Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Image Gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy

  • ALARA-CT
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Significant progress has been made in radiation protection for children during the last 10 years. This includes increased awareness of the need for radiation protection for pediatric patients with international partnerships through the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging. This paper identifies five areas of significant progress in radiation safety for children: the growth of the Alliance; the development of an adult radiation protection campaign Image Wisely™; increased collaboration with government agencies, societies and the vendor community; the development of national guidelines in pediatric nuclear medicine, and the development of a size-based patient dose correction factor by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task Group 204. However, many challenges remain. These include the need for continued education and change of practice at adult-focused hospitals where many pediatric CT exams are performed; the need for increased emphasis on appropriateness of pediatric imaging and outcomes research to validate the performance of CT studies, and the advancement of the work of the first pediatric national dose registry to determine the “state of the practice” with the final goal of establishing ranges of optimal CT technique for specific scan indications when imaging children with CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scaife ER, Rollins MD (2010) Managing radiation risk in the evaluation of the pediatric trauma patient. Semin Pediatr Surg 19:252–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stratton KL, Pope JC, Adams MC et al (2010) Implications of ionizing radiation in the pediatric urology patient. J Urol 183:2137–2142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dorfman AL, Fazel R, Einstein AJ et al (2011) Use of medical imaging procedures with ionizing radiation in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.270, Jan 3 [Epub ahead of print]

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF et al (2005) Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 235:354–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Bell C et al (2010) Image Gently: providing practical educational tools and advocacy to accelerate radiation protection for children worldwide. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 31:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brink JA, Amis ES (2010) Image Wisely: a campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology 257:601–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. NCRP Commentary No 13 (1995) An introduction to efficacy in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine (justification of medical radiation exposure). Available via http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Comm13press.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2011

  8. United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. White paper: initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. Available via http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm. Accessed 30 Jan 2011

  9. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2009) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: NCRP Report No. 160. NCRP, Bethesda, MD, pp 142–146

  10. World Health Organization. Global Initiative on Radiation Safety in Healthcare Settings. Available via http://www.int.ionizing_radiation/About/GI_TM_Report_2008_dec.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2011

  11. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Bulas D et al (2011) Approaches to promotion and implementation of action on radiation protection for children. Radiat Prot Dosim, in press

  12. Gelfand M, Parisi M, Treves ST (2011) Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses: 2010 North American consensus guidelines. J Nucl Med 52:318–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boone J, Strauss KJ, Cody DD et al (2011) Correction factors for patient size in CT dose estimation. AAPM Report No 204. Available via http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/. Accessed 30 Jan 2011

  14. Slovis TL (2002) The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology 223:5–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Frush DP et al (2009) Image Gently Vendor Summit: working together for better estimates of pediatric radiation dose from CT. AJR 192:1169–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM et al (2011) Increasing use of CT in children visiting emergency departments, 1995–2007. Radiology 258:164–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Radiology. CT accreditation program requirements. Available via http://www.acr.org/accreditation/computed/ct_reqs.aspx. Accessed 30 Jan 2011

  18. American College of Radiology Appropriateness CT criteria. Available via http://www.acr.org/secondarymainmenucategories/quality_safety/app_criteria.aspx. Accessed 30 Jan 2011

  19. American College of Radiology Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards. Available via http://www.acr.org/secondarymainmenucategories/quality_safety/guidelines.aspx. Accessed 30 Jan 2011

  20. Medina S, Applegate K, Blackmore CC (eds) (2010) Evidence-based imaging in pediatrics: optimizing imaging in pediatric patient care. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kuppermann N, Holmes JF, Dayan PS et al (2009) Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-importantbrain injuries after head trauma: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 374:1160–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Broder J, Fordham LA, Warshauer DM (2007) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the pediatric emergency department, 2000–2006. Emerg Radiol 14:227–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kalra MK, Saini S (2006) Standardized nomenclature and description of CT scanning techniques. Radiology 241:657–660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rehani M, Frush DP (2010) Tracking radiation exposure of patients. Lancet 376:754–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS et al (2001) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR 176:303–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Patterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR 176:297–301

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF et al (2005) Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 235:354–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (1994) Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT): summary of 1990 computed tomography survey and 1991 flouroscopy survey. CRCPD publication no. 94–2. Frankfort, KY

  29. Nievelstein RA, van Dam IM, van der Molen AJ (2010) Mutidetector CT in children: current concepts and dose reduction strategies. Pediatr Radiol 40:1324–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reid J, Gamberoni J, Dong F et al (2010) Optimization of kVp and mAs for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal CT: is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference? AJR 195:1015–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclaimer

The supplement this article is part of is not sponsored by the industry. The following authors have no financial interest, investigational or off-label uses to disclose: M. J. Goske, D. Bulas, P. F. Butler, M. J. Callahan, B. D. Coley, M. Hernanz-Schulman, S. C. Kaste, G. Morrison, M. Sidhu, K. J. Strauss and S. T. Treves. Dr. Applegate disclosed her intention to discuss commercial products and services during the conference and financial relationships on the Radiation Safety Advisory Board, American Imaging Management and with Springer Publishing. Dr. Frush is a research investigator for Duke University and GE Healthcare and his family members hold stock in GE Healthcare. Dr. Don is a speaker for Siemens and has funded research with and is a speaker for Carestream.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marilyn J. Goske.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goske, M.J., Applegate, K.E., Bulas, D. et al. Image Gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy. Pediatr Radiol 41 (Suppl 2), 461 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2133-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2133-0

Keywords

Navigation