OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the influence of patient radiation exposure histories on radiologists' imaging decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a physician survey study in three academic medical centers. Radiologists were asked to make an imaging recommendation for a hypothetical patient with a history of multiple CT scans. We queried radiologists' decision making, evaluating whether they incorporated cancer risks from previous imaging, reported acceptance (or rejection) of the linear no-threshold model, and understood linear no-threshold model implications in this setting. Consistency between radiologists' decisions and their linear no-threshold model beliefs was evaluated; those acting in accordance with the linear no-threshold model were expected to disregard previously incurred cancer risks. A Fisher exact test was used to verify the generalizability of results across institutions and training levels (residents, fellows, and attending physicians). RESULTS: Fifty-six percent (322/578) of radiologists completed the survey. Most (92% [295/322]) incorporated risks from the patient's exposure history during decision making. Most (61% [196/322]) also reported acceptance of the linear no-threshold model. Fewer (25% [79/322]) rejected the linear no-threshold model; 15% (47/322) could not judge. Among radiologists reporting linear no-threshold model acceptance or rejection, the minority (36% [98/275]) made decisions that were consistent with their linear no-threshold model beliefs. This finding was not statistically different across institutions (p = 0.070) or training levels (p = 0.183). Few radiologists (4% [13/322]) had an accurate understanding of linear no-threshold model implications. CONCLUSION: Most radiologists, when faced with patient exposure histories, make decisions that contradict their self-reported acceptance of the linear no-threshold model and the linear no-threshold model itself. These findings underscore a need for educational initiatives.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the influence of patientradiation exposure histories on radiologists' imaging decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a physician survey study in three academic medical centers. Radiologists were asked to make an imaging recommendation for a hypothetical patient with a history of multiple CT scans. We queried radiologists' decision making, evaluating whether they incorporated cancer risks from previous imaging, reported acceptance (or rejection) of the linear no-threshold model, and understood linear no-threshold model implications in this setting. Consistency between radiologists' decisions and their linear no-threshold model beliefs was evaluated; those acting in accordance with the linear no-threshold model were expected to disregard previously incurred cancer risks. A Fisher exact test was used to verify the generalizability of results across institutions and training levels (residents, fellows, and attending physicians). RESULTS: Fifty-six percent (322/578) of radiologists completed the survey. Most (92% [295/322]) incorporated risks from the patient's exposure history during decision making. Most (61% [196/322]) also reported acceptance of the linear no-threshold model. Fewer (25% [79/322]) rejected the linear no-threshold model; 15% (47/322) could not judge. Among radiologists reporting linear no-threshold model acceptance or rejection, the minority (36% [98/275]) made decisions that were consistent with their linear no-threshold model beliefs. This finding was not statistically different across institutions (p = 0.070) or training levels (p = 0.183). Few radiologists (4% [13/322]) had an accurate understanding of linear no-threshold model implications. CONCLUSION: Most radiologists, when faced with patient exposure histories, make decisions that contradict their self-reported acceptance of the linear no-threshold model and the linear no-threshold model itself. These findings underscore a need for educational initiatives.
Authors: Tessa S Cook; Stefan L Zimmerman; Scott R Steingall; Andrew D A Maidment; Woojin Kim; William W Boonn Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Jonathan D Eisenberg; H Benjamin Harvey; Donald A Moore; G Scott Gazelle; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shanshan Wang; William Pavlicek; Catherine C Roberts; Steve G Langer; Muhong Zhang; Mengqi Hu; Richard L Morin; Beth A Schueler; Clinton V Wellnitz; Teresa Wu Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; E Janet Tawn; Simon D Bouffler; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jonathan D Eisenberg; Michael E Gilmore; Mannudeep K Kalra; Chung Yin Kong; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.959