News | May 17, 2010

CT Benefits Outweigh Radiation Risks

May 17, 2010 – When patients present with chest pain or other high-risk symptoms of heart problems, doctors increasingly rely on nuclear imaging and computed tomography (CT) to find evidence of heart disease. Results of these procedures can help guide life-saving prevention and treatment options.

However, despite their widespread use and efforts by the cardiac imaging community to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation, concerns over the potential cancer-causing effects of these diagnostic tests continue to dominate discussions. This may lead to imbalanced decision-making and heighten consumers’ fear of these tests, according to experts writing in the May 2010 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Imaging. This special issue explores the challenges of cardiac imaging, including how to effectively measure the radiation doses of different tests, as well as the lack of standard guidelines to evaluate risks and benefits of using such imaging tests.

“These tests are so widely applied now, the concern is that there is some potential of increased cancer risk associated with their use,” said Jagat Narula, M.D., Ph.D., division of cardiology, University of California, Irvine, and editor-in-chief of JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. “The problem is that most estimates of radiation exposure stem from an extrapolation of studies on World War II Hiroshima survivors, and the radiation exposure from imaging tests may not necessarily be the same.”

As with anything in medicine, a careful analysis of the risks and benefits of cardiac imaging is warranted, and experts agree these tests should only be used when the clinical benefit is expected to exceed the potential harm.

“Because most patients undergoing cardiac imaging are symptomatic, the risk of heart disease is high, so the radiation risk is far less than the benefits gained,” said Leslee Shaw, Ph.D., professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga., and an author of the editorial. “If we can identify appropriate patients for testing, then we can provide more intensive treatment and the patient will likely have better outcomes. And, importantly, the radiation exposure is far less than the benefit gained from targeting treatment for heart disease.”

Of course, there are also some cases in which use of these tests may not afford the greatest benefit, according to authors. For example, the risk of exposing a 38-year-old woman of childbearing age who reports one episode of stabbing chest pain to radiation might be far greater than any benefit because her risk of coronary artery disease is so low. Other procedures, such as a routine treadmill test or electrocardiogram could be used to help rule out heart problems. In other cases, cardiac imaging can help rule out heart problems and redirect clinical care as needed.

“There has also been a tendency to play up the fears of radiation and we don’t want patients to be afraid of these tests,” Shaw explains, adding there have been some instances in which very sick patients refuse imaging procedures when the test would have been valuable in terms of their medical management and follow up. “We should encourage patients and doctors to talk about whether a test is needed, why it is being ordered and what it will show. Dialogue about the benefits of testing and the risks of radiation exposure is an essential part of the patient and physician decision making.”

Clinicians should educate patients about these tests and encourage them to be informed participants in decision making by asking themselves: “Am I going to gain more information by having this test, and am I willing to accept a small dose [of radiation] to find out?”

What is needed moving forward?
Recent advances in limiting radiation dose levels through quality imaging, technological advances and guidelines, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Appropriate Use Criteria, as well as keeping doses as low as reasonably appropriate (referred to as ALARA), are making a difference.

Authors stress there is a need for standardized measures for radiation exposure, long-term follow up of patients to better understand the safety profile in term of estimating cancer risk and cardiac benefits, especially among those with an elevated cancer risk, more comparative effectiveness studies that include radiation exposure as a primary safety endpoint, promotion of low-dose imaging protocols which can reduce radiation dose by more than half, new imaging techniques and equipment that reduce radiation exposure, and improved patient education programs about the risks and benefits of cardiac imaging.

For more information: www.acc.org

Related Content

ASNC and SNMMI Release Joint Document on Diagnosis, Treatment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis
News | Cardiac Imaging | August 18, 2017
August 18, 2017 — The American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) has released a joint expert consensus document wi
Houston Methodist Hospital Enters Multi-Year Technology and Research Agreement With Siemens Healthineers
News | Imaging | August 17, 2017
Houston Methodist Hospital and Siemens Healthineers have entered into a multi-year agreement to bring cutting-edge...
Study Demonstrates First Human Application of Novel PET Tracer for Prostate Cancer

Transaxial 11Csarcosine hybrid PET/CT showed a (triangulated) adenocarcinoma in the transition zone of the anterior right prostate gland on PET (A), CT (B), and a separately obtained T2?weighted MR sequence (C) with resulting PET/MRI registration (D). Image courtesy of M. Piert et al., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

News | Radiopharmaceuticals and Tracers | August 16, 2017
In the featured translational article in the August issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, researchers at the...
X-ray of a knee replacement. CMS may change reimbursements for joint and knee replacements. Patient Marilyn Fornell.

CMS may change how it reimburses for knee replacements and said it may eliminate bundled payments for acute cardiac care.

Feature | Business | August 16, 2017 | Dave Fornell
August 16, 2017 — The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a proposed rule to reduce the number
CMS considers eliminating or changing bundled payments for orthopedic and knee replacement imaging. Photo by Vital Images

CMS is considering elimination or changing bundled payments for knee replacements. 

News | August 14, 2017 | Dave Fornell
...
CDN to Integrate Advanced Cardiac Imaging Tools From DiA Imaging Analysis
Technology | Advanced Visualization | August 10, 2017
August 10, 2017 — CDN recently announced a new partnership agreement with DiA Imaging Analysis Ltd., makers of next-g
Four Blue Cross Blue Shield Companies Issue Positive Medical Policies on HeartFlow FFRct Analysis
News | Computed Tomography (CT) | August 09, 2017
HeartFlow Inc. announced that four Blue Cross Blue Shield companies have each issued a positive medical policy for the...
Moffitt Cancer Center Enhances Patient Care with Toshiba Medical's Infinix-i 4-D
News | Interventional Radiology | August 03, 2017
Cancer patients at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., now have access to advanced diagnostic imaging for fast and...
The American Lung Association created LUNG FORCE, a national movement to defeat lung cancer
News | Lung Cancer | August 02, 2017
To raise public awareness of lung cancer—the leading cancer killer of men and women—the American Lung Association's...
Overlay Init