Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Medical imaging: the radiation issue

Abstract

The collective doses of ionizing radiation to Western populations have risen dramatically in the past three decades. Preliminary data on changes in radiation dose to the US population indicate that this increase has been driven largely by medical imaging, to which cardiovascular imaging modalities—such as nuclear stress testing, invasive coronary angiography, and cardiovascular CT—contribute greatly. Given the putative association between low-dose radiation exposure and cancer risk, which most experts agree is supported by the available evidence, the 'radiation issue' in medical imaging has garnered increasing interest. This opinion piece focuses on changes in the use of and doses from medical imaging, the relationship between radiation dose and cancer risk and the controversy surrounding this subject, and clinical implications of radiation exposure from imaging tests.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mettler, F. A. Jr et al. Medical radiation exposure in the, U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys. 95, 502–507 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. [No authors listed] The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37, 1–332 (2007).

  3. Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI), National Research Council. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR VI (National Academies Press, Washington, 1999).

  4. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, With Scientific Annexes (United Nations Publications, New York, 2000).

  5. Berrington de Gonzalez, A. & Darby, S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363, 345–351 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Department of Health. Imaging and radiodiagnostics time series. Hospital Activity Statistics [online] (2008).

  7. Einstein, A. J., Moser, K. W., Thompson, R. C., Cerqueira, M. D. & Henzlova, M. J. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 116, 1290–1305 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gerber, T. C. et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 119, 1056–1065 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hausleiter, J. et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 301, 500–507 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition. National Toxicology Program [online] (2005).

  11. Committee on an Assessment of CDC Radiation Studies, National Research Council. Radiation Dose Reconstruction for Epidemiologic Uses (National Academies Press, Washington, 1995).

  12. Brenner, D. J. et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13761–13766 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Little, M. P. et al. Potential funding crisis for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Lancet 364, 557–558 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Preston, D. L. et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat. Res. 168, 1–64 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Doll, R. & Wakeford, R. Risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation. Br. J. Radiol. 70, 130–139 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cardis, E. et al. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat. Res. 167, 396–416 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Health Physics Society. Radiation risk in perspective: Position statement of the Health Physics Society. Adopted January 1996, revised August 2004 [online]. (2004).

  18. Tubiana, M., Aurengo, A., Averbeck, D. & Masse, R. Recent reports on the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation and its dose-effect relationship. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 44, 245–251 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Einstein, A. J., Henzlova, M. J. & Rajagopalan, S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 298, 317–323 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Brindis, R. G. et al. ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology endorsed by the American Heart Association. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 46, 1587–1605 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hendel, R. C. et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48, 1475–1497 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brenner, D. J. & Georgsson, M. A. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 129, 328–337 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Einstein, A. J. Radiation risk from coronary artery disease imaging: how do different diagnostic tests compare? Heart 94, 1519–1521 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mettler, F. A. Jr, Huda, W., Yoshizumi, T. T. & Mahesh, M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine. Radiology 248, 254–263 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A. J. Einstein is supported in part by an NIH K12 institutional career development award (5 KL2 RR024157–03).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Einstein.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A. J. Einstein has received research support from Covidien, consultancy fees from GE Heathcare, and travel expenses from GE Heathcare, INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, Philips Medical Systems, and Toshiba America Medical Systems.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Einstein, A. Medical imaging: the radiation issue. Nat Rev Cardiol 6, 436–438 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2009.53

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2009.53

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing