ObjectivesTo assess the following themes among referring physicians: (A) importance of acquiring information about previous diagnostic exposures; (B) knowledge about radiation doses involved, familiarity with radiation units and, age-related radiosensitivity; (C) opinion on whether patients should be provided information about radiation dose and (D) self-assessment of appropriateness of referrals.DesignA prospective survey using a web-based questionnaire.SettingInternational survey among referring physicians.ParticipantsReferring physicians from 28 countries.Main outcome measuresKnowledge, opinion and practice of the four themes of the survey.ResultsAll 728 responses from 28 countries (52.3% from developed and 47.7% from developing countries) indicated that while the vast majority (71.7%) of physicians feel that being aware of history of CT scans would always or mostly lead them to a better decision on referring patients for CT scans, only 43.4% often enquire about it. The majority of referring physicians (60.5%) stated that having a system that provides quick information about patient exposure history would be useful. The knowledge about radiation doses involved is poor, as only one-third (34.7%) of respondents chose the correct option of the number of chest x-rays with equivalence of a CT scan. In total, 70.9% of physicians stated that they do not feel uncomfortable when patients ask about radiation risk from CT scans they prescribe. Most physicians (85.6%) assessed that they have rarely prescribed CT scans of no clinical use in patient management.ConclusionsThis first ever multinational survey among referring physicians from 28 countries indicates support for a system that provides radiation exposure history of the patient, demonstrates poor knowledge about radiation doses, supports radiation risk communication with patients and mandatory provisions for justification of a CT examination.

The current study aimed to: a) utilize Monte Carlo simulation methods for the assessment of radiation doses imparted to all organs at risk to develop secondary radiation induced cancer, for patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer; and b) evaluate the effect of breast size on dose to organs outside the irradiation field. A simulated linear accelerator model was generated. The in‐field accuracy of the simulated photon beam properties was verified against percentage depth dose (PDD) and dose profile measurements on an actual water phantom. Off‐axis dose calculations were verified with thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) measurements on a humanoid physical phantom. An anthropomorphic mathematical phantom was used to simulate breast cancer radiotherapy with medial and lateral fields. The effect of breast size on the calculated organ dose was investigated. Local differences between measured and calculated PDDs and dose profiles did not exceed 2% for the points at depths beyond the depth of maximum dose and the plateau region of the profile, respectively. For the penumbral regions of the dose profiles, the distance to agreement (DTA) did not exceed 2 mm. The mean difference between calculated out‐of‐field doses and TLD measurements was 11.4%±5.9%. The calculated doses to peripheral organs ranged from 2.32 cGy up to 161.41 cGy depending on breast size and thus the field dimensions applied, as well as the proximity of the organs to the primary beam. An increase to the therapeutic field area by 50% to account for the large breast led to a mean organ dose elevation by up to 85.2% for lateral exposure. The contralateral breast dose ranged between 1.4% and 1.6% of the prescribed dose to the tumor. Breast size affects dose deposition substantially.PACS numbers: 87.10.rt, 87.56.bd, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.ne, 87.56.jf, 87.56.J‐

The objective of this publication is to provide guidance on radiological protection in the new technology of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Publications 87 and 102 dealt with patient dose management in computed tomography (CT) and multi-detector CT. The new applications of CBCT and the associated radiological protection issues are substantially different from those of conventional CT. The perception that CBCT involves lower doses was only true in initial applications. CBCT is now used widely by specialists who have little or no training in radiological protection. This publication provides recommendations on radiation dose management directed at different stakeholders, and covers principles of radiological protection, training, and quality assurance aspects. Advice on appropriate use of CBCT needs to be made widely available. Advice on optimisation of protection when using CBCT equipment needs to be strengthened, particularly with respect to the use of newer features of the equipment. Manufacturers should standardise radiation dose displays on CBCT equipment to assist users in optimisation of protection and comparisons of performance. Additional challenges to radiological protection are introduced when CBCT-capable equipment is used for both fluoroscopy and tomography during the same procedure. Standardised methods need to be established for tracking and reporting of patient radiation doses from these procedures. The recommendations provided in this publication may evolve in the future as CBCT equipment and applications evolve. As with previous ICRP publications, the Commission hopes that imaging professionals, medical physicists, and manufacturers will use the guidelines and recommendations provided in this publication for implementation of the Commission's principle of optimisation of protection of patients and medical workers, with the objective of keeping exposures as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors, and consistent with achieving the necessary medical outcomes.

There is wide interest currently in patient exposure tracking. This paper provides templates for implementation of tracking at the practice (hospital) level, multi-practice level, national level and international level. It provides suggestions for implementation in less-resourced countries. It includes elements such as patient identifier, dose quantities that should be covered and how to make sense from dose figures, availability of digital imaging and communications in medicine files with dose information or structured dose reports and capabilities of picture archiving and communication system (PACS). While tracking at several hospitals in a country connected by PACS and nationwide PACS is also a reality, tracking at the international level is currently a challenge. Guidance provided in this paper will facilitate its implementation at all levels.

The purpose of this study was to assess the current status of patient radiation exposure tracking internationally, gauge interest and develop recommendations for implementation. A survey questionnaire was distributed to representatives of countries to obtain information, including the existence of a patient exposure tracking program currently available in the country, plans for future programs, perceived needs and goals of future programs, which examinations will be tracked, whether procedure tracking alone or dose tracking is planned, and which dose quantities will be tracked. Responses from 76 countries, including all of the six most populous countries and 16 of the 20 most populous, showed that although no country has yet implemented a patient exposure tracking program at a national level, there is increased interest in this issue. Eight countries (11%) indicated that such a program is actively being planned and 3 (4%) stated that they have a program for tracking procedures only, but not for dose. Twenty-two (29%) feel that such a program will be “extremely useful”, 46 (60%) “very useful” and 8 (11%) “moderately useful”, with no respondents stating “Mildly useful” or “Not useful”. Ninety-nine percent of countries indicated an interest in developing and promoting such a program. In a first global survey covering 76 countries, it is clear that no country has yet achieved exposure tracking at a national level, although there are successful examples at sub-national level. Almost all have indicated interest and some have plans to achieve dose tracking in the near future.