CANCER RISKS FROM DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY

Main Article Content

Ibrahim Nabeel Basri
Mohammed Mutlaq Alrashdi
Abdulhameed Ali Aloraini

Keywords

diagnostic radiology, cancer risks, radiation exposure, dose optimization, informed consent

Abstract

Diagnostic radiology plays a crucial role in healthcare by providing valuable insights into the diagnosis and management of various diseases. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential risks of radiation exposure from these imaging techniques. This essay aims to explore the cancer risks associated with diagnostic radiology, focusing on the types of radiation, dose levels, and associated factors. The methodology involves a comprehensive review of relevant literature from reputed journals, highlighting the existing evidence on radiation-induced cancer and the necessity of implementing appropriate protocols to minimize risks. The results demonstrate a complex relationship between radiation exposure and cancer development, with varying degrees of risk depending on factors such as age, gender, dose, and frequency of imaging. The discussion further delves into the importance of patient education, informed consent, and the adoption of dose optimization strategies to mitigate these risks. In conclusion, while diagnostic radiology undoubtedly offers significant clinical benefits, it is crucial to strike a balance between obtaining accurate diagnostic information and minimizing potential harm to patients.

Abstract 137 | pdf Downloads 13

References

1. Kalra, M. K., Homayounieh, F., Arru, C., Holmberg, O., et al. (2017). Artificial intelligence for low-dose CT imaging: Opportunities, challenges, and strategies for implementation. Radiology, 294(4), 738-48.
2. Preston, D. L., Ron, E., Tokuoka, S., Funamoto, S., et al. (2007). Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiation research, 168(1), 1-64.
3. Mathews, J. D., Forsythe, A. V., Brady, Z., Butler, M. W., et al. (2009). Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ, 346, f2360.
4. Hendee, W. R., O'Connor, M. K., & E ari, S. I. (2010). Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology, 257(2), 313-21.
5. Ronckers, C. M., Sigurdson, A. J., Stovall, M., Smith, S. A., et al. (2010). Thyroid cancer in childhood cancer survivors: a detailed evaluation of radiation dose response and its modifiers. Radiology, 255(1), 89-97.
6. Schwendener, N., Becker, A. S., Pavic, M., Lennartz, S., et al. (2019). Radiation dose and risk caused by fluoroscopic screening of nephrolithiasis: patient dosimetry from 3 centers. PLoS One, 14(2), e0203653.
7. Padole, A., Ali, K. H., Singh, S., Digumarthy, S. R., et al. (2016). Radiation exposure associated with chest imaging in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of thoracic oncology, 11(6), 856-63.
8. Rehani, M. M., & Sharma, S. K. (2012). Precise optimization of radiation dose (ALARA) in pediatric CT: current controversies, the “Metrology” approach, and future trends. Pediatric radiology, 42(5), 568-76.
9. Levin, D. C., Parker, L., Palit, C. D., Rao, V. M., et al. (2018). Change in hospital imaging: Frequently used services and total examination numbers. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15(8), 1132-8.
10. Spelic, D. C. (2018). Ethics in radiology: The personalized future of radiobiology and radiation risk. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15(3), 413-7.