Quality initiatives* radiation risk: what you should know to tell your patient.

University Institute for Radiation Physics, University Hospital Center and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Radiographics (Impact Factor: 2.79). 10/2008; 28(7):1807-16. DOI: 10.1148/rg.287085042
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The steady increase in the number of radiologic procedures being performed is undeniably having a beneficial impact on healthcare. However, it is also becoming common practice to quantify the health detriment from radiation exposure by calculating the number of cancer-related deaths inferred from the effective dose delivered to a given patient population. The inference of a certain number of expected deaths from the effective dose is to be discouraged, but it remains important as a means of raising professional awareness of the danger associated with ionizing radiation. The risk associated with a radiologic examination appears to be rather low compared with the natural risk. However, any added risk, no matter how small, is unacceptable if it does not benefit the patient. The concept of diagnostic reference levels should be used to reduce variations in practice among institutions and to promote optimal dose indicator ranges for specific imaging protocols. In general, the basic principles of radiation protection (eg, justification and optimization of a procedure) need to be respected to help counteract the unjustified explosion in the number of procedures being performed.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An increase has been observed not only in the absolute number of CT examinations but also in the length of coverage and number of scanning phases, with the result that exposure to ionising radiation from CT is becoming an increasingly serious problem. The extent of the problem is not entirely known and cannot be adequately addressed without proper knowledge of all the phases that leads to the effective dose calculation. In light of the growing awareness of the issue of ionising radiation dose and the possible risk for the individual and the population, there is a need for radiologists, medical physicists and radiographers to play an active role in dose management. In this review, the authors try to delineate the problem in a consequential and multifaceted way: radiation-patient interaction, possible mechanisms of damage, main CT dose units, risk and its quantification in the population, with the aim of optimising the acquisition dose without diagnostic drawbacks. For an "up-to-date" use of CT, radiologists must know the dose concerns for the single patient and population, and use the CT apparatus with the best dose care; substitute CT with other diagnostic techniques when possible, especially in children; reduce the number/extension of scans and phases, and the dose in single scans and single examinations.
    La radiologia medica 03/2014; · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to use clinical scenarios to explore aspects of ionizing radiation imparted to patients undergoing CT examinations. Examination appropriateness, effective doses, cancer risks, and pertinent dose reduction strategies are reviewed. CONCLUSION. CT accounts for the majority of radiation exposure related to medical imaging. Medical professionals should have a working knowledge of the benefits and risks of medical radiation and an understanding of strategies for reducing CT radiation dose.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 12/2013; 201(6):1283-1290. · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New tracking navigation imaging software was used to evaluate the usefulness of three dimensional (3D) CT angiography for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Fifty-two patients with 73 HCCs were enrolled in this study retrospectively. Rotational angiography was performed from the hepatic artery for evaluation of the tumor feeding vessels. Arteries feeding the tumor were traced automatically by adjusting the region of interest around the targeted tumor on axial and coronal images using tracking navigation imaging with 3D cone-beam CT angiography. Using final selective angiographic findings as the gold standard, the detection of feeding vessels was 90.4% (66/73) for tracking navigation imaging and 50.7% (37/73) for celiac trunk angiography. This difference was statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the detection of feeding arteries were 97.1% (66/68), 80.0% (4/5), 98.5% (66/67), and 66.7% (4/6), respectively. The kappa coefficient had a value of 0.638 (95% CI: 0.471-0.805), which is considered to indicate a good degree of agreement. With the assistance of tracking navigation imaging, the disease control rate of TACE for HCC was 67.3% (35/52) according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. During follow-up periods of 1-11 months, 10 patients (19.2%) remained cancer-free after TACE. Tracking navigation imaging with 3D cone-beam CT angiography should be useful for TACE in HCC patients with complicated feeding arteries.
    Liver cancer. 03/2014; 3(1):53-61.