In our work, we attempted to assess patients' understanding of relative radiation exposure
by asking them to compare the amount of radiation exposure from CT compared to other
carcinogenic factors before and after knowing their dose bill

DI PIAZZA, A.

Galfano, M.

LO CASTO, A.

Lo Re, G.

Murmura, E.

Picone, D.

Salerno, S.

Scopelliti, L.

Vernuccio, F.

In our work, we attempted to assess patients' understanding of relative radiation exposure
by asking them to compare the amount of radiation exposure from CT compared to other
carcinogenic factors before and after knowing their dose bill

VERNUCCIO, Federica

MURMURA, Elena

SCOPELLITI, Laura

DI PIAZZA, Ambra

PICONE, Dario

Galfano, MC

Lo Re, G

SALERNO, Sergio

LO CASTO, Antonio

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Palermo

Page 1 of 7How much dangerous is CT according to patients and howdoes dose bill affect their perception of ionizing radiation?Poster No.: C-0331Congress: ECR 2015Type: Scientific ExhibitAuthors: F. Vernuccio1, E. Murmura2, L. Scopelliti1, A. Di Piazza1, D.Picone1, M. C. Galfano1, G. Lo Re1, S. Salerno1, A. Lo Casto1;1Palermo/IT, 2Sciacca/ITKeywords: Radioprotection / Radiation dose, CT, Education, Dosimetry,Education and trainingDOI: 10.1594/ecr2015/C-0331Any information contained in this pdf file is automatically generated from digital materialsubmitted to EPOS by third parties in the form of scientific presentations. Referencesto any names, marks, products, or services of third parties or hypertext links to third-party sites or information are provided solely as a convenience to you and do not inany way constitute or imply ECR's endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of thethird party, information, product or service. ECR is not responsible for the content ofthese pages and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracyof material in this file.As per copyright regulations, any unauthorised use of the material or parts thereof aswell as commercial reproduction or multiple distribution by any traditional or electronicallybased reproduction/publication method ist strictly prohibited.You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold ECR harmless from and against any and allclaims, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from or relatedto your use of these pages.Please note: Links to movies, ppt slideshows and any other multimedia files are notavailable in the pdf version of presentations.www.myESR.orgPage 2 of 7Aims and objectivesUse of computed tomography (CT) has increased dramatically since its inception in 1970;for this reason in the last decades exposure to ionizing radiations in CT has constantlyincreased [1,2]. Most authors agree that patients should receive information about theestimated increase in cancer risks associated with CT, and according to the Euratomdirective 59/2013, patients will have to receive dose bill in the radiological report [3-9]. Inour work, we attempted to assess patients' understanding of relative radiation exposureby asking them to compare the amount of radiation exposure from CT compared to othercarcinogenic factors before and after knowing their dose bill.Methods and materials114 patients referred for CT scan asked to rank 15 different carcinogenic activities,including CT exposure to ionizing radiation, from the most to the least dangerousone, as shown in Table 1. Of the 114 patients, 100 patients (mean age 58,51±16,27)fully completed the questionnaire. Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 2.However, 45/100 patients (group a) had to fill the questionnaire before CT scan, 12/100(group b) after oral communication of dose bill and 42/100 (group c) after communicationof dose bill and written information on radiation dose exposure in CT, as shown in Figure1.Images for this section:Page 3 of 7Table 1: Carcinogenetic agents that were ranked by the patients from the most to theleast dangerous one.Table 2: Characteristics of the patients: gender, age, school education and smokinghistory.Page 4 of 7Fig. 1: Written information on ionizing radiation exposure from CT provided to group cafter CT.Page 5 of 7Results12.00Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONEIonizing radiation exposure was ranked among the first 5 dangerous activities by 54 ofthe 100 patients and among the last 5 dangerous ones by 9 patients. Table 3 shows thedistribution of the different rank assigned to ionizing radiation risk from CT compared tothe other carcinogenetic activities by the three groups. Comparing the 3 groups, there wasno difference in ranking CT between the three groups of patients (p=0,35) or comparinggroup a and group c (p=0,57).Images for this section:Table 3: Distribution of the answers by the three groups in regard to risk ranking ofionizing radiation exposure from CT compared to other 14 carcinogenetic factors.Page 6 of 7ConclusionCT is being widely used in the diagnosis of a variety of diseases, due to its increasedavailability and rapid technological developments. However, given the increasingconcerns about unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging, it is important toassess people perception of radiation risk. It has been reported that medical professionalshave limited knowledge about radiation doses in different radiological procedures,regardless of the field of expertise. On the other hand, patient's point of view has not beendeeply evaluated. In our experience, most of the patients have concern about radiationexposure from CT, but just in 54% of cases it was perceived as a real dangerous activitycompared to other carcinogenetic factor. The knowledge of dose bill, provided with orwithout written information on ionizing radiation exposure from CT, seems not to affectpatient perception of risk related to ionizing radiation due to CT.Personal informationFederica Vernuccio,federicavernuccio@gmail.comSection of Radiology, D.I.B.I.M.E.F.University of Palermo, ItalyReferences1. Palorini F, Origgi D, Granata C, Matranga D, Salerno S. Adult exposures from MDCTincluding multiphase studies: first Italian nationwide survey.Eur Radiol. 2014;24:469-83.2. Colagrande S, Origgi D, Zatelli G, Giovagnoni A, Salerno S. CT exposure in adult andpaediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequentpossible risks.Radiol Med. 2014;119:803-10.3. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1-332.4. Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, publicperception, and policy.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:285-7.Page 7 of 75. Foley SJ, Evanoff MG, Rainford LA. A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists' andclinical specialist radiographers' knowledge of CT exposure parameters.Insights Imaging.2013;4:637-46.6. Griffey RT, Jeffe DB, Bailey T. Emergency physicians' attitudes and preferencesregarding computed tomography, radiation exposure, and imaging decision support.Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21:768-77.7. Westra SJ. The communication of the radiation risk from CT in relation to its clinicalbenefit in the era of personalized medicine: part 1: the radiation risk from CT.PediatrRadiol. 2014;44 Suppl 3:515-8.8. Westra SJ. The communication of the radiation risk from CT in relation to its clinicalbenefit in the era of personalized medicine: part 2: benefits versus risk of CT. PediatrRadiol. 2014;44 Suppl 3:525-33.9. EC. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying downbasic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure toionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom.

HOW MUCH DANGEROUS IS CT ACCORDING TO PATIENTS AND HOW DOES DOSE BILL AFFECT THEIR PERCEPTION OF IONIZING RADIATION?

https://iris.unipa.it/retrieve/handle/10447/120792/180101/ECR2015_C-0331.pdf

HOW MUCH DANGEROUS IS CT ACCORDING TO PATIENTS AND HOW DOES DOSE BILL AFFECT THEIR PERCEPTION OF IONIZING RADIATION?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Palermo