Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Oct;34(10):6475-6487.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10659-x. Epub 2024 Apr 9.

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward

Affiliations
Review

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward

Donald Paul Frush et al. Eur Radiol. 2024 Oct.

Abstract

Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.

Keywords: Diagnostic imaging; Ionizing radiation; Radiation protection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ et al (2011) Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology 258:889–905 - PubMed
    1. (2022) UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume I: Evaluation of Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
    1. Vassileva J, Holmberg O (2021) Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed? Br J Radiol 94:20210477 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Brambilla M, Vassileva J, Kuchcinska A, Rehani MM (2020) Multinational data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent radiological procedures: call for action. Eur Radiol 30:2493–2501 - PubMed
    1. Brower C, Rehani MM (2021) Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging. Br J Radiol 94:20210389 - PubMed - PMC

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources