Evaluating the Justification of Computed Tomography (CT) Scan Requests to Reduce the Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancers

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Technology of Radiology, School of Paramedicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Instructor, Department of Technology of Radiology, School of Paramedicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Student, Department of Technology of Radiology, School of Paramedicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Ionizing radiation used in computed tomography (CT) has a carcinogenic risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the justification of CT scan requests by physicians in Kashani hospital, Isfahan, Iran.Methods: Patients' data including the gender, age, type of CT scan, the cause of the request, the specialty of the requesting physician, and the test report were collected. The percentage of positive or abnormal cases for each test was obtained based on radiologist reports. The percentage of positive cases was also determined in term of the specialty of the requesting physicians.Findings: The data of 888 patients were analyzed. The number of CT scans of the brain, abdomen, chest, spine, facial bones, pelvis, upper limbs, and lower limbs was 601, 13, 31, 76, 53, 29, 19, and 66, respectively. The lowest and highest percentages of positive results were related to brain (18.64%) and upper extremity (36.84%) CT scan, respectively. The highest percentage of normal results was related to patients referred to the CT scan by general practitioners, general surgeons, and emergency medicine specialists.Conclusion: Totally, in all tests, 78.38% of the reports were normal, and less than 22% of the tests were indicative of pathological cases. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the requests without indication to reduce the radiation dose of the community. The knowledge of the physicians about the suitable justification of the CT scan tests should be increased based on clinical guidelines, as well.

Keywords

References

  1. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012; 380(9840): 499-505.
  2. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176(2): 289-96.
  3. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 2013; 346: f2360.
  4. Karimizarchi H, Chaparian A. Estimating risk of exposure induced cancer death in patients undergoing computed tomography pulmonary angiography. Radioprotection 2017; 52(2): 81-6.
  5. Chaparian A, Karimi Zarchi H. Assessment of radiation-induced cancer risk to patients undergoing computed tomography angiography scans. Int J Radiat Res 2018; 16(1): 107-15.
  6. National Research Council of The National Academies. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.
  7. Sodhi KS, Lee EY. What all physicians should know about the potential radiation risk that computed tomography poses for paediatric patients. Acta Paediatr 2014; 103(8): 807-11.
  8. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. Vienna, Austria: IAEA; 2014.
  9. Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C, Horton P, Jarvinen H, Mayo J, et al. Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: Some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1013): 523-38.
  10. Sodhi KS, Krishna S, Saxena AK, Sinha A, Khandelwal N, Lee EY. Clinical application of 'Justification' and 'Optimization' principle of ALARA in pediatric CT imaging: "How many children can be protected from unnecessary radiation?". Eur J Radiol 2015; 84(9): 1752-7.
  11. Quon JS, Glikstein R, Lim CS, Schwarz BA. Computed tomography for non-traumatic headache in the emergency department and the impact of follow-up testing on altering the initial diagnosis. Emerg Radiol 2015; 22(5): 521-5.
  12. Bent C, Lee PS, Shen PY, Bang H, Bobinski M. Clinical scoring system may improve yield of head CT of non-trauma emergency department patients. Emerg Radiol 2015; 22(5): 511-6.
  13. Tatar IG, Aydin H, Kizilgoz V, Yilmaz KB, Hekimoglu B. Appropriateness of selection criteria for CT examinations performed at an emergency department. Emerg Radiol 2014; 21(6): 583-8.
  14. Jordan YJ, Lightfoote JB, Jordan JE. Computed tomography imaging in the management of headache in the emergency department: cost efficacy and policy implications. J Natl Med Assoc 2009; 101(4): 331-5.
  15. Haghighi M, Baghery MH, Rashidi F, Khairandish Z, Sayadi M. Abnormal findings in brain CT scans among children. J Compr Ped 2014; 5(2): e13761.
  16. Wang X, You JJ. Head CT for nontrauma patients in the emergency department: Clinical predictors of abnormal findings. Radiology 2013; 266(3): 783-90.
  17. Ghotbi N, Morishita M, Ohtsuru A, Yamashita S. Evidence-based Guidelines Needed on the Use of CT Scanning in Japan. Japan Med Assoc J 2005; 48(9): 451-7.
  18. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001; 357(9266): 1391-6.
  19. Haydel MJ, Preston CA, Mills TJ, Luber S, Blaudeau E, DeBlieux PM. Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(2): 100-5.
  20. Smits M, Dippel DW, Steyerberg EW, de Haan GG, Dekker HM, Vos PE, et al. Predicting intracranial traumatic findings on computed tomography in patients with minor head injury: the CHIP prediction rule. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146(6): 397-405.
  21. Gupta A, Ip IK, Raja AS, Andruchow JE, Sodickson A, Khorasani R. Effect of clinical decision support on documented guideline adherence for head CT in emergency department patients with mild traumatic brain injury. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21(e2): e347-e351.
  22. National Imaging Associates. 2016 NIA Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review. Hackensack, NJ: National Imaging Associates, Inc; 2016.
  23. Macdonald K, Al-Deeb W, Preston L. Guidelines for CT paranasal sinuses. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: S8.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 36, Issue 477 - Serial Number 477
March and April 2018
Pages 433-438

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 February 2018
  • Revise Date: 01 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics