User login
Photo by Angela Mary Butler
Healthcare professionals (HCPs) may not be fully aware of a CT scan’s effect on lifetime malignancy risk, according to a study published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.
Researchers surveyed a group of HCPs on radiation exposure from CT.
And although most of the respondents recognized that CT scans confer an increased risk of cancer, many underestimated the actual dose of radiation a person receives from a CT scan.
The survey was given to 308 HCPs—including physicians, radiologists, and technologists—in Saskatchewan, Canada.
Seventy-three percent of physicians, 97% of radiologists, and 76% of technologists correctly reported that there is an increased cancer risk from one abdominal-pelvic CT.
However, only 18% of physicians, 28% of radiologists, and 22% of technologists were able to correctly identify the dose in relation to chest X-rays.
In fact, 14% of physicians and 12% of technologists (but 0% of radiologists) “vastly” underestimated the dose as less than 10 chest X-ray equivalents, according to researchers.
The average radiation dose from an abdominal-pelvic CT is 10 millisieverts (mSv), compared to 0.02 mSv to 0.2 mSv from one chest X-ray, meaning that a radiation dose from a CT scan is equivalent to the dose from 100 to 250 chest radiographs.
“Underestimating radiation dose from a CT scan is more concerning than knowing the exact dose level, particularly when it is a vast underestimation, as this may lead to minimization of the risk estimate when considering a test,” said study author David Leswick, MD, of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
“Although [cancer] risk from radiation dose levels in the range of medical imaging procedures is small, it is real, as evidenced from atomic bomb survivors and nuclear industry workers showing significantly increased risk of malignancy after exposure to doses in the range of diagnostic CT.”
“The risk of fatal malignancy may be as high as 1 in 1000 for a 10-mSv exposure. This risk is significant on a population basis, with up to 2% of cancers in the United States population possibly attributable to CT.”
Another aspect highlighted by the survey was some confusion regarding radiation exposure from MRIs and ultrasounds.
MRIs and ultrasounds do not employ ionizing radiation. However, 20% of physicians, 6% of radiologists, and 7% of technologists attributed radiation exposure to MRIs. Eleven percent of physicians, 0% of radiologists, and 7% of technologists believed an ultrasound used radiation.
“Belief that ionizing radiation is utilized by ultrasound and MRI is troubling, as it may result in underutilization of these imaging modalities because of unfounded radiation concerns,” Dr Leswick said.
“It is important for healthcare professionals (including referring physicians, radiologists, and technologists) to be aware of radiation dose levels and risks from imaging tests for several reasons, including the ability to weigh the risks and benefits of tests, counsel patients on relevant risks, optimize protocols to minimize radiation dose, and select appropriate protocols to minimize radiation dose.” 
Photo by Angela Mary Butler
Healthcare professionals (HCPs) may not be fully aware of a CT scan’s effect on lifetime malignancy risk, according to a study published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.
Researchers surveyed a group of HCPs on radiation exposure from CT.
And although most of the respondents recognized that CT scans confer an increased risk of cancer, many underestimated the actual dose of radiation a person receives from a CT scan.
The survey was given to 308 HCPs—including physicians, radiologists, and technologists—in Saskatchewan, Canada.
Seventy-three percent of physicians, 97% of radiologists, and 76% of technologists correctly reported that there is an increased cancer risk from one abdominal-pelvic CT.
However, only 18% of physicians, 28% of radiologists, and 22% of technologists were able to correctly identify the dose in relation to chest X-rays.
In fact, 14% of physicians and 12% of technologists (but 0% of radiologists) “vastly” underestimated the dose as less than 10 chest X-ray equivalents, according to researchers.
The average radiation dose from an abdominal-pelvic CT is 10 millisieverts (mSv), compared to 0.02 mSv to 0.2 mSv from one chest X-ray, meaning that a radiation dose from a CT scan is equivalent to the dose from 100 to 250 chest radiographs.
“Underestimating radiation dose from a CT scan is more concerning than knowing the exact dose level, particularly when it is a vast underestimation, as this may lead to minimization of the risk estimate when considering a test,” said study author David Leswick, MD, of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
“Although [cancer] risk from radiation dose levels in the range of medical imaging procedures is small, it is real, as evidenced from atomic bomb survivors and nuclear industry workers showing significantly increased risk of malignancy after exposure to doses in the range of diagnostic CT.”
“The risk of fatal malignancy may be as high as 1 in 1000 for a 10-mSv exposure. This risk is significant on a population basis, with up to 2% of cancers in the United States population possibly attributable to CT.”
Another aspect highlighted by the survey was some confusion regarding radiation exposure from MRIs and ultrasounds.
MRIs and ultrasounds do not employ ionizing radiation. However, 20% of physicians, 6% of radiologists, and 7% of technologists attributed radiation exposure to MRIs. Eleven percent of physicians, 0% of radiologists, and 7% of technologists believed an ultrasound used radiation.
“Belief that ionizing radiation is utilized by ultrasound and MRI is troubling, as it may result in underutilization of these imaging modalities because of unfounded radiation concerns,” Dr Leswick said.
“It is important for healthcare professionals (including referring physicians, radiologists, and technologists) to be aware of radiation dose levels and risks from imaging tests for several reasons, including the ability to weigh the risks and benefits of tests, counsel patients on relevant risks, optimize protocols to minimize radiation dose, and select appropriate protocols to minimize radiation dose.”
Photo by Angela Mary Butler
Healthcare professionals (HCPs) may not be fully aware of a CT scan’s effect on lifetime malignancy risk, according to a study published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.
Researchers surveyed a group of HCPs on radiation exposure from CT.
And although most of the respondents recognized that CT scans confer an increased risk of cancer, many underestimated the actual dose of radiation a person receives from a CT scan.
The survey was given to 308 HCPs—including physicians, radiologists, and technologists—in Saskatchewan, Canada.
Seventy-three percent of physicians, 97% of radiologists, and 76% of technologists correctly reported that there is an increased cancer risk from one abdominal-pelvic CT.
However, only 18% of physicians, 28% of radiologists, and 22% of technologists were able to correctly identify the dose in relation to chest X-rays.
In fact, 14% of physicians and 12% of technologists (but 0% of radiologists) “vastly” underestimated the dose as less than 10 chest X-ray equivalents, according to researchers.
The average radiation dose from an abdominal-pelvic CT is 10 millisieverts (mSv), compared to 0.02 mSv to 0.2 mSv from one chest X-ray, meaning that a radiation dose from a CT scan is equivalent to the dose from 100 to 250 chest radiographs.
“Underestimating radiation dose from a CT scan is more concerning than knowing the exact dose level, particularly when it is a vast underestimation, as this may lead to minimization of the risk estimate when considering a test,” said study author David Leswick, MD, of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
“Although [cancer] risk from radiation dose levels in the range of medical imaging procedures is small, it is real, as evidenced from atomic bomb survivors and nuclear industry workers showing significantly increased risk of malignancy after exposure to doses in the range of diagnostic CT.”
“The risk of fatal malignancy may be as high as 1 in 1000 for a 10-mSv exposure. This risk is significant on a population basis, with up to 2% of cancers in the United States population possibly attributable to CT.”
Another aspect highlighted by the survey was some confusion regarding radiation exposure from MRIs and ultrasounds.
MRIs and ultrasounds do not employ ionizing radiation. However, 20% of physicians, 6% of radiologists, and 7% of technologists attributed radiation exposure to MRIs. Eleven percent of physicians, 0% of radiologists, and 7% of technologists believed an ultrasound used radiation.
“Belief that ionizing radiation is utilized by ultrasound and MRI is troubling, as it may result in underutilization of these imaging modalities because of unfounded radiation concerns,” Dr Leswick said.
“It is important for healthcare professionals (including referring physicians, radiologists, and technologists) to be aware of radiation dose levels and risks from imaging tests for several reasons, including the ability to weigh the risks and benefits of tests, counsel patients on relevant risks, optimize protocols to minimize radiation dose, and select appropriate protocols to minimize radiation dose.”