Advertisement

Multinational data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent radiological procedures: call for action

  • Marco BrambillaEmail author
  • Jenia Vassileva
  • Agnieszka Kuchcinska
  • Madan M. Rehani
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

To have a global picture of the recurrent use of CT imaging to a level where cumulative effective dose (CED) to individual patients may be exceeding 100 mSv at which organ doses typically are in a range at which radiation effects are of concern

Methods

The IAEA convened a meeting in 2019 with participants from 26 countries, representatives of various organizations, and experts in radiology, medical physics, radiation biology, and epidemiology. Participants were asked to collect data prior to the meeting on cumulative radiation doses to assess the magnitude of patients above a defined level of CED.

Results

It was observed that the number of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv is much larger than previously known or anticipated. Studies were presented in the meeting with data from about 3.2 million patients who underwent imaging procedures over periods of between 1 and 5 years in different hospitals. It is probable that an additional 0.9 million patients reach the CED ≥ 100 mSv every year globally.

Conclusions

There is a need for urgent actions by all stakeholders to address the issue of high cumulative radiation doses to patients. The actions include development of appropriateness criteria/referral guidelines by professional societies for patients who require recurrent imaging studies, development of CT machines with lower radiation dose than today by manufacturers, and development of policies by risk management organizations to enhance patient radiation safety. Alert values for cumulative radiation exposures of patients should be set up and introduced in dose monitoring systems.

Key Points

• Recurrent radiological imaging procedures leading to high radiation dose to patients are more common than ever before.

• Tracking of radiation exposure of individual patients provides useful information on cumulative radiation dose.

• There is a need for urgent actions by all stakeholders to address the issue of high cumulative radiation doses to patients.

Keywords

Radiation protection Patient safety Radiologic Technology Risk Radiation dosage 

Abbreviations

CED

Cumulative effective dose

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of the following colleagues for responding to the survey and for providing data: Avramova-Cholakova Simona, Bigand Emeline, Bosmans Hilde, Faj Dario, Fitton Isabelle, Georgiev Emil, Griciene Birute, Habib Geryes Bouchra, Kotiaho Antti, Kulich Miloslav, Krynke Leonid, La Grange Cindy, Le Roy Julien, Melchor Joyce, Milyan Yuriy, Plagnol Vincent, Rampado Osvaldo, Rosales Espizua Francisco Javier, Sana Paolo, Sanchez Roberto, Salat Dusan, and Tölli Jukka.

Funding information

Participation in the IAEA meeting was funded by the IAEA, the Governments of the participating Member States, or by the represented international organization. No funding support was provided by the IAEA or other agencies for conducting the survey and this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Madan M Rehani.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because no change of intervention in patient management was part of the work that involved data analysis retrospectively.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because only summary data (total numbers) were needed for the analysis. The centers providing data were responsible to follow their local rules.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• multicenter study

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission (2014) Radiation Protection No. 180: Medical Radiation exposure of the European Population. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/RP180.pdf
  2. 2.
    Howard SA, Rosenthal MH, Qin L et al (2018) Quantifying decreased radiation exposure from modern CT scan technology and surveillance programs of germ cell tumors. Am J Clin Oncol 41:949–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rehani MM, Frush DP (2011) Patient exposure tracking: the IAEA smart card project. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 147:314–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rehani MM, Kushi JF (2013) A study of smart card for radiation exposure history of patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:780–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrison JD, Balonov M, Martin CJ et al (2016) Use of effective dose. Ann ICRP 45:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brambilla M, De Mauri A, Leva L, Carriero A, Picano E (2013) Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in chronic adult patients. Am J Med 126:480–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brambilla M, De Mauri A, Lizio D et al (2014) Cumulative radiation dose estimates from medical imaging in paediatric patients with non-oncologic chronic illnesses. A systematic review. Phys Med 30:403–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Triantopoulou S, Tsapaki V (2017) Does clinical indication play a role in CT radiation dose in pediatric patients? Phys Med 41:53–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rehani MM (2019) Looking for solutions: vision and a call-for-attention for radiation research scientists. Int J Radiat Biol 95:793–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER, et al (2019) Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. Eur Radiol  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06523-y
  11. 11.
    Rehani MM, Melick ER, Alvi RM et al (2019) Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: Assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. Eur Radiol  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8
  12. 12.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2017) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. Available via https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_2017_Annex-B.pdf. Last accessed on 08/07/2019
  13. 13.
    National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear-non-threshold model and radiation protection. NCRP Commentary No. 27. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRPGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holmberg O, Malone J, Rehani M, McLean D, Czarwinski R (2010) Current issues and actions in radiation protection of patients. Eur J Radiol 76:15–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seuri R, Rehani MM, Kortesniemi M (2013) How tracking radiologic procedures and dose helps: experience from Finland. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:771–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rehani MM (2017) Patient radiation exposure and dose tracking: a perspective. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 4:031206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP et al (2009) Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 251:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fazel R, Krumholtz HM, Wang Y et al (2009) Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 361:849–857PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen J, Einstein AJ, Fazel R et al (2010) Cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac imaging procedures. A population-based analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:702–711PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Einstein AJ, Weiner SD, Berheim A et al (2010) Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose, and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. JAMA 304:2137–2144PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stein EG, Haramati LB, Bellin E et al (2010) Radiation exposure form medical imaging in patients with chronic and recurrent conditions. J Am Coll Radiol 7:351–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaul P, Medvedev S, Hohmann SF, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Patel MR (2010) Ionizing radiation exposure to patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction in the United States. Circulation 122:2160–2169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisenberg MJ, Afilalo J, Lawler PR, Abrahamowicz M, Richard H, Pilote L (2011) Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction. CMAJ 183:430–436PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawler PR, Afilalo J, Eisenberg MJ, Pilote L (2011) Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging among patients with myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 109:31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kinsella SM, Coyle JP, Long EB et al (2010) Maintenance hemodialysis patients have high cumulative radiation exposure. Kidney Int 78:789–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Mauri A, Brambilla M, Chiarinotti D, Matheoud R, Carriero A, De Leo M (2011) Estimated radiation exposure from medical imaging in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 22:571–578PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coyle J, Kinsella S, McCarthy S et al (2011) Cumulative ionizing radiation exposure in patients with end stage kidney disease: a 6-year retrospective analysis. Abdom Imaging 37:632–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Mauri A, Brambilla M, Izzo C et al (2012) Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in kidney transplant patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27:3645–3651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Desmond AN, McWilliams S, Maher MM, Shanahan F, Quigley EM (2012) Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging among patients with gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:259–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levi Z, Fraser E, Krongrad R et al (2009) Factors associated with radiation exposure in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 30:1128–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kroeker KI, Lam S, Birchall I, Fedorak RN (2011) Patients with IBD are exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation through CT scan diagnostic imaging. A five-year study. J Clin Gastroenterol 45:34–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Butcher RO, Nixon E, Sapundzieski M, Filobbos R, Limdi JK (2012) Radiation exposure in patients with inflammatory bowel disease-primum non nocere? Scand J Gastroenterol 47:1192–1199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Estay C, Simian D, Lubascher J, Figueroa C, O’Brien A, Quera R (2015) Ionizing radiation exposure in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: are we overexposing our patients? J Dig Dis 16:83–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chatu S, Poullis A, Holmes R, Greenhalgh R, Pollok RC (2013) Temporal trends in imaging and associated radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Clin Pract 67:1057–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung YS, Park DI, Kim ER et al (2013) Quantifying exposure to diagnostic radiation and factors associated with exposure to high levels of radiation in Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 19:1852–1857Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fuchs Y, Markowitz J, Weinstein T, Kohn N, Choi-Rosen J, Levine J (2011) Pediatric inflammatory bowel disease and imaging-related radiation: are we increasing the likelihood of malignancy? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 52:80–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sauer CG, Kugathasan S, Martin DR, Applegate KE (2011) Medical radiation exposure in children with inflammatory bowel disease estimates high cumulative doses. Inflamm Bowel Dis 17:2326–2232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huang JS, Tobin A, Harvey L, Nelson TR (2011) Diagnostic medical radiation in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 53:502–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brambilla M, Cerini P, Lizio D, Vigna L, Carriero A, Fossaceca R (2015) Cumulative radiation dose and radiation risk from medical imaging in patients subjected to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Radiol Med 120:563–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Noor M, Shekhdar J, Banner NR (2011) Radiation exposure after heart transplantation: trends and significance. J Heart Lung Transplant 30:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson JN, Hornik CP, Li JS et al (2014) Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimation in children with heart disease. Circulation. 130:161–167PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seal A, Hawkes M, Bhargava R et al (2017) Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in a cohort of pediatric transplant recipients. PLoS One 12:e0167922PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    De Mauri A, Matheoud R, Carriero A, Lizio D, Chiarinotti D, Brambilla M (2017) Radiation exposure from medical imaging in dialyzed patients undergoing renal pre-transplant evaluation. J Nephrol 30:141–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Naidu J, Wong Z, Palaniappan S et al (2017) Radiation exposure in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a fourteen-year review at a tertiary care centre in Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 18:933–939PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Englund H, Lidén KK, Lind T, Sundström T, Karling P (2017) Radiation exposure in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome in the years 2001-2011. Scand J Gastroenterol 52:300–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hou JK, Malaty HM, Thirumurthi S (2014) Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging studies among patients with inflammatory bowel disease in a safety-net health-care system. Dig Dis Sci 59:546–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kalender G, Milan L, Stock UA, Endisch A, Kornberger A (2018) Long-term radiation exposure in patients undergoing EVAR: reflecting clinical day-to-day practice to assess realistic radiation burden. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc.  https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-170344 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Markar SR, Vidal-Diez A, Sounderajah V et al (2018) A population-based cohort study examining the risk of abdominal cancer after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.058 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Manning BJ, O’Neill SM, Haider SN, Colgan MP, Madhavan P, Moore DJ (2009) Duplex ultrasound in aneurysm surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparison with computed tomography aortography. J Vasc Surg 49:60–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ding A, Gao Y, Liu H et al (2015) VirtualDose: a software for reporting organ doses from CT for adult and pediatric patients. Phys Med Biol 60:5601–5625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, Official Journal L 13, 17/01/2014Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Remedios D, Hierath M, Ashford N et al (2014) European survey on imaging referral guidelines. Insights Imaging 5:15–23PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Remedios D, France B, Alexander M (2017) Making the best value of clinical radiology: iRefer Guidelines, 8th edition. Clin Radiol 72:705–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Physics DepartmentUniversity Hospital “Maggiore della Carità”NovaraItaly
  2. 2.Radiation Protection of Patients Unit, Radiation Safety and Monitoring Section, NSRW, International Atomic Energy AgencyVienna International CentreViennaAustria
  3. 3.Medical Physics DepartmentMaria Skłodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of OncologyWarsawPoland
  4. 4.Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations