Diagnostic CT Scans: Assessment of Patient, Physician, and Radiologist Awareness of Radiation Dose and Possible Risks

Lee, Christoph I.; Haims, Andrew; Monico, Edward P.; Brink, James A.; Forman, Howard P.

doi:10.1148/radiol.2312030767

Cited by 597 publications

(412 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

386

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Medical radiologists themselves underestimate the radiation doses associated with a CT scan by 50-500 times [14] use ionizing radiation [15]. Such faulty knowledge is transferred directly onto patients when they discuss the reasons for having a medical imaging test and its related risks with medical specialists [16][17][18][19][20]. Nonetheless, no one knows the real level of awareness and perception of the risk arising from ionizing radiation in patients receiving diagnostic radiological procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: A patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TIntroduction: The European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM requires patient radiation dose information to be included in the medical report of radiological procedures. To provide effective communication to the patient, it is necessary to first assess the patient's level of knowledge regarding medical exposure. The goal of this work is to survey patients' current knowledge level of both medical exposure to ionizing radiation and professional disciplines and communication means used by patients to garner information. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was designed comprised of thirteen questions: 737 patients participated in the survey. The data were analysed based on population age, education, and number of radiological procedures received in the three years prior to survey. Results: A majority of respondents (56.4%) did not know which modality uses ionizing radiation. 74.7% had never discussed with healthcare professionals the risk concerning their medical radiological procedures. 70.1% were not aware of the professionals that have expertise to discuss the use of ionizing radiation for medical purposes, and 84.7% believe it is important to have the radiation dose information stated in the medical report. Conclusion: Patients agree with new regulations that it is important to know the radiation level related to the medical exposure, but there is little awareness in terms of which modalities use X-Rays and the professionals and channels that can help them to better understand the exposure information. To plan effective communication, it is essential to devise methods and adequate resources for key professionals (medical physicists, radiologists, referring physicians) to convey correct and effective information.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: A patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When assessed with regard to their knowledge of radiation exposure and the associated risks, clinicians consistently perform disappointingly with significant underestimation of typical radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic imaging studies [47][48][49][50]. The European Council issued the Euratom directive in 1997 and advised integration of a module in radiation protection, into the curriculum of medical schools in an effort to raise awareness [51].…”

Section: Education In Radiation Exposure Associated With Diagnostic Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimization of radiation exposure due to computed tomography in inflammatory bowel disease

O’Neill

O’Connor

McWilliams

et al. 2011

Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In head and neck tumors CTP imaging has been shown to be a promising tool for treatment prognosis, differentiation of different tumor histologies and differentiation between malignant and benign tumors. [1][2][3][4] The number of CT examinations is continuously increasing, and the average lifetime cancer risk due to medical radiation exposure has been estimated to be as high as 2% [5]. It might be even higher for patients receiving CTP, which consists of repetitive CT scans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing a perfusion CT protocol for head and neck cancer

Stüssi

Bogowicz

Weichselbaumer

et al. 2017

Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perfusion computed tomography (CTP) images tumor angiogenesis and can assess tumor aggressiveness. However, the CTP examinations are dose intensive. This study aimed to optimize a routinely used CTP protocol for the head and neck region in oncology in order to reduce the effective dose to the patient and simultaneously achieve the same image quality.The Alderson phantom was scanned on a GE Revolution CT scanner. A scan with our standard protocol for head and neck cancer patients was used (100kV, 80mAs, 5mm slice thickness and backprojection algorithm) and in seven predefined regions (ROI) the signal to noise ratio (SNR) was measured. For the dose optimized protocol, the tube voltage was lowered and the mAs adaptation protocol was used. To improve image quality different percentage of an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) was applied. For a better resolution we set the slice thickness to 2.5 mm. The mAs adaption range and the percentage of the ASiR reconstruction were varied until we found a combination with the same median SNR in the seven defined ROIs as for our old protocol. For the old and the optimized protocol dose measurements were performed using 25 LiF-TLDs. Organ doses were calculated and the effective dose was determined based on the weighting factors of ICRP103.The optimized scanning protocol used a voltage of 80kV, a mAs range between 15 and 80, a noise level of 10%, and 50% ASiR reconstruction. The median SNR ratio was slightly better (14% better SNR) with the new protocol. An effective dose of 8 mSv was measured with the original protocol and 4 mSv with the optimized scanning protocol. For organs in the scanning field the dose was reduced by a factor of 2 and outside the field by a factor of 2.2.Advanced reconstruction algorithms allow a significant dose reduction and an improvement of image resolution, while maintaining the image quality.

show abstract

Diagnostic CT Scans: Assessment of Patient, Physician, and Radiologist Awareness of Radiation Dose and Possible Risks

Abstract: Patients are not given information about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose for a CT scan. Patients, ED physicians, and radiologists alike are unable to provide accurate estimates of CT doses regardless of their experience level.

Cited by 597 publications

References 16 publications

Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: A patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks

Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: A patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks

Minimization of radiation exposure due to computed tomography in inflammatory bowel disease

Optimizing a perfusion CT protocol for head and neck cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About