- Joined
- Jun 3, 2002
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 0
There seems to have been a rash of recent newspaper articles, both locally and nationally, revisiting the subject of excessive radiation exposure in diagnostic CT imaging:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2859987220071128
As a radiation oncologist, I have fielded questions from 3 patients in the last week about this, since it has raised concern on their part about the need for weekly CT based image-guidance, or even CT-based treatment planning.
My questions:
1) Are most diagnostic practices now logging radiation exposure info?
2) If so, what metric is commonly used? I've seen data alluding to CT dose index (weighted), dose length product, and actual exposure (mSV), with the thought that the latter is most appropriate, although correlations to the BEIR VII data continue to be problematic in my view.
3) Are any practices adopting policies in e.g. pediatric patients to set a threshhold or otherwise attempting to limit exposures, such as recommending U/S based imaging to referring docs where appropriate? I have a hard time believing that this would be the case, as it would have the potential to hamstring diagnostic radiologists in clinical judgments which should be within their purview.
I appreciate any comments you may have.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2859987220071128
As a radiation oncologist, I have fielded questions from 3 patients in the last week about this, since it has raised concern on their part about the need for weekly CT based image-guidance, or even CT-based treatment planning.
My questions:
1) Are most diagnostic practices now logging radiation exposure info?
2) If so, what metric is commonly used? I've seen data alluding to CT dose index (weighted), dose length product, and actual exposure (mSV), with the thought that the latter is most appropriate, although correlations to the BEIR VII data continue to be problematic in my view.
3) Are any practices adopting policies in e.g. pediatric patients to set a threshhold or otherwise attempting to limit exposures, such as recommending U/S based imaging to referring docs where appropriate? I have a hard time believing that this would be the case, as it would have the potential to hamstring diagnostic radiologists in clinical judgments which should be within their purview.
I appreciate any comments you may have.
