ABSTRACT
Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: ⢠Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. ⢠Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. ⢠An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.
ABSTRACT
This study reports results of the first nationwide survey of computed tomography (CT) practice in Ukraine and proposed national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for common CT examinations. The collected data included characteristics of CT scanners, frequency of CT exams per anatomical region, dose indices CTDIvol and dose-length product (DLP). National DRLs were proposed at the 75th percentile of median dose indices distributions for four common CT protocols: head without contrast (brain examinations for stroke and trauma), routine chest without contrast, single-phase contrast-enhanced CT of abdomen and pelvis and oncology protocol (chest-abdomen-pelvis). The results showed 4- to 9-fold variations of median dose indices between CT scanners for the same type of examination. The following values of the CTDIvol and DLP were proposed as national DRLs: 59 mGy and 1130 mGyâ¢cm for head, 14 mGy and 492 mGyâ¢cm for chest, 22 mGy and 845 mGyâ¢cm for abdomen/pelvis and 2120 mGyâ¢cm for oncological protocol.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Reference Levels , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Radiation Dosage , Ukraine , Reference Values , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
The paper presents the results of the activities under the IAEA Technical Cooperation programme in Europe and Central Asia, aiming to improve utilization of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in the region through identifying status, problems, and gaps in establishing and utilization of the DRLs, and suggesting potential solutions. Status was identified through a survey with two electronic questionnaires answered by the regulatory bodies for radiation protection of 26 IAEA Member States and 34 representatives of relevant professional bodies of medical physics, radiology, nuclear medicine or radiographers. Problems, good practices and potential solutions were identified as a result of the discussion during a regional workshop with 50 nominated representatives of 21 countries. Results were disseminated through open webinars. Existing gaps are related to the lack of adequate regulations in some countries, inadequate awareness of radiological professionals of DRLs as a tool for optimization, insufficient cooperation among relevant stakeholders, education, and staffing. Strengthening of the cooperation between regulatory and professional bodies could benefit the awareness and consequently the utilization of DRLs in clinical practice. The need of improved education and training of the DRL process was highlighted. Improved inspection procedures and education of inspectors would also support the process. Access to clinically qualified medical physicists was found to be critical for the DRL utilization. Suggestions were placed for continuous IAEA assistance through training, guidance and expert support.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Reference Levels , Nuclear Medicine , Europe , Surveys and Questionnaires , Referral and Consultation , Asia , Radiation DosageABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To obtain clinicians' views of the need to account for radiation exposure from previous CT scans and the advisability of a regulatory mechanism to control the number of CT scans for an individual patient. METHODS: A convenience survey was conducted by emailing a link to a three-question electronic survey to clinicians in many countries, mostly through radiology and radiation protection contacts. RESULTS: 505 responses were received from 24 countries. 293 respondents (58%) understand that current regulations do not limit the number of CT scans that can be prescribed for a single patient in a year. When asked whether there should be a regulation to limit the number of CT scans that can be prescribed for a single patient in one year, only a small fraction (143, 28%) answered 'No', 182 (36%) answered 'Maybe' and 166 (33%) answered 'Yes'. Most respondents (337; 67%) think that radiation risk should form part of the consideration when deciding whether to request a CT exam. A minority (138; 27%) think the decision should be based only on the medical indication for the CT exam. Comparison among the 4 countries (South Korea, Hungary, USA and Canada) with the largest number of respondents indicated wide variations in responses. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the surveyed clinicians consider radiation risk, in addition to clinical factors, when prescribing CT exams. Most respondents are in favor of, or would consider, regulation to control the number of CT scans that could be performed on a patient annually.
Subject(s)
Radiation Exposure , Radiation Protection , Radiology , Humans , Radiation Dosage , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The purpose of this IAEA-coordinated international study was to understand aspects related to the communication of radiation risk from imaging studies, such as how often imaging department personnel and referring physicians are asked about radiation risks in diagnostic imaging, who asks about these risks, how often professionals are able to provide satisfactory answers using qualitative metrics and how often quantitative risk estimates are needed. A web-based questionnaire with ten questions was completed by 386 healthcare professionals from 63 countries from all four continents, including clinicians/referring physicians (42.5%), radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians (26.7%), medical physicists (23.1%), radiographers/radiological technologists (6.2%) and others (1.6%). The results indicate that radiation risk-related questions are largely asked by patients (73.1%) and parents of child patients (38.6%), and 78% of the professionals believe they are able to answer those questions using qualitative metrics such as very small/minimal, small, medium rather than number of cancers likely occurring. The vast majority, with over three times higher frequency, indicated the purpose of knowing previous radiological exams as 'both clinical information and radiation exposure history' rather than 'only clinical information'. Nearly two-thirds of the clinicians/referring physicians indicated that knowing the radiation exposure history of the patient will affect their decision-making for the next exam, as against only about one-fifth who said 'no, it will not affect their decision-making'. The same question, when addressed to radiologists, resulted in a slightly larger fraction of about three-quarters who said 'yes', as opposed to a smaller fraction of about 12% who said 'no, it will not affect their decision-making'. Mapping the present situation of communication of benefits and risks for patients is important and may be the basis of further analysis, regular monitoring and possibly a target for clinical audits. Further studies focused on specific professional groups might help in obtaining á deeper understanding of the need for practical communication tools.
Subject(s)
Communication , Radiation Exposure , Child , Diagnostic Imaging/adverse effects , Humans , Parents , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
In March 2021 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organised an online Technical Meeting on Developing Effective Methods for Radiation Protection Education and Training of Health Professionals with attendance of 230 participants representing 66 Member States and 24 international organizations, professional bodies and safety alliances. By means of a pre-meeting survey, presentations by experts, topical panel discussions and post-meeting feedback to the meeting summary, the meeting identified strengths, common weaknesses and possible solutions and actions for improving radiation protection education and training of health professionals. Available guidelines and resources for radiation protection training were also reviewed. The meeting discussion resulted in a strong consensus for the need of: (a) international guidance on education and training in radiation protection and safety for health professionals, (b) an international description of minimum standards of initial and ongoing competence and qualification in radiation protection for relevant professional groups, considering the available recommendations at international and regional levels. The proposed actions include provisions for train-the-trainer credentialing and facility training accreditation, balance betwee the online and face-to-face training, improved on-the job training, as well as improved inclusion in training programmes of aspects related to application of new technologies, ethical aspects, development of communication skills, and use of software tools for improving justification and optimisation. The need for making the ongoing training practical, applicable, and useful to the trainee was highlighted. The international consultation initiated by the IAEA was appreciated as a good approach to understand and promote coordination and collaboration at all levels, for best results in education and training in radiation protection of health professionals. Implementing such a holistic approach to education and training in radiation protection would contribute towards qualification and competence of health professionals needed to ensure application of high standards for quality and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation.
Subject(s)
Nuclear Energy , Radiation Protection , Humans , International AgenciesABSTRACT
We assessed variations in chest CT usage, radiation dose and image quality in COVID-19 pneumonia. Our study included all chest CT exams performed in 533 patients from 6 healthcare sites from Brazil. We recorded patients' age, gender and body weight and the information number of CT exams per patient, scan parameters and radiation doses (volume CT dose index-CTDIvol and dose length product-DLP). Six radiologists assessed all chest CT exams for the type of pulmonary findings and classified CT appearance of COVID-19 pneumonia as typical, indeterminate, atypical or negative. In addition, each CT was assessed for diagnostic quality (optimal or suboptimal) and presence of artefacts. Artefacts were frequent (367/841), often related to respiratory motion (344/367 chest CT exams with artefacts) and resulted in suboptimal evaluation in mid-to-lower lungs (176/344) or the entire lung (31/344). There were substantial differences in CT usage, patient weight, CTDIvol and DLP across the participating sites.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Brazil , Humans , Radiation Dosage , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
This review summarises the current knowledge about recurrent radiological imaging and associated cumulative doses to patients. The recent conservative estimates are for around 0.9 million patients globally who cumulate radiation doses above 100 mSv, where evidence exists for cancer risk elevation. Around one in five is estimated to be under the age of 50. Recurrent imaging is used for managing various health conditions and chronic diseases such as malignancies, trauma, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, Crohn's disease, urolithiasis, cystic pulmonary disease. More studies are needed from different parts of the world to understand the magnitude and appropriateness. The analysis identified areas of future work to improve radiation protection of individuals who are submitted to frequent imaging. These include access to dose saving imaging technologies; improved imaging strategies and appropriateness process; specific optimisation tailored to the clinical condition and patient habitus; wider utilisation of the automatic exposure monitoring systems with an integrated option for individual exposure tracking in standardised patient-specific risk metrics; improved training and communication. The integration of the clinical and exposure history data will support improved knowledge about radiation risks from low doses and individual radiosensitivity. The radiation protection framework will need to respond to the challenge of recurrent imaging and high individual doses. The radiation protection perspective complements the clinical perspective, and the risk to benefit analysis must account holistically for all incidental and long-term benefits and risks for patients, their clinical history and specific needs. This is a step toward the patient-centric health care.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Imaging , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/epidemiology , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/prevention & control , Radiation Dosage , Radiation Protection/methods , Humans , Radiation Monitoring/methods , Radiation, Ionizing , Radiopharmaceuticals , Retreatment , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The expert organisations recommend more cautious use of thoracic computed tomography (CT), opting for low-dose protocols. We aimed at determining a threshold value of automatic tube current modulation noise index below which there is a chance to miss an onset of ground-glass opacities (GGO) in COVID-19. A team of radiologists and medical physicists performed 25 phantom CT studies using different automatic tube current modulation settings (SUREExposure3D technology). We then conducted a retrospective evaluation of the chest CT images from 22 patients with COVID-19 and calculated the density difference between the GGO and unaffected tissue. Finally, the results were matched to the phantom study results to determine the minimum noise index threshold value. The minimum density difference at the onset of COVID-19 was 252 HU (p < 0.001). This was found to correspond to the SUREExposure 3D noise index of 36. We established the noise index threshold of 36 for the Canon scanner without iterative reconstructions, allowing for a decrease in the dose-length product by 80%. The proposed protocol needs to be validated in a prospective study.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Male , Phantoms, ImagingABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Optimization of CT scan practices can help achieve and maintain optimal radiation protection. The aim was to assess centering, scan length, and positioning of patients undergoing chest CT for suspected or known COVID-19 pneumonia and to investigate their effect on associated radiation doses. METHODS: With respective approvals from institutional review boards, we compiled CT imaging and radiation dose data from four hospitals belonging to four countries (Brazil, Iran, Italy, and USA) on 400 adult patients who underwent chest CT for suspected or known COVID-19 pneumonia between April 2020 and August 2020. We recorded patient demographics and volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP). From thin-section CT images of each patient, we estimated the scan length and recorded the first and last vertebral bodies at the scan start and end locations. Patient mis-centering and arm position were recorded. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The extent and frequency of patient mis-centering did not differ across the four CT facilities (>0.09). The frequency of patients scanned with arms by their side (11-40% relative to those with arms up) had greater mis-centering and higher CTDIvol and DLP at 2/4 facilities (p = 0.027-0.05). Despite lack of variations in effective diameters (p = 0.14), there were significantly variations in scan lengths, CTDIvol and DLP across the four facilities (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mis-centering, over-scanning, and arms by the side are frequent issues with use of chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia and are associated with higher radiation doses.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Radiation Protection , Adult , Arm , Humans , Iran , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics , Radiation Dosage , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Introduction: Fluoroscopy-guided endourology procedures require proper radiation protection to minimize radiation risk. This multicenter study aimed at investigating radiation protection practice and related radiation exposure of operating team members. Materials and Methods: Six endourology centers from the South-Eastern European Group for Urolithiasis Research answered questionnaires and collected data of 315 procedures performed within a 3-months period, with simultaneous measurement of dose to staff and dose area product (DAP) to patient. A pair of calibrated personal dosimeters, one for body and one for eye-lens dose, was worn by all key staff members. Dosimeters were centrally calibrated, measured, and analyzed. Results: The annual workload ranged from 173 to 865 procedures per center. Practice of personal dose monitoring and use of radiation protection shielding was found to be inconsistent. Lead aprons and thyroid collars were used by all, whereas protective eyewear was used in only half of centers. Due to the regular use of protective aprons, the whole-body dose of all 44 monitored staff members was safely below the regulatory dose limits. Eye-lens dose of 17 (14 urologists and 3 assisting staff) was above the dosimeter detection level, and dose per procedure varied from <10 to 63 µSv. The highest annual eye-lens dose of 13.5 mSv was found for the surgeon in the busiest department by using an over-the-couch X-ray tube without a ceiling suspended screen. Working closer to patient body with no protection resulted in a six-time higher eye-lens dose per DAP for a surgeon compared with others in the same center. Lower eye-dose per procedure was associated with lower DAP to patient and with the use of an under-the-couch tube, lower fluoroscopy pulse rate, collimation, fluoroscopy time, and acquired images. Conclusions: The study results call for the need to establish standard protocols about use of fluoroscopy during endourology procedures and to increase radiation protection knowledge and awareness of surgical staff.
Subject(s)
Nuclear Energy , Occupational Exposure , Radiation Exposure , Urolithiasis , Fluoroscopy/adverse effects , Humans , Radiation Dosage , Urolithiasis/surgeryABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the frequency, appropriateness, and radiation doses associated with multiphase computed tomography (CT) protocols for routine chest and abdomen-pelvis examinations in 18 countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency, multi-institutional data on clinical indications, number of scan phases, scan parameters, and radiation dose descriptors (CT dose-index volume; dose-length product [DLP]) were collected for routine chest (n = 1706 patients) and abdomen-pelvis (n = 426 patients) CT from 18 institutions in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Two radiologists scored the need for each phase based on clinical indications (1 = not indicated, 2 = probably indicated, 3 = indicated). We surveyed 11 institutions for their practice regarding single-phase and multiphase CT examinations. Data were analyzed with the Student t test. RESULTS: Most institutions use multiphase protocols for routine chest (10/18 institutions) and routine abdomen-pelvis (10/11 institutions that supplied data for abdomen-pelvis) CT examinations. Most institutions (10/11) do not modify scan parameters between different scan phases. Respective total DLP for 1-, 2-, and 3-phase routine chest CT was 272, 518, and 820 mGy·cm, respectively. Corresponding values for 1- to 5-phase routine abdomen-pelvis CT were 400, 726, 1218, 1214, and 1458 mGy cm, respectively. For multiphase CT protocols, there were no differences in scan parameters and radiation doses between different phases for either chest or abdomen-pelvis CT (P = 0.40-0.99). Multiphase CT examinations were unnecessary in 100% of routine chest CT and in 63% of routine abdomen-pelvis CT examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase scan protocols for the routine chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations are unnecessary, and their use increases radiation dose.
Subject(s)
Radiation Dosage , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Unnecessary Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Abdomen/diagnostic imaging , Adult , Africa , Asia , Clinical Protocols , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/statistics & numerical data , Europe , Female , Humans , Male , Pelvis/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Surveys and Questionnaires , Thoracic Cavity/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to establish worldwide and regional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable administered activities (AAAs) for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). BACKGROUND: Reference levels serve as radiation dose benchmarks to compare individual laboratories against aggregated data, helping to identify sites in greatest need of dose reduction interventions. DRLs for SPECT MPI have previously been derived from national or regional registries. To date there have been no multiregional reports of DRLs for SPECT MPI from a single standardized dataset. METHODS: Data were submitted voluntarily to the INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study), a cross-sectional, multinational registry of MPI protocols. A total of 7,103 studies were included. DRLs and AAAs were calculated by protocol for each world region and for aggregated worldwide data. RESULTS: The aggregated worldwide DRLs for rest-stress or stress-rest studies employing technetium Tc 99m-labeled radiopharmaceuticals were 11.2 mCi (first dose) and 32.0 mCi (second dose) for 1-day protocols, and 23.0 mCi (first dose) and 24.0 mCi (second dose) for multiday protocols. Corresponding AAAs were 10.1 mCi (first dose) and 28.0 mCi (second dose) for 1-day protocols, and 17.8 mCi (first dose) and 18.7 mCi (second dose) for multiday protocols. For stress-only technetium Tc 99m studies, the worldwide DRL and AAA were 18.0 mCi and 12.5 mCi, respectively. Stress-first imaging was used in 26% to 92% of regional studies except in North America where it was used in just 7% of cases. Significant differences in DRLs and AAAs were observed between regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports reference levels for SPECT MPI for each major world region from one of the largest international registries of clinical MPI studies. Regional DRLs may be useful in establishing or revising guidelines or simply comparing individual laboratory protocols to regional trends. Organizations should continue to focus on establishing standardized reporting methods to improve the validity and comparability of regional DRLs.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Reference Levels , Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Perfusion , Predictive Value of Tests , Radiation DosageABSTRACT
Background There is lack of guidance on specific CT protocols for imaging patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Purpose To assess international variations in CT utilization, protocols, and radiation doses in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods In this retrospective data collection study, the International Atomic Energy Agency coordinated a survey between May and July 2020 regarding CT utilization, protocols, and radiation doses from 62 health care sites in 34 countries across five continents for CT examinations performed in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The questionnaire obtained information on local prevalence, method of diagnosis, most frequent imaging, indications for CT, and specific policies on use of CT in COVID-19 pneumonia. Collected data included general information (patient age, weight, clinical indication), CT equipment (CT make and model, year of installation, number of detector rows), scan protocols (body region, scan phases, tube current and potential), and radiation dose descriptors (CT dose index and dose length product). Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were performed. Results Data from 782 patients (median age, 59 years [interquartile range, 15 years]) from 54 health care sites in 28 countries were evaluated. Less than one-half of the health care sites used CT for initial diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia and three-fourths used CT for assessing disease severity. CT dose index varied based on CT vendors (7-11 mGy; P < .001), number of detector rows (8-9 mGy; P < .001), year of CT installation (7-10 mGy; P = .006), and reconstruction techniques (7-10 mGy; P = .03). Multiphase chest CT examinations performed at 20% of sites (11 of 54) were associated with higher dose length product compared with single-phase chest CT examinations performed in 80% of sites (43 of 54) (P = .008). Conclusion CT use, scan protocols, and radiation doses in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia showed wide variation across health care sites within the same and between different countries. Many patients were imaged multiple times and/or with multiphase CT scan protocols. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee in this issue.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Clinical Protocols , Internationality , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Radiation Dosage , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Fluoroscopy is increasingly used to guide minimally invasive endourological procedures and optimised protocols are needed to minimise radiation exposure while achieving best treatment results. This multi-center study of radiation exposure of patients was conducted by the South-Eastern European Group for Urolithiasis Research (SEGUR), in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Seven clinical centers from the SEGUR group collected data for 325 procedures performed within a three-months period, including standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), mini PCNL, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), semirigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) and flexible URS. Data included: air kerma area product (PKA), air kerma at the patient entrance reference point (Ka,r), fluoroscopy time (FT), number of radiographic images (N) and fluoroscopy pulse rate, as well as total procedure duration, size and location of stones. Data were centrally analysed and statistically compared. MedianPKAvalues per center varied 2-fold for RIRS (0.80-1.79 Gy cm2), 7.1 fold for mini-PCNL (1.39-9.90 Gy cm2), 7.3 fold for PCNL (2.40-17.50 Gy cm2), 19 fold (0.13-2.51 Gy cm2) for semi-rigid URS and 29-fold for flexible URS (0.10-2.90 Gy cm2). LowerPKAandKa,rwere associated with use of lower FT,Nand lower fluoroscopy pulse rate. FT varied from 0.1 to 14 min, a small fraction of the total procedure time, ranging from 10 to 225 min. HigherNwas associated with higherPKAandKa,r. Higher medianPKAin PCNL was associated with the use of supine compared to prone position. No correlation was found between the concrement size and procedure duration, FT,PKAorKa,r. Dose values for RIRS were significantly lower compared to PCNL. The maximumKa,rvalue of 377 mGy was under the threshold for radiation induced skin erythema. The study demonstrated a potential for patient dose reduction by lowering FT andN, using pulsed fluoroscopy and beam collimation.
Subject(s)
Radiation Exposure , Urolithiasis , Fluoroscopy/adverse effects , Humans , Kidney , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In order to introduce the concept of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in the national nuclear medicine practice a survey was proposed and completed through all nuclear medicine departments in Croatia. An additional aim was to increase the awareness of importance and full implementation of a comprehensive quality program that includes devices used in the nuclear medicine chain. METHODS: Data were collected for more than 30 nuclear medicine single photon emission procedures. National DRLs (NDRLs) as administered activity and also as administered activity per unit mass were calculated in accordance to International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations. Additionally, effective doses were estimated using conversion factors published by the ICRP. RESULTS: NDRLs for nuclear medicine single photon emission procedures were proposed. For procedures performed in only one department typical values were presented as reference. Effective doses related to applied radiopharmaceuticals were calculated to estimate radiation risk related to respective nuclear medicine procedure in more detail. CONCLUSION: This work presents results of the first national survey on DRLs of nuclear medicine single photon emission procedures and proposes reliable NDRLs that represent an actual status of nuclear medicine practice in Croatia. Results have motivated departments to introduce and set their own typical values to be used, as one of the tools, for further optimization process. One of the drawbacks of the DRL concept in nuclear medicine is the lack of the image quality parameters involved. For this reason, a quantity that considers both radiation protection and image quality should be introduced.
Subject(s)
Nuclear Medicine , Radiation Protection , Croatia , Diagnostic Reference Levels , Radiation Dosage , Reference ValuesABSTRACT
The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has upended the world with over 6.6 million infections and over 391,000 deaths worldwide. Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is the preferred method of diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. Yet, chest CT is often used in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 due to regional preferences, lack of availability of PCR assays, and false-negative PCR assays, as well as for monitoring of disease progression, complications, and treatment response. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organized a webinar to discuss CT practice and protocol optimization from a radiation protection perspective on April 9, 2020, and surveyed participants from five continents. We review important aspects of CT in COVID-19 infection from the justification of its use to specific scan protocols for optimizing radiation dose and diagnostic information.Key Points⢠Chest CT provides useful information in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia.⢠When indicated, chest CT in most patients with COVID-19 pneumonia must be performed with non-contrast, low-dose protocol.⢠Although chest CT has high sensitivity for diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia, CT findings are non-specific and overlap with other viral infections including influenza and H1N1.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Progression , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Radiation Dosage , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Patients with hematuria and renal colic often undergo CT scanning. The purpose of our study was to assess variations in CT protocols and radiation doses for evaluation of hematuria and urinary stones in 20 countries. METHOD: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) surveyed practices in 51 hospitals from 20 countries in the European region according to the IAEA Technical cooperation classification and obtained following information for three CT protocols (urography, urinary stones, and routine abdomen-pelvis CT) for 1276 patients: patient information (weight, clinical indication), scanner information (scan vendor, scanner name, number of detector rows), scan parameters (such as number of phases, scan start and end locations, mA, kV), and radiation dose descriptors (CTDIvol, DLP). Two radiologists assessed the appropriateness of clinical indications and number of scan phases using the ESR Referral Guidelines and ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Descriptive statistics and Student's t tests were performed. RESULTS: Most institutions use 3-6 phase CT urography protocols (80 %, median DLP 1793-3618â¯mGy.cm) which were associated with 2.4-4.9-fold higher dose compared to 2-phase protocol (20 %, 740â¯mGy.cm) (pâ¯<â¯0.0001). Likewise, 52 % patients underwent 3-5 phase routine abdomen- pelvis CT (1574-2945â¯mGy.cm) as opposed to 37 % scanned with a single-phase routine CT (676â¯mGy.cm). The median DLP for urinary stones CT (516â¯mGy.cm) were significantly lower than the median DLP for the other two CT protocols (pâ¯<â¯0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Few institutions (4/13) use low dose CT for urinary stones. There are substantial variations in CT urography and routine abdomen-pelvis CT protocols result in massive radiation doses (up to 2945-3618â¯mGy.cm).
Subject(s)
Hematuria/diagnostic imaging , Radiation Dosage , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Urinary Calculi/diagnostic imaging , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Urinary Tract/diagnostic imaging , Urography/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To have a global picture of the recurrent use of CT imaging to a level where cumulative effective dose (CED) to individual patients may be exceeding 100 mSv at which organ doses typically are in a range at which radiation effects are of concern METHODS: The IAEA convened a meeting in 2019 with participants from 26 countries, representatives of various organizations, and experts in radiology, medical physics, radiation biology, and epidemiology. Participants were asked to collect data prior to the meeting on cumulative radiation doses to assess the magnitude of patients above a defined level of CED. RESULTS: It was observed that the number of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv is much larger than previously known or anticipated. Studies were presented in the meeting with data from about 3.2 million patients who underwent imaging procedures over periods of between 1 and 5 years in different hospitals. It is probable that an additional 0.9 million patients reach the CED ≥ 100 mSv every year globally. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for urgent actions by all stakeholders to address the issue of high cumulative radiation doses to patients. The actions include development of appropriateness criteria/referral guidelines by professional societies for patients who require recurrent imaging studies, development of CT machines with lower radiation dose than today by manufacturers, and development of policies by risk management organizations to enhance patient radiation safety. Alert values for cumulative radiation exposures of patients should be set up and introduced in dose monitoring systems. KEY POINTS: ⢠Recurrent radiological imaging procedures leading to high radiation dose to patients are more common than ever before. ⢠Tracking of radiation exposure of individual patients provides useful information on cumulative radiation dose. ⢠There is a need for urgent actions by all stakeholders to address the issue of high cumulative radiation doses to patients.
Subject(s)
Radiation Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Radiography/adverse effects , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Radiation Dosage , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Cone beam CT (CBCT) in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery is a widely used imaging method for the assessment of various maxillofacial and dental pathological conditions. The objective of this study was to summarize the results of a multinational retrospective-prospective study that focused on patient exposure in this modality. METHODS: The study included 27 CBCT units and 325 adult and paediatric patients, in total. Data on patients, clinical indications, technical parameters of exposure, patient dose indicator, or, alternatively, dose to phantom were collected. The dose indicator used was air kerma-area product, PKA. RESULTS: In most scanners operators are offered with a variety of options regarding technical parameters, especially the field of view size. The median and the third quartile value of PKA for adult patients in 14 different facilities were 820 mGy cm² and 1000 mGy cm² (interquartile range = 1058 mGy cm²), and 653 mGy cm² and 740 mGy cm² (interquartile range = 1179 mGy cm²) for children, as reported by four different institutions. Phantom dose data were reported from 15 institutions, and median PKA ranged from 125 mGy cm² to 1951 mGy cm². Median PKA values varied by more than a 10-fold between institutions, mainly due to differences in imaging protocol used, in particular field of view and tube current-exposure time product. CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize the need for a cautious approach to using dental CBCT. Imaging only when the clinical indications are clear, accompanied with the appropriate radiographic techniques and the optimum imaging protocol, will help reduce radiation dose to patients.