Search

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]

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]

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]

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]

Background:  Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a very innovative, but at the same time complex and technically demanding diagnostic method in radiology. It plays an increasing role in high-quality and efficient patient management. Quality assurance in MRI is of utmost importance to avoid patient risks due to errors before and during the examination and when reporting the results. Therefore, MRI requires higher physician qualification and expertise than any other diagnostic imaging technique in medicine. This holds true for indication, performance of the examination itself, and in particular for image evaluation and writing of the report. In Germany, the radiologist is the only specialist who is systematically educated in all aspects of MRI during medical specialty training and who must document a specified, high number of examinations during this training. However, also non-radiologist physicians are increasingly endeavoring to conduct and bill MRI examinations on their own., Method:  In this position statement, the following aspects of quality assurance for MRI examinations and billing by radiologists and non-radiologist physician specialists are examined scientifically: Requirements for specialist physician training, MRI risks and contraindications, radiation protection in the case of non-ionizing radiation, application of MR contrast agents, requirements regarding image quality, significance of image artifacts and incidental findings, image evaluation and reporting, interdisciplinary communication and multiple-eyes principle, and impact on healthcare system costs., Conclusion:  The German Roentgen Society, German Society of Neuroradiology, and Society of German-speaking Pediatric Radiologists are critical with regard to MRI performance by non-radiologists in the interest of quality standards, patient welfare, and healthcare payers. The 24-month additional qualification in MRI as defined by the physician specialization regulations (Weiterbildungsordnung) through the German state medical associations (Landesärztekammern) is the only competence-based and quality-assured training program for board-certified specialist physicians outside radiology. This has to be required as the minimum standard for performance and reporting of MRI exams. Exclusively unstructured MRI training outside the physician specialization regulations has to be strictly rejected for reasons of patient safety. The performance and reporting of MRI examinations must be reserved for adequately trained and continuously educated specialist physicians., Key Points: · MR imaging plays an increasing role due to its high diagnostic value and serves as the reference standard in many indications.. · MRI is a complex technique that implies patient risks in case of inappropriare application or lack of expertise.. · In Germany, the radiologist is the only specialist physician that has been systematically trained in all aspects of MRI such as indication, performance, and reporting of examinations in specified, high numbers.. · The only competence-based and quality-assured MRI training program for specialist physicians outside radiology is the 24-month additional qualification as defined by the regulations through the German state medical associations.. · In view of quality-assurance and patient safety, a finalized training program following the physician specialization regulations has to be required for the performance and reporting of MRI examinations.., Citation Format: · Hunold P, Bucher AM, Sandstede J et al. Statement of the German Roentgen Society, German Society of Neuroradiology, and Society of German-speaking Pediatric Radiologists on Requirements for the Performance and Reporting of MR Imaging Examinations Outside of Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 1050 - 1060., Competing Interests: Hunold: Mitglied Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft, Vorstandsmitglied AG Herz- und Gefäßdiagnostik der DRG, Mitglied Bundesverband Deutscher Radiologen, Mitglied European Society of Radiology; Vortragshonorare Fa. Bayer VitalBucher: Mitglied Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft, Vorstandsmitglied der AGs Muskuloskelettale Radiologie, Gesundheitspolitische Verantwortung, Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik und Forensisch-Radiologische Bildgebung der DRG, Mitglied European Society of Radiology; Travel support Fa. Bayer und GuerbetSandstede: Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender der Radiologengruppe 2020 (RG20) e.G. i. Gr., Stellv. Vorsitzender des Landesverbands Hamburg des Berufsverbands der Radiologen (BDR), Stellv. Vorsitzender des Forums Niedergelassene Radiologen (FuNRAD) der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft (DRG), Stellv. Mitglied der Vertreterversammlung der KV HamburgJanka: Mitglied Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft, Vorstandsmitglied AG Muskuloskelettale Radiologie der DRG, Mitglied Bayerische Röntgengesellschaft, Mitglied European Society of Radiology; Vortragshonorare Fa. Siemens Healthineers und BraccoFritz: Mitglied Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft, Vorstandsvorsitzender der AG Gesundheitspolitische Verantwortung der DRGRegier: Mitglied Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft, Vorstandsvorsitzender AG Muskuloskelettale Radiologie der DRG, Mitglied Bundesverband Deutscher RadiologenLoose: Mitglied Deutsche RöntgengesellschaftBarkhausen: President elect und Mitglied Deutsche RöntgengesellschaftMentzel: Präsident und Mitglied Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Radiologie, Mitglied Deutsche RöntgengesellschaftZimmer: Präsident und Mitglied Deutsche Gesellschaft für NeuroradiologieAntoch: Präsident und Mitglied Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft, (Thieme. All rights reserved.)