Effect of patient thickness on acute gastrointestinal toxicities following radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting literature regarding the effect of patient size on radiotherapy toxicities. This study aimed to determine whether there is any association between patient thickness and severity and incidence of acute GI toxicities of prostate cancer patients receiving VMAT radiotherapy. The impact of confounding factors was also examined: rectal dose, age and lymph node irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a non-experimental, retrospective, descriptive and cross-sectional design. All patients who complied with the inclusion criteria (n = 96) were included. GI toxicity scores (baseline and last week of radiotherapy), rectal dose, lymph nodes irradiation and patient age at diagnosis were collected from the treatment file. Patient separations were measured from the CT-Simulator images. Statistical tests were performed to analyse the influence of these factors on acute GI toxicities. RESULTS: Patient thickness was shown to have no statistically significant effect on the incidence (p = 0.947 for antero-posterior and p = 0.839 for lateral thicknesses), and severity (p = 0.986 and 0.905, respectively) of acute GI toxicities. Severity of GI toxicities increased following radiotherapy: the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) score increased by 2.64 from baseline (p < 0.001). The confounding factors had no statistically significant effect on toxicities (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: As expected, most patients experienced an increase in GI toxicity following radiotherapy. No relationship was established between patient thickness and the severity or incidence of acute GI toxicities, adding to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, all patients should receive adequate follow up, irrespective of size. Side-effect recording tools should be implemented systematically for continuous assessment of this relationship.

Frequency of paediatric medical imaging examinations performed at a European teaching hospital over a 7-year period.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to gain an insight into frequencies by which a range of medical imaging (MI) examinations were performed on paediatric patients at the main acute general teaching hospital in Malta between 2008 and 2014. METHODS: Frequency data of MI examinations performed on paediatric patients were retrospectively collected from relevant information systems. All data was coded accordingly to facilitate data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 95,805 MI examinations were performed on 39,707 unique paediatric patients (<18 years) between 2008 and 2014. Overall, the total number of paediatric MI examinations performed decreased over time, with use varying depending on modality type and paediatric age. Coincidentally the use of ultrasound and MRI increased year after year. Some paediatric patients underwent at least three MI examinations involving the same anatomical region being scanned, and which may collectively contribute to effective doses exceeding 10 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of how MI examinations are used within the paediatric population can help practices evaluate and address any trends highlighted for particular examinations or age category of paediatric patients. Furthermore, awareness of current trends of MI in children can be helpful for the planning of future paediatric radiology departments. KEY POINTS: • Medical imaging (MI) examinations are commonly performed in paediatric patients. • In 7 years 95,805 examinations were performed on 39,707 paediatric patients. • Use of ultrasound and MRI in paediatric patients increased annually. • Highest frequency of MI examinations was observed in neonates/infants younger than 1 year. • Awareness of MI utilisation patterns and trends can help inform practice.

Expansion of Typical Values for Paediatric Patients in Ireland and Comparison with Published DRLs - Experiences of a Single Institution.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce the risks involved with ionising radiation exposure, typical values (TVs) and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been established to help keep radiation doses 'as low as reasonably practicable. TVs/DRLs provide standardised radiation dose metrics that can be used for comparative purposes. However, for paediatrics, such values should consider the size of the child instead of their age. This study aimed to establish and compare paediatric TVs for chest, abdomen and pelvis radiography. METHODS: Study methods followed processes for establishing paediatric DRLs as outlined by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). Kerma-area product (KAP) values, excluding rejected images, were retrospectively acquired from the study institution's Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS). Paediatric patients were categorised into the following weight-based groupings (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg) and stratified based on the examination that was performed (chest, abdomen, and pelvis), and where it was performed (the different X-ray rooms). Anonymised data were inputted into Microsoft Excel for analysis. Median and 3rd quartile KAP values were reported together with graphical illustrations. RESULTS: Data from 407 X-ray examinations were analysed. For the previously identified weight categories (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg), TVs for the chest were 0.10, 0.19, 0.37 and 0.53 dGy.cm2, respectively. For the abdomen 0.39, 1.04, 3.51 and 4.05 dGy.cm2 and for the pelvis 0.43, 0.87, 3.50 and 7.58 dGy.cm2. Between X-ray rooms TVs varied against the institutional TVs by -60 to 119 % (chest), -50 to 103 % (abdomen) and -14 and 24 %% (pelvis). CONCLUSION: TVs in this study follow established trends with patient weight and examination type and are comparable with published literature. Variations do exist between individual examination rooms and reasons are multifactorial. Given that age and size do not perfectly correlate further work should be undertaken around weight-based TVs/DRLs in the paediatric setting.

Gonad contact shielding in digital radiography: A questionnaire survey.

PURPOSE: The use of gonad contact shielding (GCS) in radiology departments has varied across countries, possibly because, until recently, there was no agreed consensus with mixed evidence supporting its use. This study aims to explore radiographers' use and opinion on GCS in digital radiography (DR) and to evaluate whether radiographers' use of GCS is associated with their gender, highest educational qualification, and/or years of experience. METHOD: An online survey was sent via email to potential participants through the Society of Medical Radiographers Malta (SRM) as well as social media posts on local radiography pages. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the collected data. RESULTS: Almost half of the registered radiographers working in radiology departments in Malta (n = 101/203) completed the survey (49.7 % response rate). 61.4 % of participating radiographers indicated they 'often' use GCS in some patients, with 56.4 % stating they perceive GCS as an effective tool to protect the gonads from radiation exposure in DR. Equally, 56.4 % claimed that GCS use is guided by local rules and/or departmental protocols. While 58.4 % indicated that patients' gender does not impact their use of GCS, patients' age does influence their use. No statistically significant association was noted between radiographers' likeliness of using GCS and their gender, highest educational qualification, and/or years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Some misconceptions and uncertainties among radiographers concerning the benefits and risks of using GCS were noted. Local radiology departments should look into their protocols and assess the need for an update aligned with the latest recommendations.

The effect of contact radiation shielding on breast dose during CT abdomen-pelvis: a phantom study.

This study aims to investigate if contact shielding reduces breast radiation dose during computed tomography (CT) abdomen-pelvis examinations using automatic tube current modulation to protect one of the four most radiosensitive organs during CT examinations. Dose measurements were taken with and without contact shielding across the anterior and lateral aspects of the breasts and with and without organ dose modulation (ODM) to quantify achievable dose reductions. Although there are no statistically significant findings, when comparing with and without shielding, the mean breast surface dose was reduced by 0.01 µSv without ODM (1.92-1.91 µSv, p = 0.49) and increased by 0.03 µSv with ODM (1.53-1.56 µSv, p = 0.44). Comparing with and without ODM, the mean breast surface dose was reduced by 0.35 µSv with shielding (1.91-1.56 µSv, p = 0.24) and by 0.39 µSv without shielding (1.92-1.53 µSv, p = 0.17). The addition of contact shielding does not provide significant breast surface radiation dose reduction during CT abdomen-pelvis.

Paediatric imaging radiation dose awareness and use of referral guidelines amongst radiology practitioners and radiographers.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to investigate radiology practitioners' and radiographers' radiation dose awareness and use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging examinations. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst radiology practitioners and radiographers working at a primary paediatric referral centre in Malta. Part of the survey asked participants to indicate the typical effective dose (ED) for several commonly performed paediatric imaging examinations, answer five true-false statements about radiation protection principles, and specify their use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging. RESULTS: The return of 112 questionnaires provided a response rate of 66.7 %. Overall, imaging practitioners demonstrated poor awareness of radiation doses associated with several paediatric imaging examinations, with only 20 % providing the correct ED estimate for radiation-based examinations. Nearly all participants had undertaken radiation protection training, but the type and duration of training undertaken varied. When asked about the use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging, 77.3 % claimed that they 'did not' or 'were not sure' if they made use of them. CONCLUSIONS: Poor awareness of radiation doses associated with paediatric imaging examinations and the non-use of referral guidelines may impede imaging practitioners' role in the justification and optimisation of paediatric imaging examinations. Education and training activities to address such shortcomings are recommended. KEY POINTS: • Imaging practitioners demonstrated poor radiation dose awareness for 5 paediatric imaging examinations. • Most radiology practitioners and radiographers were 'not sure' or 'did not' use referral guidelines. • Imaging practitioners generally considered previously undertaken paediatric imaging examinations. • Some imaging practitioners had not undertaken training in radiation protection for 10 years. • Training activities to address imaging practitioners' poor radiation dose awareness are encouraged.