OBJECTIVE: Clinical diagnosis has been dramatically altered by technologic advances and is now often based almost exclusively on imaging. The clinician must mindfully weigh patient-specific risks of radiation against the values of diagnostic yield and avoiding other risks. One concern is the balance between short-term adverse events and long-term radiogenic cancer risk. This article outlines aspects of radiation risk in the context of diagnostic imaging and presents two examples of consideration of radiation and nonradiation risks. CONCLUSION: Selecting the optimum procedure for an individual patient requires consideration of many factors of benefit and risk. Too much attention to radiogenic risk may distract attention from other risks and potential benefits. This may not be in the patient's best interest.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical diagnosis has been dramatically altered by technologic advances and is now often based almost exclusively on imaging. The clinician must mindfully weigh patient-specific risks of radiation against the values of diagnostic yield and avoiding other risks. One concern is the balance between short-term adverse events and long-term radiogenic cancer risk. This article outlines aspects of radiation risk in the context of diagnostic imaging and presents two examples of consideration of radiation and nonradiation risks. CONCLUSION: Selecting the optimum procedure for an individual patient requires consideration of many factors of benefit and risk. Too much attention to radiogenic risk may distract attention from other risks and potential benefits. This may not be in the patient's best interest.
Authors: Lawrence T Dauer; Raymond H Thornton; Jennifer L Hay; Rochelle Balter; Matthew J Williamson; Jean St Germain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.959