Search

The article titled "CT radiation exposure and cancer risk: from knowing to acting" discusses a study on the association between radiation from computed tomography (CT) scans and the risk of cancer in children and young adults. The study found that there is an association between cumulative radiation dose from CT scans and the risk of hematologic, lymphoid, and myeloid malignancies. However, the article also highlights some deficiencies in the study and raises questions about the practical implications of the findings. It emphasizes the need for clarity on low-level radiation exposure and cancer risk and calls for continued efforts to optimize radiation protection measures in medical settings, particularly for pediatric populations. The article also discusses the importance of considering the benefits of CT imaging alongside the potential risks and highlights the need for balanced and accurate reporting of the study's results in the media. Overall, the article emphasizes the importance of using scientific knowledge to inform discussions and decision-making regarding CT scans and radiation risks. [Extracted from the article]

Although the Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have been shown to be an important tool for optimising patient radiation protection, there are still difficulties related to the methodology that should be used to establish and use local DRL values. This statement represents the current view of the EuroSafe Imaging 'Clinical DRLs' working group formed with the purpose to produce scientific and educational material on DRLs and promote the concept of local DRLs. Guidelines on how to establish and how to use local DRLs presented herein can be implemented using a multidisciplinary team approach. Local DRLs are easy to determine and implement and they reflect local equipment performance and local clinical needs. They can be updated more frequently than the national DRLs, especially if a dose management system is available. To establish local DRLs, a practical approach could be to collect a reasonable set, i.e., at least 20–30 procedures, of data for well-defined clinical indications and calculate the 3rd quartile values. The median values of the distribution can be set to define the 'typical values'. The International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) suggests setting 'typical values' for newer technologies that enable decreased amounts of radiation exposure for a similar level of image quality. Local DRLs should be similar or lower to the national DRLs. They could be higher only if the clinical benefits for some medical indications are fully explained and reported. Local DRLs may be used as a quality benchmark to track outliers and can be also used as alert values. Key points: Guidelines on how to establish and use local DRLs are presented. Local DRLs are easy to determine and implement and can be updated frequently Additionally, local DRLs can be used to track outliers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess information reflecting radiation dose and define diagnostic reference levels (DRL) on a European basis for four interventional radiology (IR) procedures considering clinical indication, anatomical region, and procedure. Methods: A prospective European study was performed to provide data on the IR procedures percutaneous recanalization of iliac arteries, percutaneous recanalization of femoropopliteal arteries, transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire giving information on procedure, equipment, and protocol. Patient size and weight, experience of the operator graded in number of procedures performed, and complexity level of each procedure were reported. Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries could be surveyed. The percentiles of the kerma-area product, fluoroscopy time, cumulative air kerma at the interventional reference point, and number of images were determined. The impact of equipment, year of installation, and complexity level of the procedure on dose were analyzed. Results: DRLs based on clinical indication were defined. Dose values varied considerably within hospitals, between them, and within each subgroup of complexity level. The use of state-of-the-art equipment reduced dose significantly by 52%. Although dose also varied within each subgroup of complexity level, for transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, dose significantly correlated with complexity. Conclusions: This was the first study reporting exposure practice and defining DRLs based on clinical indication for four IR procedures on a European basis. These DRLs can serve as a baseline for comparison with local practice, the study as a guideline for future surveys. Key Points: • The use of state-of-the-art angiographic equipment reduces dose significantly. • A significant correlation between radiation dose and complexity level is found. • Dose values vary considerably, both within and between individual hospitals, and within each complexity level of interventional radiology procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the issue of cumulative effective dose received from recurrent computed tomography examinations has become a subject of increasing concern internationally. Evidence, predominantly from the USA, has shown that a significant number of patients receive a cumulative effective dose of 100 mSv or greater. To obtain a European perspective, EuroSafe Imaging carried out a survey to collect European data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent computed tomography examinations. The survey found that a relatively low percentage of patients (0.5%) received a cumulative effective dose equal to or higher than 100 mSv from computed tomography, most of them having an oncological disease. However, there is considerable variation between institutions as these values ranged from 0 to 2.72%, highlighting that local practice or, depending on the institution and its medical focus, local patient conditions are likely to be a significant factor in the levels of cumulative effective dose received, rather than this simply being a global phenomenon. This paper also provides some practical actions to support the management of cumulative effective dose and to refine or improve practice where recurrent examinations are required. These actions are focused around increasing awareness of referring physicians through encouraging local dialogue, actions focused on optimisation where a team approach is critical, better use of modern equipment and the use of Dose Management and Clinical Decision Support Systems together with focused clinical audits. The proper use of cumulative effective dose should be part of training programmes for referrers and practitioners, including what information to give to patients. Patient summary: Radiation is used to the benefit of patients in diagnostic procedures such as CT examinations, and in therapeutic procedures like the external radiation treatment for cancer. However, radiation is also known to increase the risk of cancer. To oversee this risk, the cumulative effective dose (CED) received by a patient from imaging procedures over his or her life is important. In this paper, the authors, on behalf of EuroSafe Imaging, report on a survey carried out in Europe that aims to estimate the proportion of patients that undergo CT examinations and are exposed to a CED of more than 100 mSv. At the same time, the survey enquires about and underlines radiologists' measures and radiology departments' strategies to limit such exposure. Over the period of 2015–2018, respondents reported that 0.5% (0–2.72%) of patients were exposed to a CED of ≥ 100 mSv from imaging procedures. The background radiation dose in Europe depends on the location, but it is around 2.5 mSv per year. It is obvious that patients with cancer, chronic diseases and trauma run the highest risk of having a high CED. However, even if the number of patients exposed to ≥ 100 mSv is relatively low, it is important to lower this number even further. Measures could consist in using procedures that do not necessitate radiation, using very low dose procedures, being very critical in requiring imaging procedures and increasing awareness about the issue. Key Points: • A relatively low percentage of patients (0.5%) received a cumulative effective dose from CT computed tomography equal to or greater than 100 mSv, in Europe, most of them having an oncological disease. • There is a wide range in the number of patients who receive cumulative effective dose equal to or greater than 100 mSv (0–2.72%) and optimisation should be improved. • Increasing the awareness of referring physicians through encouraging local dialogue, concrete actions focused on optimisation and development of dose management systems is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review presents basic information on the dosimetric quantities used in medical imaging for reporting patient doses and establishing diagnostic reference levels. The proper use of the radiation protection quantity "effective dose" to compare doses delivered by different radiological procedures and different imaging modalities with its uncertainties and limitations, is summarised. The estimates of population doses required by the European Directive on Basic Safety Standards is commented on. Referrers and radiologists should be familiar with the dose quantities to inform patients about radiation risks and benefits. The application of effective dose on the cumulative doses from recurrent imaging procedures is also discussed. Patient summary: Basic information on the measurement units (dosimetric quantities) used in medical imaging for reporting radiation doses should be understandable to patients. The Working Group on "Dosimetry for imaging in clinical practice" recommended that a brief explanation on the used dosimetric quantities and units included in the examination imaging report, should be available for patients. The use of the quantity "effective dose" to compare doses to which patients are exposed to from different radiological procedures and its uncertainties and limitations, should also be explained in plain language. This is also relevant for the dialog on to the cumulative doses from recurrent imaging procedures. The paper summarises these concepts, including the need to estimate the population doses required by the European Directive on Basic Safety Standards. Referrers and radiologists should be familiar with the dose quantities to inform patients about radiation risks and benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces the European Society of Radiology's EuroSafe Imaging initiative in the year of its 6th anniversary. The European and global radiation protection frameworks are outlined and the role of the EuroSafe Imaging initiative's Call for Action in successfully achieving international radiation protection goals as set out by those frameworks is detailed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This discussion paper has been produced within the context of the European Society of Radiology EuroSafe Imaging initiative and considers primarily the issues and challenges associated with justification of medical exposures using ionising radiation for individual patient diagnostic imaging procedures. It addresses both regulatory requirements and practical considerations and discusses approaches that are intended to improve justification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM requires member states of the European Union to ensure justification and optimisation of the radiological procedures and to include information on patient exposure as part of the report of the examinations. The EuroSafe Imaging campaign of the European Society of Radiology created a working group (WG) on "Dosimetry for imaging in clinical practice" with the aim to help with the dosimetry aspects required by European and national regulations. The primary focus topics were selected and a survey among the experts of the WG, allowed suggesting some initial consensus approaches. For information on patient exposure, it was agreed to include the dosimetric values reported by the imaging modalities (validated by a medical physics expert). It was also suggested to prepare educational material on dosimetric quantities for patients. Individual optimisation was considered a challenge, especially for interventional procedures. In these cases, patient and occupational doses should be part of the global optimisation process and trigger levels should be defined to avoid skin radiation injuries. Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) always need to be considered for comparison with periodic patient dose audits. In the case of accidental or unintended exposures, a report should be produced for the Quality Assurance programme, together with an educational note to avoid the repetition of incidents. Dose registry and management systems should allow fulfilling the regulatory requirements of national and European regulations. In a second step, and after the initial experience with the Directive implementation, a wider survey will be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the paradigm of multiple imaging examinations (MIEs) and the resultant measure of cumulative effective dose (CED). Topics include challenges with global adherence to a paradigm of CED, risks induced by MIEs, and advice on the application of CED paradigm for point-of-care imaging decisions.

Accessed 2020 4 European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP), European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) (2017) Common strategic research agenda for radiation protection in medicine. Http://www.medirad-project.eu 6 Bernier MO, Baysson H, Pearce MS et al (2019) Cohort profile: the EPI-CT study: a European pooled epidemiological study to quantify the risk of radiation-induced cancer from paediatric CT. Int J Epidemiol 48(2):379-381g. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy231 7 Sheppard JP, Nguyen T, Alkhalid Y, Beckett JS, Salamon N, Yang I. Risk of brain tumor induction from pediatric head CT procedures: a systematic literature review. [Extracted from the article]

The terms "notifications" and "alerts" for medical exposures are used by several national and international organisations. Recommendations for CT scanners have been published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Some interventional radiology societies as well as national authorities have also published dose notifications for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Notifications and alerts may also be useful for optimisation and to avoid unintended and accidental exposures. The main interest in using these values for high-dose procedures (CT and interventional) is to optimise imaging procedures, reducing the probability of stochastic effects and avoiding tissue reactions. Alerts in X-ray systems may be considered before procedures (as in CT), during procedures (in some interventional radiology systems), and after procedures, when the patient radiation dose results are known and processed. This review summarises the different uses of notifications and alerts to help in optimisation for CT and for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures as well as in the analysis of unintended and accidental medical exposures. The paper also includes cautions in setting the alert values and discusses the benefits of using patient dose management systems for the alerts, their registry and follow-up, and the differences between notifications, alerts, and trigger levels for individual procedures and the terms used for the collective approach, such as diagnostic reference levels. Key Points: • Notifications and alerts on patient dose values for computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures (FGIP) allow to improve radiation safety and contribute to the avoidance of radiation injuries and unintended and accidental exposures. • Alerts may be established before the imaging procedures (as in CT) or during and after the procedures as for FGIP. • Dose management systems should include notifications and alerts and their registry for the hospital quality programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dose management systems (DMS) are an essential tool for quality assurance and optimising patient radiation exposure. For radiologists and medical physicists, they are important for managing many radiation protection tasks. In addition, they help fulfil the requirements of Directive 2013/59/EURATOM regarding the electronic transmission of dosimetric data and the detection of unintended patient exposures. The EuroSafe Imaging Clinical Dosimetry and Dose Management Working Group launched a questionnaire on the use of DMS in European member states and analysed the results in terms of modalities, frequency of radiological procedures, involvement of medical physics experts (MPEs), legal requirements, and local issues (support by information technology (IT), modality interfaces, protocol mapping, clinical workflow, and associated costs). Critical relevance statement: Despite the great advantages of dose management systems for optimising radiation protection, distribution remains insufficient. This questionnaire shows that reasons include: a lack of DICOM interfaces, insufficient harmonisation of procedure names, lack of medical physicist and IT support, and costs. Key Points: Quantitative radiation dose information is essential for justification and optimisation in medical imaging. Guidelines are required to ensure radiation dose management systems quality and for acceptance testing. Verifying dose data management is crucial before dose management systems clinical implementation. Medical physics experts are professionals who have important responsibilities for the proper management of dose monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This survey conducted by the International Society of Radiology and supported by the European Society of Radiology aimed to collect information regarding radiology departments' current practices in the management of patients with COVID-19. Methods: Responses from 50 radiology departments involved in the management of COVID-19 patients representing 33 countries across all continents were analyzed. The analysis revealed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world for different disease severity and various clinical scenarios. Results: Imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions do not image) but is used at the end of confinement (in 60% of institutions). In the majority of institutions, chest imaging is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19 (89% and 94%). All imaging departments involved in this survey reported the use of imaging in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill. However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. The use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations in 98% of institutions with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. The vast majority of institutions reported a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the imaging department's routine activity (83%). Conclusion: We believe that the results of this survey will help to understand current heterogeneities in radiology practice and to identify needs and gaps in the organization and function of radiology departments worldwide in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey may inform the development of an overall strategy for radiology department organization and imaging protocols in pandemic conditions. Key Points: • The results of this survey, which included responses from 50 radiology departments representing 33 countries, showed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world. • While imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions), it is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19, in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill, and at the end of confinement (89%, 94%, 100%, 100%, 60% of institutions, respectively). However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. • In 98% of institutions, the use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations, with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. COVID-19 pandemic made a significant impact on the imaging department's routine activity in 83% of institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe a methodological approach to explore the concordance of recommendations across guidelines and its application to the case of the WHO recommendations on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19. Study design and setting: We followed a methodological approach applied to a case study that included: defining the 'reference guideline' (i.e., the WHO guidance) and the 'reference recommendations'; searching for 'related guidelines' and identifying 'related recommendations'; constructing the PICO for the recommendations; assessing the matching of the PICO of each related recommendation to the PICO corresponding reference recommendation; and assessing the concordance between the PICO-matching recommendations. Results: We identified a total of 89 related recommendations from 22 related guidelines. Out of the 89 related recommendations, 43 partly matched and 1 entirely matched one of the reference recommendations, and out of these, 8 were concordant with one of the reference recommendations. When considering the seven reference recommendations, they had a median of 12 related recommendations (range 3–17), a median of 7 PICO-matching recommendations (range 0–13), and a median of 1 concordant recommendation (range 0–4). Conclusion: Following a detailed methodological approach, we were able to explore the concordance between our reference recommendations and related recommendations from other guidelines. A relatively low percentage of recommendations was concordant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Contact shielding (CS) of patients during X-ray studies has been used for decades to protect radiosensitive organs. This practice has not changed much despite increasing evidence that CS is not useful in many cases. The Gonad And Patient Shielding (GAPS) group—founded by representatives of the main European bodies involved in radiology—promoted this survey to assess the current practice of CS among European radiology departments and the attitude towards a non-shielding policy. Methods: Over a four-month period (15 May–15th September 2021) European Society of Radiology and European Society of Paediatric Radiology radiologist members were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. Results: 225 centres from 35 countries responded to this survey. CS was routinely applied in at least one radiological modality in 49.2% of centres performing studies in adults, 57.5% of centres performing studies in children, and 47.8% of centres performing studies on pregnant women. CS was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. 83.6% respondents would follow European recommendations on the use of CS when provided by the main European bodies involved in radiology. Conclusions: This review shows that CS is still largely used across Europe. However, a non-shielding policy could be adopted in most departments if European professional societies provided recommendations. In this regard, a strong commitment by European and national professional societies to educate and inform practitioners, patients and carers is paramount. Clinical relevance statement: According to this survey expectations of patients and carers, and skepticism among professionals about the limited benefits of CS are the most important obstacles to the application of a no-shielding policy. A strong commitment from European and national professional societies to inform practitioners, patients and carers is fundamental. Key points: Contact shielding of patients is still largely used in European radiology departments, despite increasing evidence that this practice is not useful in many cases. Contact shielding was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. Most European radiology departments could adopt a non-shielding policy when the main European bodies involved in radiology provide recommendations to this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyse the existing radiation protection (RP) education and training (E&T) capabilities in the European Union and identify associated needs, problems and challenges. Method: An online survey was disseminated via the EURAMED Rocc-n-Roll consortium network and prominent medical societies in the field of radiological research. The survey sections analyse the RP E&T during undergraduate, residency/internship and continuous professional development; RP E&T problems and legal implementation. Differences were analysed by European geographic regions, profession, years of professional experience and main area of practice/research. Results: The majority of the 550 respondents indicated that RP topics are part of undergraduate curricula in all courses for their profession and country (55%); however, hands-on practical training is not included according to 30% of the respondents. The lack of E&T, practical aspects in current E&T, and mandatory continuing E&T were considered the major problems. The legal requirement that obtained higher implementation score was the inclusion of the practical aspects of medical radiological procedures on education (86%), and lower score was obtained for the inclusion of RP E&T on medical and dental school curriculums (61%). Conclusions: A heterogeneity in RP E&T during undergraduate, residency/internship and continuous professional development is evident across Europe. Differences were noted per area of practice/research, profession, and European geographic region. A large variation in RP E&T problem rating was also obtained. Key points: European health professionals reveal different RP E&T experiences. Around 12% of the respondents report the absence of undergraduate RP topics. The radiation protection problems perception varies across Europe. The results revealed a heterogeneity of compliance with the EU recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis was performed to understand the status quo of education and training in radiation protection (RP) and to develop a coordinated European approach to RP training needs based on stakeholder consensus and existing activities in the field. Fourteen team members represented six European professional societies, one European voluntary organisation, two international healthcare organisations and five professions, namely: Medical Physicists; Nuclear Medicine Physicians; Radiologists; Radiation Oncologists and Radiographers. Four subgroups analysed the "Strengths", "Weaknesses", "Opportunities" and "Threats" related to E&T in RP developed under previous European Union (EU) programmes and on the Guidelines on Radiation Protection Education and Training of Medical Professionals in the EU. Results: Consensus agreement identified four themes for strengths and opportunities, namely: (1) existing structures and training recommendations; (2) RP training needs assessment and education & training (E&T) model(s) development; (3) E&T dissemination, harmonisation, and accreditation; (4) financial supports. Weaknesses and Threats analysis identified two themes: (1) awareness and prioritisation at a national/global level and (2) awareness and prioritisation by healthcare professional groups and researchers. Conclusions: A lack of effective implementation of RP principles in daily practice was identified. EuRnR strategic planning needs to consider processes at European, national and local levels. Success is dependent upon efficient governance structures and expert leadership. Financial support is required to allow the stakeholder professional agencies to have sufficient resources to achieve a pan European radiation protection training network which is sustainable and accredited across multiple national domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently implemented European Council Basic Safety Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom lays down core radiation protection standards for European radiology departments, including a mandatory requirement for supporting processes of clinical audit. A repeat survey on behalf of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) was undertaken in February 2021, involving the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Star department network, to re-assess compliance with selected key BSSD requirements following an initial survey in 2018 where variable compliance was demonstrated. 61% (78/128) of eligible departments participated and overall the survey results revealed a mixed picture in terms of implementation of BSSD requirements when compared to the 2018 survey with both improvement and deterioration observed. This pattern was seen also in relation to supporting processes of regulatory audit and re-audit. Higher levels of "skipping" of responses were also observed in 2021. These findings were unexpected in light of the interventions in relation to audit (clinical and regulatory) and radiation protection undertaken by the ESR and other organisations in recent years, but can reasonably be explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with consequent significant disruption of radiology services. The 2021 survey results do serve to highlight again the need for co-ordinated intervention involving relevant European bodies, organisations and governmental agencies to address the important issues raised by this survey. The European Commission clinical audit and radiation protection initiatives, QuADRANT, led by the ESR, and SAMIRA will act as important drivers for improvement in patient safety, experience and outcomes across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Value-based radiology (VBR) is rapidly gaining ground as a means of considering the input of radiology practice into individual and societal healthcare, and represents a welcome move away from older metrics focused on counting studies performed, without consideration of whether these studies contributed positively to patient management or to society as a whole. Intrinsic to the process of considering whether radiology activity confers value is recognising the breadth of involvement of radiology in healthcare delivery; previous ESR and multi-society publications have explored this, and have sought to highlight the many ways in which our specialty contributes to patient welfare. This paper is intended to highlight some current ESR activities which already contribute substantially to value creation and delivery, and to outline a selection of practical steps which could be taken by the ESR in the future to enhance value. Patient summary Value-based radiology (VBR) is a conceptual means of looking at the benefits conferred on patients and on society as a whole by provision of radiology services, as opposed to older means of counting numbers of radiology studies performed, without consideration of whether or not those studies contributed overall value. VBR will become increasingly important in the future as a means of determining resources. The ESR has been a leader in advancing VBR concepts and educating radiologists about this novel way of looking at what we do. This paper is designed to highlight current ESR activities which contribute value to healthcare, and to consider other ways in which the ESR could potentially support value enhancement in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of defining diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) on a European basis for specific clinical indications (CIs), within the context of the European Clinical DRLs (EUCLID) European Commission project.Methods: A prospective, multicenter, industry-independent European study was performed to provide data on 10 CIs (stroke, chronic sinusitis, cervical spine trauma, pulmonary embolism, coronary calcium scoring, coronary angiography, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, colic/abdominal pain, and appendicitis) via an online survey that included information on patient clinical, technical, and dosimetric parameters. Data from at least 20 patients per CI were requested from each hospital. To establish DRLs, a methodology in line with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 135 good practice recommendations was followed.Results: Data were collected from 19 hospitals in 14 European countries on 4299 adult patients and 10 CIs to determine DRLs. DRLs differ considerably between sites for the same CI. Differences were attributed mainly to technical protocol and variable number of phases/scan lengths. Stroke and hepatocellular carcinoma were the CIs with the highest DRLs. Coronary calcium scoring had the lowest DRL value. Comparison with published literature was limited, as there was scarce information on DRLs based on CI.Conclusions: This is the first study reporting on feasibility of establishing CT DRLs based on CI using European data. Resulting values will serve as a baseline for comparison with local radiological practice, national authorities when DRLs are set/updated, or as a guideline for local DRL establishment.Key Points: • First study reporting on the feasibility of establishing CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indication using data collected across Europe. • Only one-fourth of the hospitals had CT machines less than 5 years old. • Large dose variations were observed among hospitals and CT protocols were quite different between hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Directive 2013/59/Euratom requires member states of the European Union to ensure justification and optimisation of radiological procedures and store information on patient exposure for analysis and quality assurance. The EuroSafe Imaging campaign of the European Society of Radiology created a working group (WG) on "Dose Management" with the aim to provide European recommendations on the implementation of dose management systems (DMS) in clinical practice. The WG follows Action 4: "Promote dose management systems to establish local, national, and European diagnostic reference levels (DRL)" of the EuroSafe Imaging Call for Action 2018. DMS are designed for medical practitioners, radiographers, medical physics experts (MPE) and other health professionals involved in imaging to support their tasks and duties of radiation protection in accordance with local and national requirements. The WG analysed requirements and critical points when installing a DMS and classified the individual functions at different performance levels. Key Points: • DMS are very helpful software tools for monitoring patient exposure, optimisation, compliance with DRLs and quality assurance. • DMS can help to fulfil dosimetric aspects of the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom. • The EuroSafe WG analyses DMS requirements and gives recommendations for users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and methodology: A survey of patients was carried out between January and June 2019, to better understand how patients interpret value in relation to radiology as a means to refining the concept of Value-Based Radiology (VBR) in Europe, ensure radiology's value is properly weighted in Value-Based Health Care (VBH) metrics, and maximise the value of radiological services to patients. The survey was disseminated via various heads of radiology departments, ESR officers, patient organisations, and ESR website and social media channels. Results: Responses were received from 400 patients from 22 countries. Whilst most expressed general satisfaction with the radiological services they received, certain aspects of the radiological services they received left room for improvement. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported that they were not satisfied with the information provided about the risks and benefits of procedures, and thirty-three percent reported not being satisfied with the availability of radiologists for consultation, potentially suggesting that some patients lack sufficient information to participate fully in treatment decisions. Patients were often unaware of what information they were entitled to receive. Over eighty percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the concepts of Value-Based Radiology and/or Value-Based Health Care. Conclusion: In addition to procedural correctness (correct diagnosis, appropriate procedures performed), patients highly value information and communication with their radiologist (information provided about procedures, explanation of results, personal consultation). Lack of communication was found to be a cause of dissatisfaction in many cases. This could suggest a means of improving patient outcomes as measured by Value-Based Health Care metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2013, the new European Basic Safety Standards Directive 2013/59/Euratom (BSS Directive), which defines the new legal framework for the use of ionising radiation in medical imaging and radiotherapy, was published. In 2014, the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Initiative was founded with a goal in mind "to support and strengthen medical radiation protection across Europe following a holistic, inclusive approach". To support radiology departments in developing a programme of clinical audit, the ESR developed a Guide to Clinical Audit and an accompanying audit tool in 2017, with an expanded second edition released in 2019 and published under the name of Esperanto – ESR Guide to Clinical Audit in Radiology and the ESR Clinical Audit Tool, 2019. Audits represent specific aspects at a certain point in time, usually with retrospective evaluation of data. Key performance indicators (KPIs), on the other hand, are intended to enable continuous monitoring of relevant parameters, for example to provide warnings or a dashboard. KPIs, which can, for example, be recorded automatically and visualised in dashboards, are suitable for this purpose. This paper will discuss a selection of indicators covering different areas and include suggestions for their implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical audit "according to national procedures" is a legal requirement as defined within the recently implemented European Council Basic Safety Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom. A survey was undertaken in 2019 to assess the current status of clinical audit in European radiology departments and for feedback on the recently published "ESR Guide to Clinical Audit in Radiology" and the "ESR Clinical Audit Tool (Esperanto)". The survey was distributed within the European Society of Radiology (ESR) EuroSafe Imaging Star network and also to European national radiological societies which are institutional members of the ESR. A total of 47/116 (41%) EuroSafe Imaging Star departments responded, and responses were received from 43 radiology departments from 16/48 national radiological societies. Survey findings demonstrated a low awareness of recent key ESR audit-related publications (Esperanto), a lack of clinical audit infrastructure for BSSD compliance and by inference a poorly developed local/national communication and audit infrastructure in many cases. Key stakeholders, including the ESR and the European national radiological societies, will need to continue to work with other bodies to further promote, integrate and to encourage resourcing of clinical audit at all levels, facilitating BSSD compliance and improving patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently implemented European Council Basic Safety and Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom lays down core radiation protection standards for European radiology departments, with a mandatory requirement for supporting clinical audit processes. A survey on behalf of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) was undertaken in November 2018 involving the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Star department network to assess compliance with selected key BSSD requirements, with emphasis also on clinical audit/re-audit. 64% of invited departments participated and the survey results revealed a lack of compliance with BSSD requirements even when allowing for work in progress within departments. Justification processes showed the lowest rates of compliance overall, with varying results relating to dose limits, patient information and significant accidental exposure notification. Questions around implementation of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) revealed generally far higher compliance with requirements. The survey findings confirm a lack of compliance with key BSSD radiation protection indicators and also a lack of supporting clinical audit structures. These findings are likely to be representative of the wider radiological community in Europe. There is a need for a co-ordinated response, involving relevant European agencies, national bodies and societies and also individual radiology departments to address these issues. ESR publications on clinical audit (Esperanto) and the 2018 EuroSafe Imaging Call for Action will be important components of this response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently implemented European Council Basic Safety and Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom lays down core radiation protection standards for European radiology departments, with a mandatory requirement for supporting clinical audit processes. A survey on behalf of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) was undertaken in November 2018 involving the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Star department network to assess compliance with selected key BSSD requirements, with emphasis also on clinical audit/re-audit. 64% of invited departments participated and the survey results revealed a lack of compliance with BSSD requirements even when allowing for work in progress within departments. Justification processes showed the lowest rates of compliance overall, with varying results relating to dose limits, patient information and significant accidental exposure notification. Questions around implementation of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) revealed generally far higher compliance with requirements. The survey findings confirm a lack of compliance with key BSSD radiation protection indicators and also a lack of supporting clinical audit structures. These findings are likely to be representative of the wider radiological community in Europe. There is a need for a co-ordinated response, involving relevant European agencies, national bodies and societies and also individual radiology departments to address these issues. ESR publications on clinical audit (Esperanto) and the 2018 EuroSafe Imaging Call for Action will be important components of this response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To independently evaluate unenhanced, contrast-enhanced perfusion and angiographic MR sequences for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis. Methods: Prospective investigation, including 274 patients who underwent perfusion, unenhanced 2D steady-state-free-precession (SSFP) and contrast-enhanced 3D angiographic MR sequences on a 1.5-T unit, in addition to CTA (CT angiography). Two independent readers evaluated each sequence independently in random order. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-reader agreement were calculated for each sequence, excluding sequences judged inconclusive. Sensitivity was also calculated according to PE location. Results: Contrast-enhanced angiographic sequences showed the highest sensitivity (82.9 and 89.7 %, reader 1 and reader 2, respectively), specificity (98.5 and 100 %) and agreement (kappa value 0.77). Unenhanced angiographic sequences, although less sensitive overall (68.7 and 76.4 %), were sensitive for the detection of proximal PE (92.7 and 100 %) and showed high specificity (96.1 and 99.1 %) and good agreement (kappa value 0.62). Perfusion sequences showed lower sensitivity (75.0 and 79.3 %), specificity (84.8 and 89.7 %) and agreement (kappa value 0.51), and a negative predictive value of 84.8 % at best. Conclusions: Compared with contrast-enhanced angiographic sequences, unenhanced sequences demonstrate lower sensitivity, except for proximal PE, but high specificity and agreement. The negative predictive value of perfusion sequences was insufficient to safely rule out PE. Key Points: • Unenhanced angiographic MR sequences are very specific and can identify proximal PE. • Contrast- enhanced MR angiographic sequences show high sensitivity for PE diagnosis. • A normal MR perfusion result does not exclude PE. • Inter-reader agreement is better for angiographic than perfusion MR sequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Macromolecular contrast-enhanced functional CT was performed to characterize early perfusion changes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Fourteen rats with chemically induced primary liver tumors ranging pathologically from hyperplasia to HCC and 15 control rats were investigated. Two dynamic CT scans using an experimental macromolecular contrast agent were performed on a single slice 11 and 18 weeks after tumor induction followed by pathological examination. A deconvolution mathematical model was applied, yielding the hepatic perfusion index (HPI), mean transit time (MTT), liver distribution volume (LDV) and arterial, portal and total blood flows (FA, FP, FT). Analysis was performed on one slice per rat, containing overall two hyperplasia, six dysplasia and 15 HCC. On the first scans, HCC at an early pathological stage had a low FP (-30%, P=0.002) but a normal arterial-portal balance. On the scan contemporary to pathology, HCC perfusion parameters showed an inversion of the arterial-portal balance (HPI +212%, P<0.0001), with a high FA (+56%, P=0.002) and a low FP (-69%, P<0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity of detection of HCC by perfusion CT were high (87 and 80%) on late scans; but also on the earlier scans (86 and 65%), even though only one (7%) was visible to the eye. Perfusion-CT allowed early detection of HCC. This technique could contribute in the detection and characterization of liver lesions in clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In August 2017, the European Commission awarded the "European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference levels for X-ray Medical Imaging" project to the European Society of Radiology, to provide up-to-date Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications. The aim of this work was to conduct an extensive literature review by analysing the most recent studies published and the data provided by the National Competent Authorities, to understand the current situation regarding Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications for computed tomography. Results: The literature review has identified 23 papers with Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications for computed tomography from 15 countries; 12 of them from Europe. A total of 28 clinical indications for 6 anatomical areas (head, cervical spine/neck, chest, abdomen, abdomen-pelvis, chest-abdomen-pelvis) have been identified. Conclusions: In all the six anatomical areas for which Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications were found, a huge variation of computed tomography dose descriptor values was identified, providing evidence for a need to develop strategies to standardise and optimise computed tomography protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]