Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The why, who, how, and what of communicating CT radiation risks to patients and healthcare providers

  • Review
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) has witnessed tremendous growth in utilization. Despite its immense benefits, there is a growing concern from the general public and the medical community about the detrimental consequences of ionizing radiation from CT. Anxiety from the perceived risks associated with CT can deter referring physicians from ordering clinically indicated CT scans and patients from undergoing medically necessary exams. This article discusses various strategies for educating patients and healthcare providers on the benefits and risks of CT scanning and salient techniques for effective communication.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Adapted from radiologyinfo.org. Qualitative risk represents an approximate additional risk of fatal cancer for an adult as negligible (less than 1 in 1,000,000), minimal (1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 100,000), very low (1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000), low (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000 and moderate (1 in 1000 to 1 in 500)

Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 2019 Global Imaging Market Outlook Report. IMV Medical Information Division. https://imvinfo.com/product/imv-2019-global-imaging-market-outlook-report/. Accessed 2 Feb 2022.

  2. Brenner DJ. Radiation and chest CT scans: are there problems? What should we do? Chest. 2012;142:549–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verdun FR, Bochud F, Gundinchet F, Aroua A, Schnyder P, Meuli R. Quality initiatives* radiation risk: what you should know to tell your patient. Radiographics. 2008;28:1807–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freudenberg LS, Beyer T. Subjective perception of radiation risk. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 2:29S-35S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Horowitz JM, Yaghmai V, Miller FH, Russell EJ. Will CT ordering practices change if we educate residents about the potential effects of radiation exposure? Experience at a large academic medical center. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dauer LT, Thornton RH, Hay JL, Balter R, Williamson MJ, St Germain J. Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:756–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:13761–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dixon AK, Goldstone KE. Abdominal CT and the euratom directive. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1567–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Griffey RT, Sodickson A. Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:887–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartwig H-DR, Clingenpeel J, Perkins AM, Rose W, Abdullah-Anyiwo J. Parental knowledge of radiation exposure in medical imaging used in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013;29:705–9.

  12. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology. 2004;231:393–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:849–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:285–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lockwood D, Einstein D, Davros W. Diagnostic imaging: radiation dose and patients’ concerns. Cleve Clin J Med. 2006;73:583–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Milano MT, Mahesh M, Mettler FA, Elee J, Vetter RJ. Patient radiation exposure: imaging during radiation oncology procedures: executive summary of NCRP report No. 184. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17:1176–82.

  17. Schultz CH, Fairley R, Murphy LS-L, Doss M. The risk of cancer from CT scans and other sources of low-dose radiation: a critical appraisal of methodologic quality. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35:3–16.

  18. Moorthy S. How safe are radiation doses in diagnostic radiology? A historical perspective and review of current evidence. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2021;31:653–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Pauwels EKJ, Bourguignon M. Cancer induction caused by radiation due to computed tomography: a critical note. Acta Radiol. 2011;52:767–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Siegel JA, Brooks AL, Fisher DR, Zanzonico PB, Doss M, OʼConnor MK, et al. A critical assessment of the linear no-threshold hypothesis: its validity and applicability for use in risk assessment and radiation protection. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44:521–5.

  21. Calabrese EJ. Ethical failings: The problematic history of cancer risk assessment. Environ Res. 2021;193:110582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology. 2009;251:13–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Pasqual E, Veiga L. Epidemiological studies of CT scans and cancer risk: the state of the science. Br J Radiol. 2021;94:20210471.

  24. Abalo KD, Rage E, Leuraud K, Richardson DB, Le Pointe HD, Laurier D, et al. Early life ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risks: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Radiol. 2021;51:45–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Karsli T, Kalra MK, Self JL, Rosenfeld JA, Butler S, Simoneaux S. What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39:917–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. DeMaio DN. CT radiation dose and risk: fact vs fiction. Radiol Technol. 2017;89:199–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahesh M, Morin RL. CT scans and cancer risks—a practical middle path. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:828–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oakley PA, Harrison DE. Death of the ALARA radiation protection principle as used in the medical sector. Dose Response. 2020;18:1559325820921641.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee CI, Flaster HV, Haims AH, Monico EP, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:282–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alawad S, Abujamea A. Awareness of radiation hazards in patients attending radiology departments. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2021;60:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heyer CM, Peters S, Lemburg S, Nicolas V. [Awareness of radiation exposure of thoracic CT scans and conventional radiographs: what do non-radiologists know?]. Rofo. 2007;179:261–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schuster AL, Forman HP, Strassle PD, Meyer LT, Connelly SV, Lee CI. Awareness of radiation risks from CT scans among patients and providers and obstacles for informed decision-making. Emerg Radiol. 2018;25:41–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Keijzers GB, Britton CJ. Doctors’ knowledge of patient radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging requested in the emergency department. Med J Aust. 2010;193:450–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Soye JA, Paterson A. A survey of awareness of radiation dose among health professionals in Northern Ireland. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:725–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hobbs JB, Goldstein N, Lind KE, Elder D, Dodd GD, Borgstede JP. Physician knowledge of radiation exposure and risk in medical imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15 1 Pt A:34–43.

  36. Daye D, Joseph E, Flores E, Kambadakone A, Chinn G, Bennett S, et al. Point-of-care virtual radiology consultations in primary care: a feasibility study of a new model for patient-centered care in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18:1239–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lam DL, Larson DB, Eisenberg JD, Forman HP, Lee CI. Communicating potential radiation-induced cancer risks from medical imaging directly to patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:962–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thornton RH, Dauer LT, Shuk E, Bylund CL, Banerjee SC, Maloney E, et al. Patient perspectives and preferences for communication of medical imaging risks in a cancer care setting. Radiology. 2015;275:545–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wagner LK. Toward a holistic approach in the presentation of benefits and risks of medical radiation. Health Phys. 2011;101:566–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. How to Understand and Communicate Radiation Risk. https://www.imagewisely.org/Imaging-Modalities/Computed-Tomography/How-to-Understand-and-Communicate-Radiation-Risk. Accessed 3 Feb 2022.

  41. Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP, Fenton LZ. Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it’s OK to tell them. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:271–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J, Picano E. The information imperative: is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation? Radiology. 2012;262:15–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rehani MM, Applegate K, Bodzay T, Heon Kim C, Miller DL, Ali Nassiri M, et al. Accounting for radiation exposure from previous CT exams while deciding on the next exam: What do referring clinicians think? Eur J Radiol. 2022;155:110468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. O’Neill S, Glynn D, Murphy KP, James K, Twomey M, Kavanagh R, et al. An assessment of the quality of CT radiation dose information on the internet. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15 1 Pt A:11–8.

  45. Johnson EJ, Doshi AM, Rosenkrantz AB. Strengths and deficiencies in the content of US radiology private practices’ websites. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:431–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Morin RL, Frush DP. An introduction to radiation sensibilities. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hawkins CM, DeLaO AJ, Hung C. Social media and the patient experience. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13 12 Pt B:1615–21.

  48. Rosenkrantz AB, Won E, Doshi AM. Assessing the content of youtube videos in educating patients regarding common imaging examinations. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13 12 Pt A:1509–13.

  49. Zondervan RL, Hahn PF, Sadow CA, Liu B, Lee SI. Body CT scanning in young adults: examination indications, patient outcomes, and risk of radiation-induced cancer. Radiology. 2013;267:460–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Brenner DJ. Medical imaging in the 21st century--getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:943–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Garcia Peña BM, Cook EF, Mandl KD. Selective imaging strategies for the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Pediatrics. 2004;113 1 Pt 1:24–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hadley JL, Agola J, Wong P. Potential impact of the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria on CT for trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:937–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Stein SC, Fabbri A, Servadei F, Glick HA. A critical comparison of clinical decision instruments for computed tomographic scanning in mild closed traumatic brain injury in adolescents and adults. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53:180–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Loftus ML, Minkowitz S, Tsiouris AJ, Min RJ, Sanelli PC. Utilization guidelines for reducing radiation exposure in the evaluation of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A practice quality improvement project. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:176–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Oikarinen H, Meriläinen S, Pääkkö E, Karttunen A, Nieminen MT, Tervonen O. Unjustified CT examinations in young patients. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1161–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Berlin L. Informing patients about risks and benefits of radiology examinations utilizing ionizing radiation: a legal and moral dilemma. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8:742–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. McCollough CH. Defending the use of medical imaging. Health Phys. 2011;100:318–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Mezrich RS. Radiation exposure from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2290; author reply 2291–2292.

  59. Bastiani L, Paolicchi F, Faggioni L, Martinelli M, Gerasia R, Martini C, et al. Patient perceptions and knowledge of ionizing radiation from medical imaging. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2128561.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Zeng W. Communicating radiation exposure: a simple approach. J Nucl Med Technol. 2001;29:156–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. McCollough CH, Guimarães L, Fletcher JG. In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:28–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Goldberg-Stein S, Liu B, Hahn PF, Lee SI. Body CT during pregnancy: utilization trends, examination indications, and fetal radiation doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:146–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tremblay E, Thérasse E, Thomassin-Naggara I, Trop I. Quality initiatives: guidelines for use of medical imaging during pregnancy and lactation. Radiographics. 2012;32:897–911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Oikarinen HT, Perttu AM, Mahajan HM, Ukkola LH, Tervonen OA, Jussila A-LI, et al. Parents’ received and expected information about their child’s radiation exposure during radiographic examinations. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49:155–61.

  65. Portelli JL, McNulty JP, Bezzina P, Rainford L. Benefit-risk communication in paediatric imaging: What do referring physicians, radiographers and radiologists think, say and do? Radiography (Lond). 2018;24:33–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. World Health Organization. Communicating radiation risks in paediatric imaging: Information to support healthcare discussions about benefit and risk.

  67. Youssef NA, Gordon AJ, Moon TH, Patel BD, Shah SJ, Casey EM, et al. Emergency department patient knowledge, opinions, and risk tolerance regarding computed tomography scan radiation. J Emerg Med. 2014;46:208–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Davies EM, Bridges AJ, Chung EM. Does radiology require informed consent for radiation risk? Br J Radiol. 2021;94:20210620.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Younger CWE, Douglas C, Warren-Forward H. Informed consent guidelines for ionising radiation examinations: A Delphi study. Radiography (Lond). 2020;26:63–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Harvey HB, Brink JA, Frush DP. Informed consent for radiation risk from CT is unjustified based on the current scientific evidence. Radiology. 2015;275:321–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Berlin L. Shared decision-making: is it time to obtain informed consent before radiologic examinations utilizing ionizing radiation? Legal and ethical implications. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Brink JA, Goske MJ, Patti JA. Informed decision making trumps informed consent for medical imaging with ionizing radiation. Radiology. 2012;262:11–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nayla Mroueh and Anushri Parakh have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Nayla Mroueh, Anushri Parakh, Susanna I. Lee, Debra A. Gervais & Avinash R. Kambadakone

  2. Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of CT, Storrs, CT, 06269-1101, USA

    Jessica Serrao

  3. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Brian H. Eisner

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Dushyant V. Sahani

Authors
  1. Nayla Mroueh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anushri Parakh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica Serrao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanna I. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brian H. Eisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Debra A. Gervais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Avinash R. Kambadakone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dushyant V. Sahani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avinash R. Kambadakone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Avinash R. Kambadakone: Research grants (GE, Philips Healthcare and PanCAN); Grant support for research activities from Philips, GE Healthcare and PanCAN. Susanna I. Lee: Royalties from UpToDate, Wolters Kluwer and Springer. RSNA editor honorarium. Brian H. Eisner: Consultant for Boston Scientific and Sonomotion. Dushyant V. Sahani: Grant support for research activities from Philips and GE Healthcare, consulting agreements with GE Healthcare, and royalties from Elsevier. Nayla Mroueh, Anushri Parakh, Jessica Serrao and Debra A. Gervais: No relevant disclosures.

Ethical approval

No IRB approval was required for this review article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mroueh, N., Parakh, A., Serrao, J. et al. The why, who, how, and what of communicating CT radiation risks to patients and healthcare providers. Abdom Radiol 48, 1514–1525 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03778-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03778-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation