Skip to main content

La dose radiante e l’appropriatezza dell’imaging

  • Chapter
  • 703 Accesses

Part of the book series: Imaging & Formazione ((IMAG))

Riassunto

Negli ultimi tre decenni si è verificato un consistente incremento del numero di procedure radiologiche effettuate in sanità. Il ricorso sempre più frequente e sistematico alle tecniche di diagnostica per immagini ha fatto sì che queste abbiano assunto il ruolo di strumento indispensabile per definire il corretto percorso terapeutico dei pazienti. Oggi le diverse metodiche di imaging radiologico (radiologia, ecografia, risonanza magnetica e medicina nucleare) producono oltre 5 miliardi di esami all’anno e questo numero è probabilmente destinato a crescere ulteriormente nel prossimo futuro. Mentre l’ecografia e la risonanza magnetica non impiegano radiazioni ionizzanti e sono quindi generalmente ritenute innocue, la radiologia e la medicina nucleare sono basate su energie ionizzanti, che pertanto comportano rischi per i pazienti. Sono proprio queste ultime ad aver registrato il maggior incremento e la sola tomografia computerizzata (TC) arriva attualmente a erogare oltre il 65% della dose radiante prodotta da attività mediche [1]. Mentre negli ultimi trent’anni l’esposizione alle radiazioni ambientali — quali raggi cosmici e radon — è rimasta sostanzialmente invariata, abbiamo invece assistito a un aumento dell’esposizione dovuta a procedure mediche intorno al 600%, che oggirappresentano circa il 50% dell’esposizione totale, contro il 15% degli anni Ottanta [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA (2000) CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall EJ, Brenner DJ (2008) Cancer risks for diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 81:362–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council (2005) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  4. Preston DL, Pierce DA, Suyama A et al (2003) Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors report 13: solid cancer and non cancer disease mortality: 1957–1997. Radiat Res 160:381–407

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M et al (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographyc scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 22:2071–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brink J, Amis ES (2010) Image Wisely: a campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology 257:601–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The ‘Image Gently’ campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 38:265–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Herzog C, Rieger CT (2004) Risk of cancer form diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 363:340–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Picano E (2009) The risks of inappropriateness in cardiac imaging. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6:1649–1664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rohacek M, Albrecht M, Kleim B et al (2012) Reasons for ordering computed tomography scans of the head in patients with minor brain injury. Injury (in press); doi 10.1016/j.injury.2012.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  11. http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=mri&pag=dis&ItemID=94267. Ultimo accesso 7 aprile 2012

  12. Lee SI, Saokar A, Dreyer KJ et al (2007) Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume? Radiology 242:857–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ip IK, Mortele KJ, Prevedello LM, Khorasani R (2012) Repeat abdominal imaging examinations in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Med 125:155–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Linet MS, Slovis TL, Miller DL et al (2012) Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin (in press); doi 10.3322/caac.21132

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP et al (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 23:393–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arslanoglu A, Bilgin S, Kubal Z et al (2007) Doctors’ and intern doctors’ knowledge about patients’ ionizing radiation exposure doses during common radiological examinations. Diag Interv Radiol 13:53–55

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shiralkar S, Rennie A, Snow M et al (2003) Doctor’s knowledge of radiation exposure: questionnaire study. BMJ 327:371–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Thomas KE, Parnell-Parmley JE, Haidar S et al (2006) Assessment of radiation dose a wareness among pediatricians. Pediatr Radiol 36:823–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Correia MJ, Hellies A, Andreassi MG et al (2005) Lack of radiological awareness among physicians working in a tertiary-care cardiological centre. Int J Cardiol 103:307–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Picano E (2004) Informed consent and communication risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 329:849–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lewars M (2004) Sustainability of medical imaging: to obtain informed consent from everyone is impossible. BMJ 328:1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine. Radiology 248:254–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vano E, Fernandez JM, Ten JL et al (2007) Transition from screen film to digital radiography: evolution of patient radiation doses at projection radiography. Radiology 243:461–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Neofotistou V, Tsapaki V, Kottou S et al (2005) Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? Apilot study and review of the literature. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117:204–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al (2009) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk. Arch Intern Med 169:2078–2086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nievelstein RAJ, Van Dam IM, Van der Molen AJ (2010) Multidetector CT in children: current concepts and dose reduction strategies. Pediatr Radiol 40:1324–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paolicchi, F., Faggioni, L., Caramella, D. (2012). La dose radiante e l’appropriatezza dell’imaging. In: Caramella, D., Paolicchi, F., Faggioni, L. (eds) La dose al paziente in diagnostica per immagini. Imaging & Formazione. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2649-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2649-0_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2648-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2649-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics