Feature | March 24, 2015

Cancer Patients Want More Information About Medical Imaging Risk

Study participants say knowing about ionizing radiation risks wouldn’t change their decision to have a particular test

radiation, risk, cancer patients, information, Memorial Sloan Kettering, MSKCC

March 24, 2015 — A new study published online in the journal Radiology found a substantial gap between patient expectations and current practices for providing information about medical imaging tests that use radiation. Researchers said the findings highlight a need for better communication as medicine enters an era of patient-centered care.

In recent years, there have been numerous reports in the media about potential risks of tests that use ionizing radiation. However, benefit-risk discussions about ionizing radiation from medical imaging are rare and seldom initiated by clinicians.

For the new study, researchers from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City analyzed more than nine hours of transcribed conversations with 30 people who had undergone medical imaging exams. The goal of the analysis was to determine their understanding of the benefits and risks associated with various medical imaging procedures and their expectations regarding communication of those benefits and risks.

The study group was divided into six focus groups, including five groups of cancer patients and one group of participants in a lung cancer screening program. The study found that participants perceived clear benefits from imaging tests like X-rays, computed tomography (CT) scans and nuclear medicine examinations, but that patient knowledge regarding which imaging tests use ionizing radiation was variable and generally poor.

Most participants were highly aware of risks associated with ionizing radiation exposure, including the potential risk of future cancer, but expressed a desire to receive this information from their own doctor.

In addition to information about risk, the patients expressed a desire to be offered information concerning the rationale for specific test orders and testing intervals, as well as testing alternatives. Most met their needs for more information through self-directed Internet searches.

“This may not be what we in the medical field want to hear, but I think it’s important that we hear it,” said senior author Jennifer Hay, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist at MSKCC. “Patients want this information, and they prefer to receive it from doctors they know and trust.”

Knowledge about imaging tests was highly variable among the study participants, even though many of them had undergone frequent examinations. For instance, some patients were unsure if ionizing radiation was used in mammography, bone scans and stress tests. Many participants were uncertain if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation from diagnostic medical imaging was occasionally confused with radiation therapy, and some participants were unable to distinguish between the two.

Participants desired a wide range of information about medical imaging tests. Most wanted basic education about which imaging tests used ionizing radiation and how doses compared among them. Nearly all the patients wanted to understand how tests differ, what governs selection of one over another, and why multiple tests are sometimes ordered. Most agreed that learning about possible future risks was important but that having this information would probably not alter their decision to proceed with a recommended test.

The desire for information on the risks associated with ionizing radiation from medical imaging was strongest among patients who had made the transition from treatment to survivorship. These patients wanted to know how risk accumulates from multiple exams over time, whether additional ionizing radiation exposure could be avoided by substituting MRI for CT, and if longer intervals between follow-up examinations could be negotiated.

“Interest in having more information and participating in decision making about medical imaging clearly increased as patients transitioned from active cancer treatment to survivorship,” said the study’s lead author Raymond H. Thornton, M.D., an interventional radiologist at MSKCC. “Cancer survivors typically focus on healthful living and risk-factor reduction, so they were particularly eager to participate in discussions about potential long-term risks of radiation.”

The different levels of desire for information among patients lend support to a tiered approach for patient-centered communication, according to Hay.

“A tiered approach would provide all patients with information and offer additional options to those who want to dig deeper and find out more,” she said.

Despite concerns about future risks, the study participants expressed appreciation for the imaging tests, with many emphasizing that imaging reports were a patient’s most important evidence of treatment efficacy.

For more information: www.radiologyinfo.org

Related Content

FDA Clears Mobilett Elara Max Mobile X-ray from Siemens Healthineers
Technology | Digital Radiography (DR) | March 20, 2019
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared the Mobilett Elara Max mobile X-ray system from Siemens...
Older Biologic Age Linked to Elevated Breast Cancer Risk
News | Women's Health | March 19, 2019
Biologic age, a DNA-based estimate of a person’s age, is associated with future development of breast cancer, according...
HeartFlow Analysis Successfully Stratifies Heart Disease Patients at One Year
News | CT Angiography (CTA) | March 19, 2019
Late-breaking results confirm the HeartFlow FFRct (fractional flow reserve computed tomography) Analysis enables...
PET Scans Show Biomarkers Could Spare Some Breast Cancer Patients from Chemotherapy
News | PET Imaging | March 18, 2019
A new study positron emission tomography (PET) scans has identified a biomarker that may accurately predict which...
SyncVision iFR Co-registration from Philips Healthcare maps iFR pressure readings onto angiogram.

SyncVision iFR Co-registration from Philips Healthcare maps iFR pressure readings onto angiogram. Results from an international study presented at #ACC19 show that pressure readings in coronary arteries may identify locations of stenoses remaining after cardiac cath interventions.

Feature | Cardiac Imaging | March 18, 2019 | By Greg Freiherr
As many as one in four patients who undergo cath lab interventions can benefit from a technology that identifies the
Non-Contrast MRI Effective in Monitoring MS Patients
News | Neuro Imaging | March 18, 2019
Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without contrast agent is just as effective as the contrast-enhanced approach...
Bay Labs Announces New Data on EchoGPS, AutoEF AI Software at ACC.19
News | Cardiovascular Ultrasound | March 15, 2019
Artificial intelligence (AI) company Bay Labs announced the presentation of two studies assessing performance of the...
Podcast | Cardiac Imaging | March 15, 2019
Debate About Coronary Testing Highlights ACC Session
Canon Medical Introduces Entry-Level Aquilion Start CT
News | Computed Tomography (CT) | March 14, 2019
Canon Medical Systems Europe B.V. introduced the all-new Aquilion Start computed tomography (CT) system to the European...
Siemens Healthineers Debuts Cardiovascular Edition of Somatom go.Top CT
News | Computed Tomography (CT) | March 14, 2019
Siemens Healthineers will introduce the Somatom go.Top Cardiovascular Edition, a new version of its established...