Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 5/2009

01-05-2009 | Computed Tomography

Unjustified CT examinations in young patients

Authors: Heljä Oikarinen, Salme Meriläinen, Eija Pääkkö, Ari Karttunen, Miika T. Nieminen, Osmo Tervonen

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The doses of radiation from computed tomography (CT) are relatively high, yet CT is being increasingly utilized. Furthermore, the radiation-induced lifetime risk of cancer mortality is higher at younger age. The purpose of this study was to find out whether previous CT examinations done on patients aged under 35 years were justified, and if not, whether there would have been other, more justifiable imaging modalities available. Fifty CT examinations of the head and 30 CT examinations each of the lumbar spine, cervical spine, abdomen, nasal sinuses and trauma were evaluated consecutively since the beginning of the year 2005 by using electronic patient files, the referral guidelines for imaging recommended by the European Commission and certain principles of classification. Seventy-seven per cent of the CT examinations of the lumbar spine, 36% of the head, 37% of the abdomen, 20% of the nasal sinuses and 3% of the cervical spine were unjustified. Most of these unjustified examinations could have been replaced by magnetic resonance imaging. In order to reduce utilization of ionizing radiation, both the referring practitioner and the radiologist responsible for the examination should carefully consider the justification for CT examinations and the possibility of using other imaging modalities.
Literature
1.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiological Protection (1977) Recommendations of the ICRP, publication 26. Pergamon, Oxford International Commission on Radiological Protection (1977) Recommendations of the ICRP, publication 26. Pergamon, Oxford
2.
go back to reference Corbett RH, Faulkner K (1998) Justification in radiation protection. Report on a meeting organized by the BIR Radiation Protection Committee in association with the European Commission, held at the British Institute of Radiology, London, 6 November 1997. Br J Radiol 71:905–907PubMed Corbett RH, Faulkner K (1998) Justification in radiation protection. Report on a meeting organized by the BIR Radiation Protection Committee in association with the European Commission, held at the British Institute of Radiology, London, 6 November 1997. Br J Radiol 71:905–907PubMed
3.
go back to reference Malone JF (2008) New ethical issues for radiation protection in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:6–12CrossRef Malone JF (2008) New ethical issues for radiation protection in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:6–12CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296 Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296
6.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP publication 103, Elsevier International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP publication 103, Elsevier
7.
go back to reference United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. Vol I: sources. United Nations, New York. www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexd.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2008 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. Vol I: sources. United Nations, New York. www.​unscear.​org/​docs/​reports/​annexd.​pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2008
9.
go back to reference Hall EJ, Brenner DJ (2008) Hounsfield review series. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 81:362–378PubMedCrossRef Hall EJ, Brenner DJ (2008) Hounsfield review series. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 81:362–378PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Donnelly LF (2005) Commentary. Reducing radiation dose associated with pediatric CT by decreasing unnecessary examinations. Am J Roentgenol 184:655–657 Donnelly LF (2005) Commentary. Reducing radiation dose associated with pediatric CT by decreasing unnecessary examinations. Am J Roentgenol 184:655–657
11.
go back to reference Bairstow PJ, Mendelson R, Dhillon R, Valton F (2006) Diagnostic imaging pathways: development, dissemination, implementation, and evaluation. Int J Qual Health Care 18:51–57PubMedCrossRef Bairstow PJ, Mendelson R, Dhillon R, Valton F (2006) Diagnostic imaging pathways: development, dissemination, implementation, and evaluation. Int J Qual Health Care 18:51–57PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Slovis TL, Berdon WE (2002) Session I: helical CT and cancer risk. Panel discussion. Pediatr Radiol 32:242–244CrossRef Slovis TL, Berdon WE (2002) Session I: helical CT and cancer risk. Panel discussion. Pediatr Radiol 32:242–244CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Clarke JC, Cranley K, Kelly BE, Bell K, Smith PHS (2001) Provision of MRI can significantly reduce CT collective dose. Br J Radiol 74:926–931PubMed Clarke JC, Cranley K, Kelly BE, Bell K, Smith PHS (2001) Provision of MRI can significantly reduce CT collective dose. Br J Radiol 74:926–931PubMed
14.
go back to reference Naik KS, Ness LM, Bowker AMB, Robinson PJA (1996) Is computed tomography of the body overused? An audit of 2068 attendances in a large acute hospital. Br J Radiol 69:126–131PubMedCrossRef Naik KS, Ness LM, Bowker AMB, Robinson PJA (1996) Is computed tomography of the body overused? An audit of 2068 attendances in a large acute hospital. Br J Radiol 69:126–131PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Triantopoulou C, Tsalafoutas I, Maniatis P et al (2005) Analysis of radiological examination request forms in conjunction with justification of x-ray exposures. Eur J Radiol 53:306–311PubMedCrossRef Triantopoulou C, Tsalafoutas I, Maniatis P et al (2005) Analysis of radiological examination request forms in conjunction with justification of x-ray exposures. Eur J Radiol 53:306–311PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Royal College of Radiologists (1998) Making the best use of a department of clinical radiology: guidelines for doctors, 4th edn. Royal College of Radiologists, London Royal College of Radiologists (1998) Making the best use of a department of clinical radiology: guidelines for doctors, 4th edn. Royal College of Radiologists, London
17.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (1995) Appropriateness criteria for imaging and treatment decisions. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA American College of Radiology (1995) Appropriateness criteria for imaging and treatment decisions. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
18.
go back to reference Glaves J (2005) The use of radiological guidelines to achieve a sustained reduction in the number of radiographic examinations of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and knees performed for GPs. Clin Radiol 60:914–920PubMedCrossRef Glaves J (2005) The use of radiological guidelines to achieve a sustained reduction in the number of radiographic examinations of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and knees performed for GPs. Clin Radiol 60:914–920PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Unjustified CT examinations in young patients
Authors
Heljä Oikarinen
Salme Meriläinen
Eija Pääkkö
Ari Karttunen
Miika T. Nieminen
Osmo Tervonen
Publication date
01-05-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1256-7

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

European Radiology 5/2009 Go to the issue