Rebecca Zener1, Peter Johnson2, Daniele Wiseman3, Sachin Pandey2, Amol Mujoomdar3. 1. Victoria Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: rebeccazener@gmail.com. 2. University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 3. Victoria Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the patient perception on radiation-related cancer risk from interventional radiology (IR) procedures and whether informed radiation consent is warranted. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was prospectively administered to 68 adults undergoing a body or neuro-IR procedure with ionizing radiation exposure. Subgroup analysis with chi-square or Fisher exact test was performed based on patient past IR history (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 81% of patients wanted to be informed if there was a radiation-related 3% increased cancer risk over 5 years. Although 55% considered 3% a small risk, 28% wanted to further discuss the risks and alternate options, and 15% would have only proceeded if it were a life-saving procedure: 89%, 80%, and 67% of patients wanted to be informed with exposure risks of 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, and 1 in 10,000, respectively. Only 53% were aware they were going to be exposed to radiation, irrespective of past IR history (P = .15). Most patients believed radiation consent should include radiation-related cancer risks (85%). No past IR history was significantly associated with wanting consent to include cancer-related risk (100% vs 76%; P = .01) and deterministic risks (70% vs 41%; P = .04). A majority (69%) believed both the referring physician and the interventional radiologist were responsible for obtaining radiation consent, and 65% of patients wanted verbal consent followed by signed written consent, regardless of past IR history. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients want to discuss cancer-related radiation risks with both radiologists and physicians. Informed radiation consent should be considered for procedures with high anticipated radiation doses.
PURPOSE: To explore the patient perception on radiation-related cancer risk from interventional radiology (IR) procedures and whether informed radiation consent is warranted. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was prospectively administered to 68 adults undergoing a body or neuro-IR procedure with ionizing radiation exposure. Subgroup analysis with chi-square or Fisher exact test was performed based on patient past IR history (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 81% of patients wanted to be informed if there was a radiation-related 3% increased cancer risk over 5 years. Although 55% considered 3% a small risk, 28% wanted to further discuss the risks and alternate options, and 15% would have only proceeded if it were a life-saving procedure: 89%, 80%, and 67% of patients wanted to be informed with exposure risks of 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, and 1 in 10,000, respectively. Only 53% were aware they were going to be exposed to radiation, irrespective of past IR history (P = .15). Most patients believed radiation consent should include radiation-related cancer risks (85%). No past IR history was significantly associated with wanting consent to include cancer-related risk (100% vs 76%; P = .01) and deterministic risks (70% vs 41%; P = .04). A majority (69%) believed both the referring physician and the interventional radiologist were responsible for obtaining radiation consent, and 65% of patients wanted verbal consent followed by signed written consent, regardless of past IR history. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients want to discuss cancer-related radiation risks with both radiologists and physicians. Informed radiation consent should be considered for procedures with high anticipated radiation doses.
Authors: Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Anna Varghese; Shyamkumar N Keshava; Vinu Moses; George Koshy; Suraj Mammen; Munawwar Ahmed; Roshan S Livingstone Journal: Indian J Radiol Imaging Date: 2019-10-30