Physicians’ and Midlevel Providers’ Awareness of Lifetime Radiation–Attributable Cancer Risk Associated With Commonly Performed CT Studies: Relationship to Practice Behavior (original) (raw)
Related papers
The theory of radiation carcinogenesis has been debated for decades. Most estimates of the radiation risks from CT have been based on extrapolations from the lifespan follow-up study of atomic bomb survivors and on follow-up studies after therapeutic radiation, using the linear no-threshold theory. Based on this, many population-based projections of induction of future cancers by CT have been published that should not be used to estimate the risk to an individual because of their large margin of error. This has changed recently with the publication of three large international cohort follow-up studies, which link observed cancers to CT scans received in childhood. A fourth ongoing multi-country study in Europe is expected to have enough statistical power to address the limitations of the prior studies. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report released in 2013 specifically addresses variability in response of the pediatric population exposed to ionizing radiation. Most authorities now conclude that there is enough evidence to link future cancers to the radiation exposure from a single CT scan in childhood but that cancer risk estimates for individuals must be based on the specifics of exposure, age at exposure and absorbed dose to certain tissues. Generalizations are not appropriate, and the communication of the CT risk to individuals should be conducted within the framework of personalized medicine.
Knowledge and Awareness of CT Radiation Dose and Risk Among Patients
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography
The study aims to assess the level of patients’ awareness and knowledge regarding radiation and dosage along with the associated risks from computed tomography (CT) scan. This cross-sectional study used questionnaires, which were distributed to the diagnostic imaging departments of six large local hospitals in Jordan between September 2014 and March 2015. A total of 600 patients completed the questionnaire, out of which, 52.33% of respondents were female and 47.6% male. The findings show insignificant effects of gender on patient’s knowledge ( P = .596) and significant effect of employment and profession on positive scores ( P = .000). Similarly, no statistical differences were found between gender and correct answers ( P = .707). This cohort of patients demonstrated a lack of awareness and knowledge about the use of ionizing radiation for diagnostic imaging. Thus, there may exist a similar lack of information that will require imaging professionals to raise patients’ awareness and ...
Radiation exposure among patients with the highest CT scan utilization in the emergency department
Emergency Radiology, 2013
The risk of cancer from computed tomography (CT) scan radiation is a rising concern in the medical field. Our objectives were to determine how many patients received more than ten CT scans in an academic emergency department (ED) over the course of 7 years and to quantify their radiation exposure and lifetime attributable risk of cancer. An electronic chart review was performed at our urban academic institution with an annual census of 110,000 patients. All patients who underwent a CT scan performed during ED management between the dates of January 2001 and December 2007 were identified. Specific predetermined data elements (e.g., subject demographics, type of CT scan) were extracted by two researchers blinded to hypothesis, using a preformatted data form. After identifying patients with more than ten CTs performed during the study period, radiation exposure was calculated based on accepted and reported radiation doses for the respective anatomic CTs, and lifetime attributable cancer risk was calculated based on the seventh report of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) projections. Over the 7-year study period, 24,393 patients received 34,671 CT scans. The vast majority of patients (17,909) received a single CT. Twenty-six (0.1 %) patients received more than ten CTs totaling 374 scans with an average radiation exposure of 83.4 mSv. The maximum lifetime attributable risk for any individual in this cohort was 1.7 % above the baseline cancer risk. Among those undergoing CT imaging in our ED, high-exposure patients (greater than ten scans) constituted a significant minority, while more than one in four patients underwent more than one CT scan during the study period. While the presumed overall risk of radiation-induced cancer continues to be low, it is important for the emergency physician to use clinical knowledge as well as concern for the patient when utilizing radiographic imaging. Increasing attributable cancer risk may have important public health implications in the future, regardless of the low individual risk.
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2014
Purpose: Cancer risks associated with radiation from CT procedures have recently received increased attention. An important question is whether the combined impact of CT volume and dose reduction strategies has reduced radiation exposure to adult patients undergoing CT examinations. The aim of this study was to determine differences in radiation exposure from 2008 to 2012 to patients receiving CT scans of the abdomen, head, sinus, and lumbar spine at a midwestern academic medical center that implemented dose reduction strategies.
In order to personalize the communication of the CT risk, we need to describe the risk in the context of the clinical benefit of CT, which will generally be much higher, provided a CT scan has a well-established clinical indication. However as pediatric radiologists we should be careful not to overstate the benefit of CT, being aware that medico–legal pressures and the realities of health care economics have led to overutilization of the technology. And even though we should not use previously accumulated radiation dose to a child as an argument against conducting a clinically indicated scan (the " sunk-cost " bias), we should consider patients' radiation history in the diagnostic decision process. As a contribution to future public health, it makes more sense to look for non-radiating alternatives to CT in the much larger group of basically healthy children who are receiving occasional scans for widely prevalent conditions such as appendicitis and trauma than to attempt lowering CT use in the smaller group of patients with chronic conditions with a limited life expectancy. When communicating the CT risk with individual patients and their parents, we should acknowledge and address their concerns within the framework of informed decision-making. When appropriate, we may express the individual radiation risk, based on estimates of summated absorbed organ dose, as an order of magnitude rather than as an absolute number, and compare this with the much larger natural cancer incidence over a child's lifetime, and with other risks in medicine and daily life. We should anticipate that many patients cannot make informed decisions on their own in this complex matter, and we should offer our guidance while maintaining respect for patient autonomy. Proper documentation of the informed decision process is important for future reference. In concert with our referring physicians, pediatric radiologists are well-equipped to tackle the complexities associated with the communication of CT risk, a task that often falls upon us, and by becoming more involved in the diagnostic decision process we can add value to the health care system.
How I Do It: Managing Radiation Dose in CT
Radiology, 2014
Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging test that is widely used worldwide to establish medical diagnoses and perform image-guided interventions. More recently, concern has been raised about the risk of carcinogenesis from medical radiation, with a focus on CT. The purpose of this article is to (a) describe the importance of educating radiology personnel, patients, and referring clinicians about the concerns over CT radiation, (b) describe commonly used CT parameters and radiation units, (c) discuss the importance of establishing a dedicated radiology team to manage CT radiation, and (d) describe specific CT techniques to minimize radiation while providing diagnostic examinations. q RSNA, 2014
Physician Knowledge of Radiation Exposure and Risk in Medical Imaging
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2018
Purpose: Medical imaging is an increasingly important source of radiation exposure for the general population, and there are risks associated with such exposure; however, recent studies have demonstrated poor understanding of medical radiation among various groups of health care providers. This study had two aims: (1) analyze physicians' knowledge of radiation exposure and risk in diagnostic imaging across multiple specialties and levels of training, and (2) assess the effectiveness of a brief educational presentation on improving physicians' knowledge. Methods: From 2014 to 2016, 232 health care providers from multiple departments participated in an educational presentation and pre-and postpresentation tests evaluating knowledge of radiation exposure and risk at a large academic institution. Results: Knowledge of radiation exposure and risk was relatively low on the prepresentation test, including particularly poor understanding of different imaging modalities, with 26% of participants unable to correctly identify which modalities expose patients to ionizing radiation. Test scores significantly increased after the educational presentation. Radiologists had higher prepresentation test scores than other specialties, and therefore less opportunity for improvement, but also demonstrated improvement in radiation safety knowledge after education. Aside from radiology, there was no significant difference in initial knowledge of radiation exposure and risk among the other specialties. Conclusions: Providers' knowledge of radiation exposure and risk was low at baseline but significantly increased after a brief educational presentation. Efforts to educate ordering providers about radiation exposure and risk are needed to ensure that providers are appropriately weighing the risks and benefits of medical imaging and to ensure high-quality, patient-centered care.
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2011
Study objective: We describe patient perceptions of computed tomography (CT) and their understanding of radiation exposure and risk. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of acute abdominal pain patients aged 18 years or older. Confidence in medical evaluations with increasing levels of laboratory testing and imaging was rated on a 100-point visual analog scale. Knowledge of radiation exposure was ascertained when participants compared the radiation dose of one abdomen-pelvis CT with 2-view chest radiography. To assess cancer risk knowledge, participants rated their agreement with these factual statements: "Approximately 2 to 3 abdominal CTs give the same radiation exposure as experienced by Hiroshima survivors" and "2 to 3 abdominal CTs over a person's lifetime can increase cancer risk." Previous CT was also assessed. Results: There were 1,168 participants, 67% women and mean age 40.7 years (SD 15.9 years). Median confidence in a medical evaluation without ancillary testing was 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 16 to 25) compared with 90 (95% CI 88 to 91) when laboratory testing and CT were included. More than 70% of participants underestimated the radiation dose of CT relative to chest radiography, and cancer risk comprehension was poor. Median agreement with the Hiroshima statement was 13 (95% CI 10 to 16) and 45 (95% CI 40 to 45) with the increased lifetime cancer risk statement. Seven hundred ninety-five patients reported receiving a previous CT. Of 365 patients who reported no previous CT, 142 (39%) had one documented in our electronic medical record. Conclusion: Patients are more confident when CT imaging is part of their medical evaluation but have a poor understanding of the concomitant radiation exposure and risk and underestimate their previous imaging experience. [