Consumers Consuming More Cancer-Causing Radiation Today CT Scan Radiation Risk

Three out of each four (regularly high) dosages of radiation utilized for heart filters are obviously wrong, ct scan radiation risk as indicated by an audit of therapeutic records at the Mayo Clinic.

CT sweeps of the chest or midriff include up to ten times the characteristic radiation from the sun and soil through the span of a whole year, or somewhere in the range of 13 percent up to 40 percent of the base radiation got by survivors of the Japanese nuclear bomb impacts in 1945, or the Chernobyl atomic mischance in 1986.

An examination by Columbia University specialists assesses that up to two percent of all Cancers in America in the following couple of decades could be the aftereffect of CT filter radiation presentation now being given to patients.

Different investigations assess than no less than 33% of every single such test, from X-Rays to CT filters, are not required, with an expected 21 million individuals (1 million of them youngsters) being unnecessarily presented to this hazard, as indicated by similar Columbia University think about distributed in 2007.

The most abused and manhandled indicative strategies including abundance and unnecessary Risks Of Ct Scan Image gently radiation presentation incorporate CT sweeps of the chest for heart issues, or to check whether there are any obstructed corridors, chest X-beams for routine healing center affirmations or before surgery, bring down back X-beams of more seasoned patients with stable spine conditions, and auto collision casualties not showing any indications of head injury or stomach damage.

The dose of such exposures could likewise be diminished by 66% with no misfortune in the picture quality, as per a Michigan consider drove by Dr. Gilbert Raff, a cardiologist and radiation wellbeing master.

Another examination at Columbia University, led by Dr. Andrew Einstein, found an approach to bring down radiation dose by 90 percent without influencing the picture quality.

Unnecessary numerous tests bringing about overabundance presentation likewise frequently result from one specialist or master not comprehending what another has effectively requested, additionally from routine prerequisites for medical coverage or for understudies considering abroad, by specialists – particularly crisis room doctors – who fear misbehavior suits, and even just to seem, by all accounts, to be accomplishing something because of patient request.

Measurements of radiation presentation are frequently not followed over any timeframe, to stay away from any conceivable aggregate impact, nor are they changed in accordance with maintain a strategic distance from over-introduction for sexual orientation, age and size (ladies and youngsters are among those getting intemperate radiation presentation because of such lack of regard).

Orthopedic wounds, that can’t be effectively settled by surgery, that require non-intrusive treatment as the treatment of decision, are among the most astounding wellsprings of unnecessary radiation introduction, as per Philadelphia essential care pro, Dr. Richard Baron.

Specialists now depend excessively on “schedule” checks, as opposed to examinations and master judgment, without understanding the requirement for or constraints of such symptomatic devices, as indicated by Dr. Nobleman.

Specialists settle on enough life and demise choices consistently, without tossing in with the general mish-mash the expanded danger of growth creating as an immediate aftereffect of their examinations and medicines.

On the off chance that you are stressed over radiation from air terminal and climate radar, airplane terminal scanners, high electrical cables, electrical wiring in your home, cell and cordless telephones, PCs and microwave stoves (among other ecological exposures), at that point you should be worried about the six-times development in presentation in the course of recent years from restorative wellsprings of radiation alone.

Radiologists who think such over the top exposures are uncommon or nonexistent have just neglected to think about how possible it is or to search for such cases, as indicated by radiologist Dr. Steven Birnbaum.

Overdosing on “super X-beam” CT checks, because of overtesting with this imaging demonstrative strategy for decision, is among the most exceedingly awful wrongdoers in raising disease hazard for Americans, who lead the world in such exposures.

Little ponder, at that point, that the United States likewise drives the world in the occurrence of lethal growths, as American buyers recklessly expend more tumor causing radiation today than any time in recent memory.

There isn’t much distinction between the dangers postured from such present day restorative methodology and the consequences of draining a patient to death – the way George Washington passed on – by prior eras of medicinal mispractitioners.

Pediatric Abdominal Radiographs: Common and Less Common Errors

OBJECTIVE. Interpretation of abdominal radiographs of children benefits from a firm knowledge of the congenital anomalies and pathologies unique to this patient population, leveraged by a systematic approach. Interpretive errors place the patients and their families at risk for a delay in diagnosis, unnecessary additional imaging, a potential increase in the radiation burden, and possible psychologic trauma.

CONCLUSION. In this article, we describe the common and uncommon potential pitfalls in pediatric abdominal radiography, using several of our own interpretive errors as a framework while providing teaching points to help avoid these mistakes.

Keywords: abdominal radiographs, errors, pediatric

The concept that medical errors contribute to patient morbidity and mortality was widely substantiated by the Institute of Medicine in 1999, when its report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System was published [1]. The numbers quoted at the time seemed staggering, but they have continued to increase, with medical errors most recently reported as the third leading cause of death in the United States [2].

As in all fields of medicine, errors in radiology are often multifactorial, may be perceptual (i.e., the finding was not seen), may be caused by insufficient characterization (i.e., the finding was identified but its significance was not appropriately recognized), or may represent a failure in communication (i.e., the finding was accurately reported but the appropriate channels of communication for notifying the provider were not used), among many other causes [3, 4]. Growing awareness of imaging errors has led to an increased focus on identifying, understanding, and avoiding these mistakes, not only in the radiology literature as a whole but, more recently, in pediatric radiology as well [3, 46].

At our institution, as part of a rigorous quality assurance program, we use various peer review strategies to identify such errors and promote ongoing continuous education and feedback [7, 8]. These strategies include monthly peer review conferences and peer review scorecards that assist in closing the feedback loop to interpreting radiologists. Although peer review methods or scorecards are critically important as educational tools, a more extended discussion of these tools is beyond the intended scope of this article. Instead, using a case-based approach, we offer examples of some of our own “missed” cases to illustrate common and less common errors that may occur, specifically when interpreting abdominal radiographs of pediatric patients.

Read full article and findings at:

New App Assesses Radiation Dosage in Pediatric Imaging

New app assesses radiation dosage in pediatric imaging

SPIE Journal of Medical Imaging article reports on ‘big step forward’ via tablet-based 3D modeling app

22 August 2017

BELLINGHAM, Washington, USA, and CARDIFF, UK — A new Java-based application for Android tablets that provides neurosurgeons with the ability to manipulate 3D models of pediatric patients’ neuroanatomy and accurately tailor radiation doses for imaging has been hailed as “a big step forward” by editors of the Journal of Medical Imaging. The advance is reported in an article published today by SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics.

The Journal of Medical Imaging publishes papers on advances in early detection, diagnostics, and therapy of disease as well as in the understanding of normal. The journal is published in the SPIE Digital Library, at

Ideally, a size-specific protocol is defined based on diagnostic accuracy for a particular procedure, and a targeted balance is calculated between image accuracy requirements and patient dose.

With the wide range of size from newborns to teenagers, size is a particularly dominant factor for pediatric patients in computed tomography imaging of tissues and structures inside the body, note the authors.

However, designing an approach tailored to patient size is possible only if the three-way dependency of quality, dose, and size is known, and current technologies have not provided this ability.

The study by Ehsan Samei and Donald Frush of Duke University Medical Center and Xiang Li of the Cleveland Clinic offers a new methodology to determine the interdependency of these data across the range of pediatric sizes. The work is reported in “Size-based quality-informed framework for quantitative optimization of pediatric CT.”

“This is really a big step forward in imaging brain tumors and other issues in young patients,” said Journal of Medical Imaging associate editor Christoph Hoeschen of Otto-von-Guericke Universität. “This methodology can serve as an advanced strategy to analyze the accuracy-dose tradeoff for other imaging systems, imaging technologies, or clinical tasks.”

Based on two prior foundational studies by the authors, radiation dosage was assessed for organ doses, effective dose, and risk index within nine pediatric age-size groups. The cases, supplemented with added noise and simulated lesions, were assessed in terms of nodule detection accuracy. The resulting continuous accuracy-dose relationships were used to optimize individual scan parameters for each patient category.

The resulting model can be used to optimize individual scan parameters and provide for consistent diagnostic performance across the broad range of body sizes in children, the authors reported.

#ImageGently #DonaldFrush #ImageGentlyAlliance #PediatricImaging #RadiationDosage

Reminder: What the Image Gently Alliance is About

August 22, 2017

Statement from the Image Gently Alliance on the Potential Risk to Children Associated with Ionizing Radiation from Medical Imaging

There is ongoing dialogue in the medical and scientific communities about the level of health risk to children – if any – from exposure to low-level radiation in diagnostic imaging. This discussion includes any increased lifetime risk of developing cancer.

There is little to no disagreement that unnecessary radiation exposure should be avoided. This can be achieved through informed use of imaging examinations or procedures that use ionizing radiation (CT, nuclear medicine, etc.).

To this end, the Image Gently Alliance (,, has consistently promoted accountability and best practices to:

  • use imaging when clinically appropriate,
  • use the appropriate imaging modality, and
  • child-size the examination.

This translates to the Right Exam, at the Right Time, done the Right Way.

Frush DP, Lungren MP. The Image Gently Think-a-Head Campaign: Keep calm and Image Gently. J Am Coll Radiol 2017; 14(2): 301-302

Frush DP. Counterpoint: Image Gently: Should It End or Endure? J Am Coll Radiol 2016 13(10):1199-1202

Subjective and objective image differences in pediatric computed tomography cardiac angiography using lower iodine concentration


Several recent studies showed the optimal contrast enhancement with a low-concentration and iso-osmolar contrast media in both adult and pediatric patients. However, low contrast media concentrations are not routinely used due to concerns of suboptimal enhancement of cardiac structures and small vessels.


To evaluate the feasibility of using iso-osmolar contrast media containing a low iodine dose for CT cardiac angiography at 80 kilovolts (kVp) in neonates and infants.

Materials and methods

The iodixanol 270 group consisted of 79 CT scans and the iopromide 370 group of 62 CT scans in patients ≤1 year old. Objective measurement of the contrast enhancement was analyzed and contrast-to-noise ratios of the ascending aorta and left ventricle were calculated. Regarding subjective measurement, a four-point scale system was devised to evaluate degrees of contrast enhancement, image noise, motion artifact and overall image quality of each image set. Reader performance for correctly differentiating iodixanol 270 and iopromide 370 by visual assessment was evaluated.


Group objective and subjective measurements were nonsignificantly different. Overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for correctly differentiating iodixanol 270 and iopromide 370 by visual assessment were 42.8%, 59%, and 50%, respectively.


The application of iodixanol 270 achieved optimal enhancement for performing pediatric cardiac CT angiography at 80 kVp in neonates and infants. Objective measurements of contrast enhancement and subjective image quality assessments were not statistically different in the iodixanol 270 and iopromide 370 groups.