X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

Patient knowledge and misconceptions about imaging exams and X-rays: the need for clearer guidance in dental care

OBJECTIVE

To assess patients' knowledge and possible misconceptions regarding imaging exams and their association to ionizing radiation.

METHODS

Patients who sought dental care at the Federal University of Santa Maria Dental School (Brazil) were invited to enroll in the study. Patients filled out a questionnaire that covered demographic information, knowledge regarding imaging exams, X-rays, dental radiographs, and information sources (internet or dentist/physician). Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and chi-square test.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-five participants were enrolled (mean age 44 ± 15 years), of whom 60% were female and 68% had at least 8 years of formal education. Most participants (74.5%) reported knowing what X-rays are. When questioned if the following exams used X-rays, the majority said radiographs used X-rays (91.5%), but mistakes were revealed for tomography (51.7%), mammography (59.4%), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (40.2%). Gender, educational level, and reported knowledge about X-rays were not associated with correct answers (P > 0.05). Younger patients answered more accurately that ultrasound (P = 0.009) and MRI (P = 0.025) do not use X-rays, and older patients correctly associated mammography with X-rays (P < 0.001). Patients whose information source was the internet tended to incorrectly state that mammography (P = 0.007) and tomography (P = 0.063) did not use X-rays.

CONCLUSION

Patients often fail to differentiate the imaging exams that use X-rays, despite reporting that they understand what X-rays are. Dentists should be aware of the misconceptions patients may encounter when using the internet as a source of information and provide clearer guidance about acquisition and purpose of imaging exams, with emphasis on radiation protection.

Patient Shielding in Ultra-High-Resolution Cone-Beam CT of the Upper Extremity with a Twin Robotic X-Ray System

Background/Objectives: Gantry-free cone-beam CT (CBCT) allows for ultra-high-resolution (UHR) upper extremity imaging in a comfortable tableside position. The aim of this study was to assess the organ-specific radiation burden and the effect of dedicated lead shielding in the UHR-CBCT of the wrist and elbow. Methods: A modified Alderson-Rando phantom was scanned with the tableside UHR-CBCT mode of a twin robotic X-ray system employing identical scan parameters for wrist and elbow imaging. An ion chamber was used in conjunction with an electrometer to obtain representative organ dose measurements for the eye lens, thyroid gland, breast tissue, and abdomen. All measurements were performed with and without lead shielding. Results: Irrespective of the examined upper extremity joint, the highest absorbed dose among the assessed organs was determined for the eye lens (wrist imaging: 0.10 ± 0.01 mGy, elbow imaging: 0.12 ± 0.01 mGy). The most effective organ dose reduction by means of shielding in wrist CBCT was achieved for the thyroid gland (-17%). In elbow CBCT, the abdomen (-48%) and the ipsilateral breast (-39%) benefited particularly from shield protection. Conclusions: Although shielding was more effective in elbow than wrist scans, the overall impact in terms of absolute dose reduction was marginal.

Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?

OBJECTIVE

To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.

Abnormal Static Sagittal Cervical Curvatures following Motor Vehicle Collisions: A Retrospective Case Series of 41 Patients before and after a Crash Exposure

Previous investigations have found a correlation between abnormal curvatures and a variety of patient complaints such as cervical pain and disability. However, no study has shown that loss of the cervical curve is a direct result of exposure to a motor vehicle collision (MVC). This investigation presents a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with both a pre-injury cervical lateral radiograph (CLR) and a post-injury CLR after exposure to an MVC. Computer analysis of digitized vertebral body corners on CLRs was performed to investigate the possible alterations in the geometric alignment of the sagittal cervical curve.

METHODS

Three spine clinic records were reviewed over a 2-year period, looking for patients where both an initial lateral cervical X-ray and an examination were performed prior to the patient being exposed to a MVC; afterwards, an additional exam and radiographic analysis were obtained. A total of 41 patients met the inclusion criteria. Examination records of pain intensity on numerical pain rating scores (NPRS) and neck disability index (NDI), if available, were analyzed. The CLRs were digitized and modeled in the sagittal plane using curve fitting and the least squares error approach. Radiographic variables included total cervical curve (ARA C2-C7), Chamberlain's line to horizontal (skull flexion), horizontal translation of C2 relative to C7, segmental translations (retrolisthesis and anterolisthesis), and circular modelling radii.

RESULTS

There were 15 males and 26 females with an age range of 8-65 years. Most participants were drivers (28) involved in rear-end impacts (30). The pre-injury NPRS was 2.7 while the post injury was 5.0; p < 0.001. The NDI was available on 24/41 (58.5%) patients and increased after the MVC from 15.7% to 32.8%, p < 0.001. An altered cervical curvature was identified following exposure to MVC, characterized by an increase in the mean radius of curvature (265.5 vs. 555.5, p < 0.001) and an approximate 8° reduction of lordosis from C2-C7; p < 0.001. The mid-cervical spine (C3-C5) showed the greatest curve reduction with an averaged localized mild kyphosis at these levels. Four participants (10%) developed segmental translations that were just below the threshold of instability, segmental translations < 3.5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The post-exposure MVC cervical curvature was characterized by an increase in radius of curvature, an approximate 8° reduction in C2-C7 lordosis, a mild kyphosis of the mid-cervical spine, and a slight increase in anterior translation of C2-C7 sagittal balance. The modelling result indicates that the post-MVC cervical sagittal alignment approximates a second-order buckling alignment, indicating a significant alteration in curve geometry. Future biomechanics experiments and clinical investigations are needed to confirm these findings.

Multicenter Quantification of Radiation Exposure and Associated Risks for Prostatic Artery Embolization in 1476 Patients

Background Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a safe, minimally invasive angiographic procedure that effectively treats benign prostatic hyperplasia; however, PAE-related patient radiation exposure and associated risks are not completely understood. Purpose To quantify radiation dose and assess radiation-related adverse events in patients who underwent PAE at multiple centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing PAE for any indication performed by experienced operators at 10 high-volume international centers from January 2014 to May 2021. Patient characteristics, procedural and radiation dose data, and radiation-related adverse events were collected. Procedural radiation effective doses were calculated by multiplying kerma-area product values by an established conversion factor for abdominopelvic fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Relationships between cumulative air kerma (CAK) or effective dose and patient body mass index (BMI), fluoroscopy time, or radiation field area were assessed with linear regression. Differences in radiation dose stemming from radiopaque prostheses or fluoroscopy unit type were assessed using two-sample t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results A total of 1476 patients (mean age, 69.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included, of whom 1345 (91.1%) and 131 (8.9%) underwent the procedure with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units, respectively. Median procedure effective dose was 17.8 mSv for fixed interventional units and 12.3 mSv for mobile units. CAK and effective dose both correlated positively with BMI (R2 = 0.15 and 0.17; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (R2 = 0.16 and 0.08; P < .001). No radiation-related 90-day adverse events were reported. Patients with radiopaque implants versus those without implants had higher median CAK (1452 mGy [range, 900-2685 mGy] vs 1177 mGy [range, 700-1959 mGy], respectively; P = .01). Median effective dose was lower for mobile than for fixed interventional systems (12.3 mSv [range, 8.5-22.0 mSv] vs 20.4 mSv [range, 13.8-30.6 mSv], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Patients who underwent PAE performed with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units were exposed to a median effective radiation dose of 17.8 mSv or 12.3 mSv, respectively. No radiation-related adverse events at 90 days were reported. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mahesh in this issue.

People do not have high levels of knowledge of low dose ionizing radiation (LDIR)

Through survey and focus groups in two provinces in Canada misunderstanding and confusion surrounding Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation (LDIR) is explored specifically surrounding medical procedures, risk, and benefits. Generally people associated the word radiation with harm, but when asked participants were not concerned about LDIR. Approximately equal numbers (40%) thought LDIR was 'difficult' as those that thought it was 'easy' but research results reveal confusion about the definition of and sources of LDIR. Most people believed the benefits of LDIR outweighed the risks. Further, many had inaccurate views of 'high' dose radiation. Scientists and the Canadian regulator were determined to be the most trusted sources of information while elected officials and industry representatives the least trusted. Participants wanted more information on whether LDIR was a problem in Canada, what the risks were associated with it, as well as the applicable protections, rules and regulations. Focus group participants expressed a preference for face-to-face exchange of information, but mass media remains an important source of information as the first-place people check for answers. Future research surrounding behavioural science and LDIR communications, and deep LDIR science communication will be important in addressing this issue.

Re-establishing the cervical lordosis after whiplash: a Chiropractic Biophysics® spinal corrective care methods pre-auto injury and post-auto injury case report with follow-up

[Purpose] To document the re-establishment of the cervical lordosis following radiographically verified altered sagittal plane alignment both prior to, and following a motor vehicle collision. [Participant and Methods] A 16-year-old male presented for a non-motor collision complaint of low back pain. Initial lateral cervical radiograph demonstrated cervical hypo-lordosis. The patient was treated with a 6-week plan (18 visits) utilizing Chiropractic BioPhysics® (CBP) methods to increase the cervical lordosis. Eight months later the patient presented with new complaints as a result of a motor collision. The cervical lordosis straightened. The patient received another round of similar treatment to improve the lordosis. There was also a 6.5-month follow-up. [Results] The initial round of treatment achieved a 21° improvement in cervical lordosis. The motor vehicle collision caused a loss of 15° of lordosis. The second round of treatment achieved a 12.5° improvement in lordosis that was demonstrated to be maintained at a 6.5-month follow-up. [Conclusions] This case illustrates how a whiplash event occurring during a motor vehicle collision subluxated the cervical spine. It was also shown that CBP methods reliably corrected the lordosis after two separate treatment programs using specialized methods. Beyond trauma, radiographic screening of specific cervical subluxation is recommended following all motor collisions.

Comparison of Diagnostic Mammography-Guided Biopsy and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Suspicious Breast Calcifications: Results in 1354 Biopsies

BACKGROUND. Studies have shown improved targeting and sampling of noncalcified lesions (asymmetries, masses, and architectural distortion) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided biopsy in comparison with digital mammography (DM)-guided stereotactic biopsy. Literature that compares the two techniques specifically for sampling calcifications has been scarce. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance and outcomes of DM- and DBT-guided biopsy of suspicious calcifications. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1310 patients (mean age, 58 ± 12 [SD] years) who underwent a total of 1354 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsies of suspicious calcifications performed at a single institution from May 22, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The decision to use a DM-guided or DBT-guided technique was made at the discretion of the radiologist performing the biopsy. Procedure time, the number of exposures during the procedure, and the histopathologic outcomes were recorded. The two techniques were compared using a two-sample t test for continuous variables and a chi-square test for categoric variables. Additional tests were performed using generalized estimating equations to control for the effect of the individual radiologist performing the biopsy. RESULTS. A total of 348 (26%) biopsies used DM guidance, and 1006 (74%) used DBT guidance. The mean procedure time was significantly lower for DBT-guided biopsy (14.9 ± 8.0 [SD] minutes) than for DM-guided biopsy (24.7 ± 14.3 minutes) (p < .001). The mean number of exposures was significantly lower for DBT-guided biopsy (4.1 ± 1.0 [SD] exposures) than for DM-guided biopsy (9.1 ± 3.3 exposures) (p < .001). The differences in procedure time and number of exposures remained significant (both p < .001) when controlling for the effect of the radiologist performing the biopsy. There were no significant differences (all p > .05) between DM-guided and DBT-guided biopsy in terms of the malignancy rate on initial biopsy (20% vs 19%), the rate of high-risk lesion upgrading (14% vs 22%), or the final malignancy rate (23% vs 22%). CONCLUSION. DBT-guided biopsy of suspicious calcifications can be performed with shorter procedure time and fewer exposures compared with DM-guided biopsy, without a significant difference in rates of malignancy or high-risk lesion upgrading. CLINICAL IMPACT. The use of a DBT-guided, rather than a DM-guided, biopsy technique for suspicious calcifications can potentially reduce patient discomfort and radiation exposure without affecting clinical outcomes.

Are dental x-rays safe? Content analysis of English and Chinese YouTube videos

Objective

This study provided a content analysis of English and Chinese YouTube videos related to dental radiation safety.

Method

The search string, entered in English and Chinese respectively, was: (dental x-ray safe). The searches were performed and exported with Apify YouTube scraper. By screening the resultant videos and their related videos (as recommended by YouTube), a total of 89 videos were screened. Finally, 45 videos (36 English and nine Chinese) were included and analyzed. The specific information regarding dental radiation was evaluated. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials was used to assess understandability and actionability.

Results

There was no significant difference between the English and Chinese videos in terms of view count, like count, comment count, and video duration. Half of the videos explicitly reassured the audience that dental x-rays are safe. Two of the English videos specifically stated that dental x-rays do not cause cancers. Numerous analogies were made in regard to radiation dose, such as equivalence to taking a flight or eating some bananas. About 41.7% of the English videos and 33.3% of the Chinese videos mentioned that patients could be further protected from scatter radiation by wearing a lead apron and thyroid collar. Videos had a good understandability score (91.3) but a poor actionability score (0).

Conclusions

Some of the analogies and the claimed radiation dose were questionable. One Chinese video even wrongly stated that dental x-rays are nonionizing radiation. The videos generally did not mention their information sources or the underlying radiation protection principles.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?

There are pressures to avoid use of radiological imaging throughout all healthcare due to the notion that all radiation is carcinogenic. This perception stems from the long-standing use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption of risk associated with radiation exposures. This societal perception has led to relentless efforts to avoid and reduce radiation exposures to patients at great costs. Many radiation reduction campaigns have been launched to dissuade doctors from using radiation imaging. Lower-dose imaging techniques and practices are being advocated. Alternate imaging procedures are encouraged. Are these efforts warranted? Based on recent evidence, LNT ideology is shown to be defunct for risk assessment at low-dose exposure ranges which includes X-rays and CT scans. In fact, the best evidence that was once used to support LNT ideology, including the Life Span Study data, now indicates thresholds for cancer induction are high; therefore, low-dose X-rays cannot cause harm. Current practices are safe as exposures currently encountered are orders of magnitude below threshold levels shown to be harmful. As long as imaging is medically warranted, it is shown that efforts to reduce exposures that are within background radiation levels and that are also shown to enhance health by upregulating natural adaptive protection systems are definitively wasted resources.