News | Computed Tomography (CT) | June 27, 2016

CT Cancer Risk Poorly Understood by Many Healthcare Providers

Knowledge of radiation dose and associated risks varies among referring physicians, radiologists and technicians, according to new Canadian study

CT scans, radiation dose, cancer risk, healthcare providers survey

June 27, 2016 — A new study in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences surveyed doctors, radiologists and imaging technologists regarding their beliefs about radiation exposure from computed tomography (CT). The survey found that while most respondents recognized there is an increased risk of cancer from CT, many underestimated the actual radiation dose.

Researchers from the University of Saskatchewan wanted to assess healthcare providers' knowledge regarding radiation dosing from CT scans. Using a survey of medical professionals in Saskatchewan, investigators found that 73 percent of physicians, 97 percent of radiologists and 76 percent of technologists correctly identified that there is an increased cancer risk from one abdominal-pelvic CT. However, only 18 percent of physicians, 28 percent of radiologists and 22 percent of technologists were able to correctly identify the dose in relation to chest X-rays. Although 48 percent of physicians, 78 percent of radiologists and 63 percent of technologists either accurately estimated or overestimated this dose, many respondents underestimated the dose level.

"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," explained lead investigator David Leswick, M.D., FRCPC, Department of Medical Imaging, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan.

The issue of radiation exposure is significant as doctors continue to order CT scans with increasing frequency. In Canada alone, there were an estimated 4.4 million CT scans conducted in 2011-2012. Measured in millisieverts (mSv), the average radiation dose from an abdominal-pelvic CT is 10 mSv, compared to 0.02 to 0.2 mSv from one chest X-ray, meaning that a radiation dose from a CT scan is best approximated as between that from 100-250 chest radiographs.

"Although 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," said Leswick. "The risk of fatal malignancy may be as high as 1 in 1000 for a 10-mSv exposure (approximate dose of an abdomen-pelvis CT). This risk is significant on a population basis, with up to 2 percent of cancers in the United States population possibly attributable to CT.”

With such a clear risk relationship between radiation exposure and cancer, it is imperative that healthcare providers understand the facts to ensure the benefits outweigh the possible danger when ordering a diagnostic CT. The survey indicated that 93 percent of respondents were interested in radiation dose feedback when considering ordering a CT scan. Automated dose calculation software and radiology information systems can be integrated into electronic ordering, which would give doctors immediate access to information when considering ordering a scan.

Another interesting aspect highlighted by the survey was some confusion regarding radiation exposure from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. MRIs and ultrasounds do not employ ionizing radiation and yet 20 percent of physicians, 6 percent of radiologists and 7 percent of technologists attributed radiation exposure to MRIs, and 11 percent of physicians, 0 percent of radiologists and 7 percent 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," added Leswick.

While CT scans can be a lifesaving diagnostic tool, they also present a potential danger if they are overused or incorrectly implemented. It is vital that doctors and other healthcare practitioners fully understand the implications of ordering a CT scan and that patients are counseled appropriately about all available forms of testing and the potential radiation exposure involved.

"Unfortunately, healthcare providers including physicians, radiologists and medical imaging technologists are often not aware of radiation doses for common CT scans," concluded Leswick. "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.”

For more information: www.jmirs.org

Related Content

The Aquilion Precision CT system from Canon offers very high resolution imaging, which may aid in cancer detection and improved treatment planning in radiation oncology. #ASTRO2018 #ASTRO #ASTRO18

The Aquilion Precision CT system from Canon offers very high resolution imaging, which may aid in cancer detection and improved treatment planning in radiation oncology. 

News | Computed Tomography (CT) | October 19, 2018
October 19, 2018 – At the 2018 American Society of...
CT Offers Non-Invasive Alternative for Complex Coronary Disease Treatment Planning
News | CT Angiography (CTA) | October 16, 2018
A new study published in the European Heart Journal shows computed tomography (CT) can be a useful aid in heart team...

Images from computed tomography (CT) colonography show segmented abdominal aortic calcification measured with semiautomated CT tool on coronal image. Within region of interest over aorta selected by user, tool automatically segments and quantifies aortic calcification (shown in blue). 

Image Credit: O’Connor S D, Graffy P M, Zea R, et al. Does nonenhanced CT-based quantification of abdominal aortic calcification outperform the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular event sin asymptomatic adults? Radiology doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180562. Published online Oct. 2, 2018. © RSNA.

News | Computed Tomography (CT) | October 12, 2018
Computed tomography (CT)-based measures of calcification in the abdominal aorta are strong predictors of heart attacks...
iCAD Announces Positive Clinical Results for Artificial Intelligence Tomosynthesis Technology
News | Mammography | October 11, 2018
iCAD Inc. announced positive clinical results of its new digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) cancer detection software,...
Surgery, Radiation Therapy Equally Effective in Treating Oropharyngeal Cancer
News | Radiation Therapy | October 09, 2018
A new study by researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center found no major long-term differences in the effectiveness...
Videos | Treatment Planning | October 08, 2018
Carrie Glide-Hurst, Ph.D., director of translational research, radiation oncology at Henry Ford Health System, descri
Videos | Treatment Planning | October 05, 2018
Carrie Glide-Hurst, Ph.D., director of translational research, radiation oncology at Henry Ford Health System, descri
Image Diagnostics Debuting Interventional Radiation Shield at RSNA 2018
News | Radiation Dose Management | October 03, 2018
Image Diagnostics has entered into a product development agreement with ECLS Inc. to design a new radiation shield...
Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening Needs Improvement
News | Lung Cancer | October 03, 2018
A study of adherence to annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening within the Veteran Health Administration...