: We believe that the results of this survey will help to understand current heterogeneities in radiology practice and to identify needs and gaps in the organization and function of radiology departments worldwide in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey may inform the development of an overall strategy for radiology department organization and imaging protocols in pandemic conditions. KEY POINTS: • The results of this survey, which included responses from 50 radiology departments representing 33 countries, showed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world. • While imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions), it is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19, in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill, and at the end of confinement (89%, 94%, 100%, 100%, 60% of institutions, respectively). However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. • In 98% of institutions, the use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations, with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. COVID-19 pandemic made a significant impact on the imaging department's routine activity in 83% of institutions.

Cumulative effective dose from recurrent CT examinations in Europe: proposal for clinical guidance based on an ESR EuroSafe Imaging survey.

In recent years, the issue of cumulative effective dose received from recurrent computed tomography examinations has become a subject of increasing concern internationally. Evidence, predominantly from the USA, has shown that a significant number of patients receive a cumulative effective dose of 100 mSv or greater. To obtain a European perspective, EuroSafe Imaging carried out a survey to collect European data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent computed tomography examinations. The survey found that a relatively low percentage of patients (0.5%) received a cumulative effective dose equal to or higher than 100 mSv from computed tomography, most of them having an oncological disease. However, there is considerable variation between institutions as these values ranged from 0 to 2.72%, highlighting that local practice or, depending on the institution and its medical focus, local patient conditions are likely to be a significant factor in the levels of cumulative effective dose received, rather than this simply being a global phenomenon. This paper also provides some practical actions to support the management of cumulative effective dose and to refine or improve practice where recurrent examinations are required. These actions are focused around increasing awareness of referring physicians through encouraging local dialogue, actions focused on optimisation where a team approach is critical, better use of modern equipment and the use of Dose Management and Clinical Decision Support Systems together with focused clinical audits. The proper use of cumulative effective dose should be part of training programmes for referrers and practitioners, including what information to give to patients. Radiation is used to the benefit of patients in diagnostic procedures such as CT examinations, and in therapeutic procedures like the external radiation treatment for cancer. However, radiation is also known to increase the risk of cancer. To oversee this risk, the cumulative effective dose (CED) received by a patient from imaging procedures over his or her life is important. In this paper, the authors, on behalf of EuroSafe Imaging, report on a survey carried out in Europe that aims to estimate the proportion of patients that undergo CT examinations and are exposed to a CED of more than 100 mSv. At the same time, the survey enquires about and underlines radiologists' measures and radiology departments' strategies to limit such exposure. Over the period of 2015-2018, respondents reported that 0.5% (0-2.72%) of patients were exposed to a CED of ≥ 100 mSv from imaging procedures. The background radiation dose in Europe depends on the location, but it is around 2.5 mSv per year. It is obvious that patients with cancer, chronic diseases and trauma run the highest risk of having a high CED. However, even if the number of patients exposed to ≥ 100 mSv is relatively low, it is important to lower this number even further. Measures could consist in using procedures that do not necessitate radiation, using very low dose procedures, being very critical in requiring imaging procedures and increasing awareness about the issue. KEY POINTS: • A relatively low percentage of patients (0.5%) received a cumulative effective dose from CT computed tomography equal to or greater than 100 mSv, in Europe, most of them having an oncological disease. • There is a wide range in the number of patients who receive cumulative effective dose equal to or greater than 100 mSv (0-2.72%) and optimisation should be improved. • Increasing the awareness of referring physicians through encouraging local dialogue, concrete actions focused on optimisation and development of dose management systems is suggested.

Radiation dose and diagnostic reference levels for four interventional radiology procedures: results of the prospective European multicenter survey EUCLID.

OBJECTIVES: To assess information reflecting radiation dose and define diagnostic reference levels (DRL) on a European basis for four interventional radiology (IR) procedures considering clinical indication, anatomical region, and procedure. METHODS: A prospective European study was performed to provide data on the IR procedures percutaneous recanalization of iliac arteries, percutaneous recanalization of femoropopliteal arteries, transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire giving information on procedure, equipment, and protocol. Patient size and weight, experience of the operator graded in number of procedures performed, and complexity level of each procedure were reported. Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries could be surveyed. The percentiles of the kerma-area product, fluoroscopy time, cumulative air kerma at the interventional reference point, and number of images were determined. The impact of equipment, year of installation, and complexity level of the procedure on dose were analyzed. RESULTS: DRLs based on clinical indication were defined. Dose values varied considerably within hospitals, between them, and within each subgroup of complexity level. The use of state-of-the-art equipment reduced dose significantly by 52%. Although dose also varied within each subgroup of complexity level, for transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, dose significantly correlated with complexity. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study reporting exposure practice and defining DRLs based on clinical indication for four IR procedures on a European basis. These DRLs can serve as a baseline for comparison with local practice, the study as a guideline for future surveys. KEY POINTS: • The use of state-of-the-art angiographic equipment reduces dose significantly. • A significant correlation between radiation dose and complexity level is found. • Dose values vary considerably, both within and between individual hospitals, and within each complexity level of interventional radiology procedure.

CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications: results of a large-scale European survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of defining diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) on a European basis for specific clinical indications (CIs), within the context of the European Clinical DRLs (EUCLID) European Commission project. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, industry-independent European study was performed to provide data on 10 CIs (stroke, chronic sinusitis, cervical spine trauma, pulmonary embolism, coronary calcium scoring, coronary angiography, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, colic/abdominal pain, and appendicitis) via an online survey that included information on patient clinical, technical, and dosimetric parameters. Data from at least 20 patients per CI were requested from each hospital. To establish DRLs, a methodology in line with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 135 good practice recommendations was followed. RESULTS: Data were collected from 19 hospitals in 14 European countries on 4299 adult patients and 10 CIs to determine DRLs. DRLs differ considerably between sites for the same CI. Differences were attributed mainly to technical protocol and variable number of phases/scan lengths. Stroke and hepatocellular carcinoma were the CIs with the highest DRLs. Coronary calcium scoring had the lowest DRL value. Comparison with published literature was limited, as there was scarce information on DRLs based on CI. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study reporting on feasibility of establishing CT DRLs based on CI using European data. Resulting values will serve as a baseline for comparison with local radiological practice, national authorities when DRLs are set/updated, or as a guideline for local DRL establishment. KEY POINTS: • First study reporting on the feasibility of establishing CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indication using data collected across Europe. • Only one-fourth of the hospitals had CT machines less than 5 years old. • Large dose variations were observed among hospitals and CT protocols were quite different between hospitals.

Radiation dose management systems-requirements and recommendations for users from the ESR EuroSafe Imaging initiative.

The European Directive 2013/59/Euratom requires member states of the European Union to ensure justification and optimisation of radiological procedures and store information on patient exposure for analysis and quality assurance. The EuroSafe Imaging campaign of the European Society of Radiology created a working group (WG) on "Dose Management" with the aim to provide European recommendations on the implementation of dose management systems (DMS) in clinical practice. The WG follows Action 4: "Promote dose management systems to establish local, national, and European diagnostic reference levels (DRL)" of the EuroSafe Imaging Call for Action 2018. DMS are designed for medical practitioners, radiographers, medical physics experts (MPE) and other health professionals involved in imaging to support their tasks and duties of radiation protection in accordance with local and national requirements. The WG analysed requirements and critical points when installing a DMS and classified the individual functions at different performance levels. KEY POINTS: • DMS are very helpful software tools for monitoring patient exposure, optimisation, compliance with DRLs and quality assurance. • DMS can help to fulfil dosimetric aspects of the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom. • The EuroSafe WG analyses DMS requirements and gives recommendations for users.

Overdiagnosis and overimaging: an ethical issue for radiological protection.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyse the key factors that influence the overimaging using X-ray such as self-referral, defensive medicine and duplicate imaging studies and to emphasize the ethical problem that derives from it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we focused on the more frequent sources of overdiagnosis such as the total-body CT, proposed in the form of screening in both public and private sector, the choice of the most sensitive test for each pathology such as pulmonary embolism, ultrasound investigations mostly of the thyroid and of the prostate and MR examinations, especially of the musculoskeletal system. RESULTS: The direct follow of overdiagnosis and overimaging is the increase in the risk of contrast media infusion, radiant damage, and costs in the worldwide healthcare system. The theme of the costs of overdiagnosis is strongly related to inappropriate or poorly appropriate imaging examination. CONCLUSIONS: We underline the ethical imperatives of trust and right conduct, because the major ethical problems in radiology emerge in the justification of medical exposures of patients in the practice. A close cooperation and collaboration across all the physicians responsible for patient care in requiring imaging examination is also important, balancing possible ionizing radiation disadvantages and patient benefits in terms of care.

The use of Dose Management Systems in Europe: Results of an ESR EuroSafe Imaging Questionnaire.

Dose management systems (DMS) are an essential tool for quality assurance and optimising patient radiation exposure. For radiologists and medical physicists, they are important for managing many radiation protection tasks. In addition, they help fulfil the requirements of Directive 2013/59/EURATOM regarding the electronic transmission of dosimetric data and the detection of unintended patient exposures. The EuroSafe Imaging Clinical Dosimetry and Dose Management Working Group launched a questionnaire on the use of DMS in European member states and analysed the results in terms of modalities, frequency of radiological procedures, involvement of medical physics experts (MPEs), legal requirements, and local issues (support by information technology (IT), modality interfaces, protocol mapping, clinical workflow, and associated costs). CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Despite the great advantages of dose management systems for optimising radiation protection, distribution remains insufficient. This questionnaire shows that reasons include: a lack of DICOM interfaces, insufficient harmonisation of procedure names, lack of medical physicist and IT support, and costs. KEY POINTS: Quantitative radiation dose information is essential for justification and optimisation in medical imaging. Guidelines are required to ensure radiation dose management systems quality and for acceptance testing. Verifying dose data management is crucial before dose management systems clinical implementation. Medical physics experts are professionals who have important responsibilities for the proper management of dose monitoring.

Diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced, contrast-enhanced perfusion and angiographic MRI sequences for pulmonary embolism diagnosis: results of independent sequence readings.

OBJECTIVES: To independently evaluate unenhanced, contrast-enhanced perfusion and angiographic MR sequences for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis. METHODS: Prospective investigation, including 274 patients who underwent perfusion, unenhanced 2D steady-state-free-precession (SSFP) and contrast-enhanced 3D angiographic MR sequences on a 1.5-T unit, in addition to CTA (CT angiography). Two independent readers evaluated each sequence independently in random order. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-reader agreement were calculated for each sequence, excluding sequences judged inconclusive. Sensitivity was also calculated according to PE location. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced angiographic sequences showed the highest sensitivity (82.9 and 89.7 %, reader 1 and reader 2, respectively), specificity (98.5 and 100 %) and agreement (kappa value 0.77). Unenhanced angiographic sequences, although less sensitive overall (68.7 and 76.4 %), were sensitive for the detection of proximal PE (92.7 and 100 %) and showed high specificity (96.1 and 99.1 %) and good agreement (kappa value 0.62). Perfusion sequences showed lower sensitivity (75.0 and 79.3 %), specificity (84.8 and 89.7 %) and agreement (kappa value 0.51), and a negative predictive value of 84.8 % at best. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with contrast-enhanced angiographic sequences, unenhanced sequences demonstrate lower sensitivity, except for proximal PE, but high specificity and agreement. The negative predictive value of perfusion sequences was insufficient to safely rule out PE. KEY POINTS: • Unenhanced angiographic MR sequences are very specific and can identify proximal PE. • Contrast-enhanced MR angiographic sequences show high sensitivity for PE diagnosis. • A normal MR perfusion result does not exclude PE. • Inter-reader agreement is better for angiographic than perfusion MR sequences.

A paradigm shift in point-of-care imaging in low-income and middle-income countries.

The concept of primary healthcare is now regarded as crucial for enhancing access to healthcare services in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Technological advancements that have made many medical imaging devices smaller, lighter, portable and more affordable, and infrastructure advancements in power supply, Internet connectivity, and artificial intelligence, are all increasing the feasibility of POCI (point-of care imaging) in LMICs. Although providing imaging services at the same time as the clinic visit represents a paradigm shift in the way imaging care is typically provided in high-income countries where patients are typically directed to dedicated imaging centres, a POCI model is often the only way to provide timely access to imaging care for many patients in LIMCs. To address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases such as cancer and heart disease, bringing advanced imaging tools to the POCI will be necessary. Strategies tailored to the countries' specific needs, including training, safety and quality, will be of the utmost importance.

Exploring the concordance of recommendations across guidelines on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19: A proposed methodological approach based on a case study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a methodological approach to explore the concordance of recommendations across guidelines and its application to the case of the WHO recommendations on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We followed a methodological approach applied to a case study that included: defining the 'reference guideline' (i.e., the WHO guidance) and the 'reference recommendations'; searching for 'related guidelines' and identifying 'related recommendations'; constructing the PICO for the recommendations; assessing the matching of the PICO of each related recommendation to the PICO corresponding reference recommendation; and assessing the concordance between the PICO-matching recommendations. RESULTS: We identified a total of 89 related recommendations from 22 related guidelines. Out of the 89 related recommendations, 43 partly matched and 1 entirely matched one of the reference recommendations, and out of these, 8 were concordant with one of the reference recommendations. When considering the seven reference recommendations, they had a median of 12 related recommendations (range 3-17), a median of 7 PICO-matching recommendations (range 0-13), and a median of 1 concordant recommendation (range 0-4). CONCLUSION: Following a detailed methodological approach, we were able to explore the concordance between our reference recommendations and related recommendations from other guidelines. A relatively low percentage of recommendations was concordant.

The use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19.

This review article addresses the role of lung ultrasound in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for diagnosis and disease management. As a simple imaging procedure, lung ultrasound contributes to the early identification of patients with clinical conditions suggestive of COVID-19, supports decisions about hospital admission and informs therapeutic strategy. It can be performed in various clinical settings (primary care facilities, emergency departments, hospital wards, intensive care units), but also in outpatient settings using portable devices. The article describes typical lung ultrasound findings for COVID-19 pneumonia (interstitial pattern, pleural abnormalities and consolidations), as one component of COVID-19 diagnostic workup that otherwise includes clinical and laboratory evaluation. Advantages and limitations of lung ultrasound use in COVID-19 are described, along with equipment requirements and training needs. To infer on the use of lung ultrasound in different regions, a literature search was performed using key words "COVID-19", "lung ultrasound" and "imaging". Lung ultrasound is a noninvasive, rapid and reproducible procedure; can be performed at the point of care; requires simple sterilisation; and involves non-ionising radiation, allowing repeated exams on the same patient, with special benefit in children and pregnant women. However, physical proximity between the patient and the ultrasound operator is a limitation in the current pandemic context, emphasising the need to implement specific infection prevention and control measures. Availability of qualified staff adequately trained to perform lung ultrasound remains a major barrier to lung ultrasound utilisation. Training, advocacy and awareness rising can help build up capacities of local providers to facilitate lung ultrasound use for COVID-19 management, in particular in low- and middle-income countries.

Education and training in radiation protection in Europe: results from the EURAMED Rocc-n-Roll project survey.

PURPOSE: To analyse the existing radiation protection (RP) education and training (E&T) capabilities in the European Union and identify associated needs, problems and challenges. METHOD: An online survey was disseminated via the EURAMED Rocc-n-Roll consortium network and prominent medical societies in the field of radiological research. The survey sections analyse the RP E&T during undergraduate, residency/internship and continuous professional development; RP E&T problems and legal implementation. Differences were analysed by European geographic regions, profession, years of professional experience and main area of practice/research. RESULTS: The majority of the 550 respondents indicated that RP topics are part of undergraduate curricula in all courses for their profession and country (55%); however, hands-on practical training is not included according to 30% of the respondents. The lack of E&T, practical aspects in current E&T, and mandatory continuing E&T were considered the major problems. The legal requirement that obtained higher implementation score was the inclusion of the practical aspects of medical radiological procedures on education (86%), and lower score was obtained for the inclusion of RP E&T on medical and dental school curriculums (61%). CONCLUSIONS: A heterogeneity in RP E&T during undergraduate, residency/internship and continuous professional development is evident across Europe. Differences were noted per area of practice/research, profession, and European geographic region. A large variation in RP E&T problem rating was also obtained.

European survey on the use of patient contact shielding during radiological examinations.

OBJECTIVES: Contact shielding (CS) of patients during X-ray studies has been used for decades to protect radiosensitive organs. This practice has not changed much despite increasing evidence that CS is not useful in many cases. The Gonad And Patient Shielding (GAPS) group-founded by representatives of the main European bodies involved in radiology-promoted this survey to assess the current practice of CS among European radiology departments and the attitude towards a non-shielding policy. METHODS: Over a four-month period (15 May-15th September 2021) European Society of Radiology and European Society of Paediatric Radiology radiologist members were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. RESULTS: 225 centres from 35 countries responded to this survey. CS was routinely applied in at least one radiological modality in 49.2% of centres performing studies in adults, 57.5% of centres performing studies in children, and 47.8% of centres performing studies on pregnant women. CS was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. 83.6% respondents would follow European recommendations on the use of CS when provided by the main European bodies involved in radiology. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that CS is still largely used across Europe. However, a non-shielding policy could be adopted in most departments if European professional societies provided recommendations. In this regard, a strong commitment by European and national professional societies to educate and inform practitioners, patients and carers is paramount. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: According to this survey expectations of patients and carers, and skepticism among professionals about the limited benefits of CS are the most important obstacles to the application of a no-shielding policy. A strong commitment from European and national professional societies to inform practitioners, patients and carers is fundamental.

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.