Concerns about medical exposure to ionizing radiation have become heightened in recent years as a result of rapid growth in procedure volumes and the high radiation doses incurred from some ...procedures. This paper summarizes the evidence base undergirding concerns about radiation exposure in cardiac imaging. After classifying radiation effects, explaining terminology used to quantify the radiation received by patients, and describing typical doses from cardiac imaging procedures, this paper will address the major epidemiological studies having bearing on radiation effects at doses comparable to those received by patients undergoing cardiac imaging. These include studies of atomic bomb survivors, nuclear industry workers, and children exposed in utero to x-rays, all of which have evidenced increased cancer risks at low doses. Additional higher-dose epidemiological studies of cohorts exposed to radiation in the context of medical treatment are described and found to be generally compatible with these cardiac dose-level studies, albeit with exceptions. Using risk projection models developed by the U.S. National Academies that incorporate these data and reflect several evidence-based assumptions, cancer risk from cardiac imaging can be estimated and compared with the benefits from imaging. Several ongoing epidemiological studies will provide better understanding of radiation-associated cancer risks.
Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) has become a common diagnostic test, yet there are little data on its associated cancer risk. The recent Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation ...(BEIR) VII Phase 2 report provides a framework for estimating lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence associated with radiation exposure from a CTCA study, using the most current data available on health effects of radiation.
To determine the LAR of cancer incidence associated with radiation exposure from a 64-slice CTCA study and to evaluate the influence of age, sex, and scan protocol on cancer risk.
Organ doses from 64-slice CTCA to standardized phantom (computational model) male and female patients were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods, using standard spiral CT protocols. Age- and sex-specific LARs of individual cancers were estimated using the approach of BEIR VII and summed to obtain whole-body LARs.
Whole-body and organ LARs of cancer incidence.
Organ doses ranged from 42 to 91 mSv for the lungs and 50 to 80 mSv for the female breast. Lifetime cancer risk estimates for standard cardiac scans varied from 1 in 143 for a 20-year-old woman to 1 in 3261 for an 80-year-old man. Use of simulated electrocardiographically controlled tube current modulation (ECTCM) decreased these risk estimates to 1 in 219 and 1 in 5017, respectively. Estimated cancer risks using ECTCM for a 60-year-old woman and a 60-year-old man were 1 in 715 and 1 in 1911, respectively. A combined scan of the heart and aorta had higher LARs, up to 1 in 114 for a 20-year-old woman. The highest organ LARs were for lung cancer and, in younger women, breast cancer.
These estimates derived from our simulation models suggest that use of 64-slice CTCA is associated with a nonnegligible LAR of cancer. This risk varies markedly and is considerably greater for women, younger patients, and for combined cardiac and aortic scans.
The growing use of imaging procedures in the United States has raised concerns about exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation in the general population.
We identified 952,420 nonelderly adults ...(between 18 and 64 years of age) in five health care markets across the United States between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007. Utilization data were used to estimate cumulative effective doses of radiation from imaging procedures and to calculate population-based rates of exposure, with annual effective doses defined as low (< or = 3 mSv), moderate (> 3 to 20 mSv), high (> 20 to 50 mSv), or very high (> 50 mSv).
During the study period, 655,613 enrollees (68.8%) underwent at least one imaging procedure associated with radiation exposure. The mean (+/-SD) cumulative effective dose from imaging procedures was 2.4+/-6.0 mSv per enrollee per year; however, a wide distribution was noted, with a median effective dose of 0.1 mSv per enrollee per year (interquartile range, 0.0 to 1.7). Overall, moderate effective doses of radiation were incurred in 193.8 enrollees per 1000 per year, whereas high and very high doses were incurred in 18.6 and 1.9 enrollees per 1000 per year, respectively. In general, cumulative effective doses of radiation from imaging procedures increased with advancing age and were higher in women than in men. Computed tomographic and nuclear imaging accounted for 75.4% of the cumulative effective dose, with 81.8% of the total administered in outpatient settings.
Imaging procedures are an important source of exposure to ionizing radiation in the United States and can result in high cumulative effective doses of radiation.
New CT scanners all now have dose-reductions options, and there is far more awareness among practitioners about the need to justify and optimise CT doses-an awareness that will surely be bolstered by ...Pearce and colleagues' study.6 Justification of any CT scan is important because good evidence suggests that 20-50% of such examinations could be replaced with another type of imaging or not done at all.8 For individual patients, justification should take account of all available information, including details of the proposed procedure and alternative management strategies, patients' characteristics, expected radiation dose and associated degree of risk, information about previous or expected procedures, and patients' preferences.9 Justification is a shared responsibility between referring and performing health-care professionals,9 and is facilitated by the "three As": awareness, appropriateness, and audit- awareness by knowledgeable providers who assist the patient in balancing the immediate benefits of medical radiation with its downstream radiation risk, use of appropriateness guidelines to ensure that those patients referred for radiological examinations need them, and post-hoc audit of imaging use against agreed standards of good practice.8 Optimisation incorporates keeping radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) for every study.
This study aimed to calculate scanner-, kilovoltage peak (kVp)-, and patient size-specific computed tomography (CT) number thresholds for determining Agatston score (AgSc).
The proposed method was ...validated using calcium measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom for 4 CT scanners made by 4 vendors. The derived mass concentration (γ) thresholds were used to calculate kVp- and patient size-specific CT number thresholds. Two models were applied to reduce intrascanner and interscanner AgSc variation, respectively.
The mean error of the modeled CT numbers is 1.8% (0.1%-4.4%). Model 1 has comparable results to the published phantom calibration method for an average-size patient (error, 1.5%; 0.1%-5.1%). The size- and the kVp-dependent fitting of modeled results have R2 greater than 0.965.
Our results show a potential to enable accurate determination of AgSc under diverse conditions (eg, reduced tube potential) and are more easily applicable to different patient sizes than the phantom calibration method.
Abstract
As machine learning research in the field of cardiovascular imaging continues to grow, obtaining reliable model performance estimates is critical to develop reliable baselines and compare ...different algorithms. While the machine learning community has generally accepted methods such as k-fold stratified cross-validation (CV) to be more rigorous than single split validation, the standard research practice in medical fields is the use of single split validation techniques. This is especially concerning given the relatively small sample sizes of datasets used for cardiovascular imaging. We aim to examine how train-test split variation impacts the stability of machine learning (ML) model performance estimates in several validation techniques on two real-world cardiovascular imaging datasets: stratified split-sample validation (70/30 and 50/50 train-test splits), tenfold stratified CV, 10 × repeated tenfold stratified CV, bootstrapping (500 × repeated), and leave one out (LOO) validation. We demonstrate that split validation methods lead to the highest range in AUC and statistically significant differences in ROC curves, unlike the other aforementioned approaches. When building predictive models on relatively small data sets as is often the case in medical imaging, split-sample validation techniques can produce instability in performance estimates with variations in range over 0.15 in the AUC values, and thus any of the alternate validation methods are recommended.
Several approaches have been proposed for risk-stratification and primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD), but their comparative and cost-effectiveness is unknown.
We constructed a ...state-transition microsimulation model to compare multiple approaches to the primary prevention of CHD in a simulated cohort of men aged 45-75 and women 55-75. Risk-stratification strategies included the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on the treatment of blood cholesterol, the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines, and approaches based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and C-reactive protein (CRP). Additionally we assessed a treat-all strategy in which all individuals were prescribed either moderate-dose or high-dose statins and all males received low-dose aspirin. Outcome measures included CHD events, costs, medication-related side effects, radiation-attributable cancers, and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) over a 30-year timeframe.
Treat-all with high-dose statins dominated all other strategies for both men and women, gaining 15.7 million QALYs, preventing 7.3 million myocardial infarctions, and saving over $238 billion, compared to the status quo, far outweighing its associated adverse events including bleeding, hepatitis, myopathy, and new-onset diabetes. ACC/AHA guidelines were more cost-effective than ATP III guidelines for both men and women despite placing 8.7 million more people on statins. For women at low CHD risk, treat-all with high-dose statins was more likely to cause a statin-related adverse event than to prevent a CHD event.
Despite leading to a greater proportion of the population placed on statin therapy, the ACC/AHA guidelines are more cost-effective than ATP III. Even so, at generic prices, treating all men and women with statins and all men with low-dose aspirin appears to be more cost-effective than all risk-stratification approaches for the primary prevention of CHD. Especially for low-CHD risk women, decisions on the appropriate primary prevention strategy should be based on shared decision making between patients and healthcare providers.
PDF
