M P Crowley1, S B O'Neill2, B Kevane3, D C O'Neill2, J A Eustace4, M R Cahill5, B Bird6, M M Maher2, K O'Regan2, D O'Shea5. 1. Department of Haematology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. maeve.crowley@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. 3. Department of Haematology, Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. HRB Clinical Research Facility, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 5. Department of Haematology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Bon Secours Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Survival rates among patients with lymphoma continue to improve. Strategies aimed at reducing potential treatment-related toxicity are increasingly prioritized. While radiological procedures play an important role, ionizing radiation exposure has been linked to an increased risk of malignancy, particularly among individuals whose cumulative radiation exposure exceeds a specific threshold (75 millisieverts). METHODS: Within this retrospective study, the cumulative radiation exposure dose was quantified for 486 consecutive patients with lymphoma. RESULTS: The median estimated total cumulative effective dose (CED) of ionizing radiation per subject was 69 mSv (42-118). However, younger patients (under 40 years) had a median CED of 89 mSv (55-124). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the considerable radiation exposure occurring among patients with lymphoma as a result of diagnostic imaging. To limit the risk of secondary carcinogenesis, consideration should be given to monitoring cumulative radiation exposure in individual patients as well as considering imaging modalities, which do not impart an ionizing radiation dose.
PURPOSE: Survival rates among patients with lymphoma continue to improve. Strategies aimed at reducing potential treatment-related toxicity are increasingly prioritized. While radiological procedures play an important role, ionizing radiation exposure has been linked to an increased risk of malignancy, particularly among individuals whose cumulative radiation exposure exceeds a specific threshold (75 millisieverts). METHODS: Within this retrospective study, the cumulative radiation exposure dose was quantified for 486 consecutive patients with lymphoma. RESULTS: The median estimated total cumulative effective dose (CED) of ionizing radiation per subject was 69 mSv (42-118). However, younger patients (under 40 years) had a median CED of 89 mSv (55-124). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the considerable radiation exposure occurring among patients with lymphoma as a result of diagnostic imaging. To limit the risk of secondary carcinogenesis, consideration should be given to monitoring cumulative radiation exposure in individual patients as well as considering imaging modalities, which do not impart an ionizing radiation dose.
Authors: Lisa K Hicks; Harriet Bering; Kenneth R Carson; Judith Kleinerman; Vishal Kukreti; Alice Ma; Brigitta U Mueller; Sarah H O'Brien; Marcelo Pasquini; Ravindra Sarode; Lawrence Solberg; Adam E Haynes; Mark A Crowther Journal: Blood Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Ravi Guttikonda; Brian R Herts; Frank Dong; Mark E Baker; Kathleen B Fenner; Brad Pohlman Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: David C Hodgson; Ethel S Gilbert; Graça M Dores; Sara J Schonfeld; Charles F Lynch; Hans Storm; Per Hall; Froydis Langmark; Eero Pukkala; Michael Andersson; Magnus Kaijser; Heikki Joensuu; Sophie D Fosså; Lois B Travis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Beate Pfistner; Malik E Juweid; Randy D Gascoyne; Lena Specht; Sandra J Horning; Bertrand Coiffier; Richard I Fisher; Anton Hagenbeek; Emanuele Zucca; Steven T Rosen; Sigrid Stroobants; T Andrew Lister; Richard T Hoppe; Martin Dreyling; Kensei Tobinai; Julie M Vose; Joseph M Connors; Massimo Federico; Volker Diehl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Eric Johnson; Andrew Williams; Robert T Greenlee; Sheila Weinmann; Leif I Solberg; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Douglas Roblin; Michael J Flynn; Nicholas Vanneman; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: P Appenzeller; C Mader; M W Huellner; D Schmidt; D Schmid; A Boss; G von Schulthess; P Veit-Haibach Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2013-05-15