Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness
- PMID:31792584
- DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8
Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness
Abstract
Objective: To determine percent of patients without malignancy and ≤ 40 years of age with high cumulative radiation doses through recurrent CT exams and assess imaging appropriateness.
Methods: From the cohort of patients who received cumulative effective dose (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv over a 5-year period, a sub-set was identified with non-malignant disease. The top 50 clinical indications leading to multiple CTs were determined. Clinical decision support (CDS) system scores were analyzed using a widely adopted standard of 1-3 (red) as "not usually appropriate," 4-6 (yellow) "may or may not be appropriate," and 7-9 (green) "usually appropriate." Clinicians reviewed patient records to assess compliance with appropriate use criteria (AUC).
Results: 9.6% of patients in our series were with non-malignant conditions and 1.4% with age ≤ 40 years. CDS scores (rounded) were 2% red, 38% yellow, 27% green, and 33% unscored CTs. Clinical society guidelines for CT exams, wherever available, were followed in 87.5 to 100% of cases. AUCs were not available for several clinical indications as also referral guidelines for serial CT imaging. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease.
Conclusions: We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age ≤ 40 years require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years but the radiation risk creates concern. There is a fair number of conditions for which AUC are not available. Suggested solutions include development of CT scanners with lesser radiation dose and further development of appropriateness criteria.
Key points: We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age group 0-40 years and with non-malignant diagnosis require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease. Imaging guidelines and appropriateness use criteria are not available for many conditions. Wherever available, they are for initial work-up and diagnosis and there is a lack of guidance on serial CT imaging.
Keywords: Patient safety; Radiation protection; Radiologic technology; Radiology; Referral and consultation.
Comment in
- Cumulative radiation dose from multiple CT examinations: stronger justification, fewer repeats, or dose reduction technology needed?Remedios D.Remedios D.Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr;30(4):1837-1838. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06624-8. Epub 2020 Jan 30.Eur Radiol. 2020.PMID:32002638
Similar articles
- Cumulative radiation exposure from multimodality recurrent imaging of CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention, and nuclear medicine.Li X, Rehani MM, Marschall TA, Yang K, Liu B.Li X, et al.Eur Radiol. 2024 Jun;34(6):3719-3729. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10299-7. Epub 2023 Nov 13.Eur Radiol. 2024.PMID:37957362
- Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude.Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER, Heil J, Šalát D, Sensakovic WF, Liu B.Rehani MM, et al.Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr;30(4):1828-1836. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06523-y. Epub 2019 Dec 2.Eur Radiol. 2020.PMID:31792585
- Patients undergoing multiphase CT scans and receiving a cumulative effective dose of ≥ 100 mSv in a single episode of care.Brambilla M, Cannillo B, D'Alessio A, Matheoud R, Agliata MF, Carriero A.Brambilla M, et al.Eur Radiol. 2021 Jul;31(7):4452-4458. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07665-0. Epub 2021 Jan 15.Eur Radiol. 2021.PMID:33449187
- ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Post-Treatment Follow-up and Active Surveillance of Clinically Localized Renal Cell Cancer.Expert Panel on Urological Imaging; Purysko AS, Nikolaidis P, Dogra VS, Ganeshan D, Gore JL, Gupta RT, Heilbrun ME, Khatri G, Kishan AU, Lyshchik A, Savage SJ, Smith AD, Wang ZJ, Wolfman DJ, Wong-You-Cheong JJ, Yoo DC, Lockhart ME.Expert Panel on Urological Imaging, et al.J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Nov;16(11S):S399-S416. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.05.022.J Am Coll Radiol. 2019.PMID:31685108Review.
- Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging.Brower C, Rehani MM.Brower C, et al.Br J Radiol. 2021 Oct 1;94(1126):20210389. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210389. Epub 2021 Jun 23.Br J Radiol. 2021.PMID:34161140Free PMC article.Review.
Cited by
- Cumulative radiation exposure from multimodality recurrent imaging of CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention, and nuclear medicine.Li X, Rehani MM, Marschall TA, Yang K, Liu B.Li X, et al.Eur Radiol. 2024 Jun;34(6):3719-3729. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10299-7. Epub 2023 Nov 13.Eur Radiol. 2024.PMID:37957362
- The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.Frush D.Frush D.Br J Radiol. 2021 Oct 1;94(1126):20210478. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210478. Epub 2021 Sep 14.Br J Radiol. 2021.PMID:34520223Free PMC article.Review.
- The radiation doses and radiation protection on the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures.Takenaka M, Hosono M, Hayashi S, Nishida T, Kudo M.Takenaka M, et al.Br J Radiol. 2021 Oct 1;94(1126):20210399. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210399. Epub 2021 Aug 11.Br J Radiol. 2021.PMID:34379457Free PMC article.Review.
- Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.Frush DP, Vassileva J, Brambilla M, Mahesh M, Rehani M, Samei E, Applegate K, Bourland J, Ciraj-Bjenlac O, Dahlstrom D, Gershan V, Gilligan P, Godthelp B, Hjemly H, Kainberger F, Mikhail-Lette M, Holmberg O, Paez D, Schrandt S, Valentin A, Van Deventer T, Wakeford R.Frush DP, et al.Eur Radiol. 2024 Oct;34(10):6475-6487. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10659-x. Epub 2024 Apr 9.Eur Radiol. 2024.PMID:38592419Review.
- Probability of receiving a high cumulative radiation dose and primary clinical indication of CT examinations: a 5-year observational cohort study.Jeukens CRLPN, Boere H, Wagemans BAJM, Nelemans PJ, Nijssen EC, Smith-Bindman R, Wildberger JE, Sailer AM.Jeukens CRLPN, et al.BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 17;11(1):e041883. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041883.BMJ Open. 2021.PMID:33455933Free PMC article.
References
- Sistrom CL (2009) The appropriateness of imaging: a comprehensive conceptual framework. Radiology 251(3):637–649 - DOI
- American College of Radiology (ACR) (2018) ACR Appropriateness Criteria [Internet] [updated 2019; cited 2019 July 29].https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria . Accessed 7 Nov 2019
- The Royal College of Radiologist. iRefer: radiological investigation guidelines tool, RCR, Londonhttps://www.rcr.ac.uk/clinical-radiology/being-consultant/rcr-referral-g... . Accessed 7 Nov 2019
- European Society of Radiology. Referral guidelines for imaging.https://www.myesr.org/referral-guidelines-imaging . Accessed 7 Nov 2019
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (2016) Appropriate Use Criteria Program.https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Inst... . Accessed 7 Nov 2019
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials