There has been an expansion in the use of x-ray imaging during the last 20 years. Effective arrangements for justification of exposures as well as for optimisation of protection are crucial. The amount of effort put into the latter, the way in which it is organised and the groups carrying this out vary across the globe. A simple survey of organisational arrangements relating to performance testing of x-ray equipment, management of patient dose and other aspects of implementing optimisation has been undertaken. A total of 137 completed survey forms were received from medical physicists in 48 countries. Results for individual countries from which more responses were received, or for groups of neighbouring ones, are compared to portray variations. Some performance testing of x-ray equipment was mandated in most countries (more than 90%), with the tests being performed primarily by hospital or private medical physicists, although other groups are involved. Testing of equipment prior to clinical use was generally high for most regions, but the frequency was lower in Latin America. There was considerable variation in the frequency and regularity of subsequent testing. The prevalence of patient dose surveys was high in Europe, but lower in other continents. Organisational arrangements for testing performance of x-ray equipment, patient dose surveys and implementing optimisation of protection in medical exposures across the globe can be divided into five main groups. Hospital medical physicists take the lead in western Europe and Australia with the involvement of radiographers. Private medical physicists test equipment in Brazil, the USA and New Zealand, and have some responsibility for optimisation in Brazil. University personnel have significant involvement, together with medical physicists in eastern Europe, but the extent of the coverage is uncertain. Government personnel and service engineers carry out equipment testing in many countries of Africa and Asia, while radiographers have a significant role in Thailand and other countries where the number of medical physicists is limited. In order for dose surveys to have an impact, action must be taken upon the findings, but there must be an effective link between surveyors and radiology facility staff to ensure that this is done.

No abstract

This report summarizes and analyzes the responses of various organizations that provided assistance to the National Oncology Institute (Instituto Oncológico Nacional, ION) of Panama following the overexposure of 28 radiation therapy patients at the ION in late 2000 and early 2001. The report also looks at the long-term measures that were adopted at the ION in response to the overexposure incident, as well as implications that the incident has for other cancer treatment centers worldwide. In March 2001, the director of the ION was notified of serious overreactions in patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer treatment. Of the 478 patients treated for pelvic cancers between August 2000 and March 2001, 3 of them had died, possibly from an overdose of radiation. In response, the Government of Panama invited international experts to carry out a full investigation of the situation. Medical physicists from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) were among those invited. They ascertained that 56 patients treated with partially blocked teletherapy fields for cancers of the uterine cervix, endometrium, prostate, or rectum, had had their treatment times calculated using a computerized treatment planning system. PAHO's medical physicists calculated the absorbed doses received by the patients and found that, of these 56 patients, only 11 had been treated with acceptable errors of ±5%. The doses received by 28 of the 56 patients had errors ranging from +10 to +105%. These are the patients identified by ION physicists as overexposed. Twenty-three of the 28 overexposed patients had died by September 2005, with at least 18 of the deaths being from radiation effects, mostly rectal complications. The clinical, psychological, and legal consequences of the overexposures crippled cancer treatments in Panama and prompted PAHO to assess radiation oncology practices in the countries of Latin American and the Caribbean. ION clinicians evaluated the outcome of 125 nonoverexposed patients who had been treated in the same time period and for the same cancer sites as the overexposed patients. The clinicians uncovered a larger recurrence of cervical cancers than expected. The finding prompted PAHO to launch an initiative for the accreditation of radiation oncology centers in Latin America and the Caribbean, working in collaboration with professional societies for radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and radiotherapy technologists. The Latin American Association for Radiation Oncology (Asociación Latinoamericana de Terapia Radiante Oncológica) has established an accreditation commission. Accreditation will require that centers implement a comprehensive radiation oncology quality assurance program that follows international guidelines. Statistical data on patient outcomes will be collected in order to document needs in radiotherapy centers in Latin America and the Caribbean and to define future strategies for cancer treatment.

Computed tomography (CT) examinations have increased significantly in recent years due to technological innovations. In some industrialised countries, CT contributes to the population dose as much as background radiation. In developing countries, the uses and risks of CT have not been well characterised. The purpose of this investigation was to assess potential stochastic and deterministic radiation effects from common CT exams performed in six hospitals of Recife, Pernambuco. Scanning parameters and patient gender and age were collected for a total of 285 patients undergoing CT examinations of the head (90), chest (75), abdomen (60) and abdomen-pelvis (60). The organ doses, which were calculated using the ImPACT dosimetry calculator, varied significantly among institutions. Organs such as the brain, the heart and the eye lenses, which exhibited doses as high as 85, 42 and 100 mGy, respectively, are of concern for the production of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases and cataracts. Effective cancer risks were calculated using Brenner methodology and BEIR-VII risk factors. They range from 1.8 to 110.2 cases per 100000 persons for cancer induction and from 1.5 to 63.0 cases per 100000 for cancer mortality. To reduce doses, a quality assurance programme that includes procedural justification and radiation protection optimisation should be implemented.

A good quality image is critical to achieving an accurate diagnosis. Emphasis should be placed on the continuing education of radiology technicians and on the acquisition and maintenance of adequate equipment and accessories, especially viewboxes, intensifying screens, and automatic film processors, given the impact they have on image quality.