Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 9/2009

01-09-2009 | Original Article

What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation

Authors: Tijen Karsli, Mannudeep K. Kalra, Julie L. Self, Jason Anders Rosenfeld, Susan Butler, Stephen Simoneaux

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 9/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a subsidiary of the Food and Drug Administration, has declared that X-ray radiation at low doses is a human carcinogen.

Objective

The purpose of our study was to determine if informed consent should be obtained for communicating the risk of radiation-induced cancer from radiation-based imaging.

Materials and methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for the prospective survey of 456 physicians affiliated with three tertiary hospitals by means of a written questionnaire. Physicians were asked to state their subspecialty, number of years in practice, frequency of referral for CT scanning, level of awareness about the risk of radiation-induced cancer associated with CT, knowledge of whether such information is provided to patients undergoing CT, and opinions about the need for obtaining informed consent as well as who should provide information about the radiation-induced cancer risk to patients. Physicians were also asked to specify their preference among different formats of informed consent for communicating the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer. Statistical analyses were performed using the chi-squared test.

Results

Most physicians stated that informed consent should be obtained from patients undergoing radiation-based imaging (71.3%, 325/456) and the radiology department should provide information about the risk of radiation-induced cancer to these patients (54.6%, 249/456). The informed consent format that most physicians agreed with included modifications to the National Institute of Environmental Health Services report on cancer risk from low-dose radiation (20.2%, 92/456) or included information on the risk of cancer from background radiation compared to that from low-dose radiation (39.5%, 180/456).

Conclusion

Most physicians do not know if patients are informed about cancer risk from radiation-based imaging in their institutions. However, they believe that informed consent for communicating the risk of radiation-induced cancer should be obtained from patients undergoing radiation-based imaging.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Stern S, Kaczmarek R, Spelic D et al (2002) Nationwide evaluation of X-ray trends (NEXT) 2000–2001 survey of patient radiation exposure from computed tomographic (CT) examinations in the United States. Radiology 221:161 Stern S, Kaczmarek R, Spelic D et al (2002) Nationwide evaluation of X-ray trends (NEXT) 2000–2001 survey of patient radiation exposure from computed tomographic (CT) examinations in the United States. Radiology 221:161
3.
go back to reference Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA (2005) Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 129:328–337PubMedCrossRef Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA (2005) Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 129:328–337PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference NCRP (1989) Exposure of the U.S. population from diagnostic medical radiation. NCRP Report No. 100. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD NCRP (1989) Exposure of the U.S. population from diagnostic medical radiation. NCRP Report No. 100. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD
5.
go back to reference Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA et al (2000) CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353–359PubMedCrossRef Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA et al (2000) CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353–359PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Scott BR (2006) Low-dose radiation-induced protective process and implications for risk assessment, cancer prevention, and cancer therapy. Dose Response 5:131–149PubMedCrossRef Scott BR (2006) Low-dose radiation-induced protective process and implications for risk assessment, cancer prevention, and cancer therapy. Dose Response 5:131–149PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Regulla DF, Eder H (2005) Patient exposure in medical X-ray imaging in Europe. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:11–25PubMedCrossRef Regulla DF, Eder H (2005) Patient exposure in medical X-ray imaging in Europe. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:11–25PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Gilbert ES, Koshurnikova NA, Sokolnikov M et al (2000) Liver cancers in Mayak workers. Radiat Res 154:246–252PubMedCrossRef Gilbert ES, Koshurnikova NA, Sokolnikov M et al (2000) Liver cancers in Mayak workers. Radiat Res 154:246–252PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cologne JB, Tokuoka S, Beebe GW et al (1999) Effects of radiation on incidence of primary liver cancer among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 152:364–373PubMedCrossRef Cologne JB, Tokuoka S, Beebe GW et al (1999) Effects of radiation on incidence of primary liver cancer among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 152:364–373PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:13761–13766PubMedCrossRef Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:13761–13766PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–296PubMed Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–296PubMed
15.
go back to reference Barnett GC, Charman SC, Sizer B et al (2004) Information given to patients about adverse effects of radiotherapy: a survey of patients’ views. Clin Oncol 16:479–484CrossRef Barnett GC, Charman SC, Sizer B et al (2004) Information given to patients about adverse effects of radiotherapy: a survey of patients’ views. Clin Oncol 16:479–484CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP et al (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231:393–398PubMedCrossRef Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP et al (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231:393–398PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP et al (2007) Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it's OK to tell them. AJR 189:271–275PubMedCrossRef Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP et al (2007) Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it's OK to tell them. AJR 189:271–275PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lee CI, Flaster HV, Haims AH et al (2006) Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. AJR 187:282–287PubMedCrossRef Lee CI, Flaster HV, Haims AH et al (2006) Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. AJR 187:282–287PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation
Authors
Tijen Karsli
Mannudeep K. Kalra
Julie L. Self
Jason Anders Rosenfeld
Susan Butler
Stephen Simoneaux
Publication date
01-09-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 9/2009
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1307-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2009

Pediatric Radiology 9/2009 Go to the issue