Use of ionizing radiation in a Norwegian cohort of children with congenital heart disease: imaging frequency and radiation dose for the Health Effects of Cardiac Fluoroscopy and Modern Radiotherapy in Pediatrics (HARMONIC) study.

BACKGROUND: The European-funded Health Effects of Cardiac Fluoroscopy and Modern Radiotherapy in Pediatrics (HARMONIC) project is a multicenter cohort study assessing the long-term effects of ionizing radiation in patients with congenital heart disease. Knowledge is lacking regarding the use of ionizing radiation from sources other than cardiac catheterization in this cohort. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess imaging frequency and radiation dose (excluding cardiac catheterization) to patients from a single center participating in the Norwegian HARMONIC project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2000 and 2020, we recruited 3,609 patients treated for congenital heart disease (age < 18 years), with 33,768 examinations categorized by modality and body region. Data were retrieved from the radiology information system. Effective doses were estimated using International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 60 conversion factors, and the analysis was stratified into six age categories: newborn; 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and late adolescence. RESULTS: The examination distribution was as follows: 91.0% conventional radiography, 4.0% computed tomography (CT), 3.6% diagnostic fluoroscopy, 1.2% nuclear medicine, and 0.3% noncardiac intervention. In the newborn to 15 years age categories, 4-12% had ≥ ten conventional radiography studies, 1-8% underwent CT, and 0.3-2.5% received nuclear medicine examinations. The median effective dose ranged from 0.008-0.02 mSv and from 0.76-3.47 mSv for thoracic conventional radiography and thoracic CT, respectively. The total effective dose burden from thoracic conventional radiography ranged between 28-65% of the dose burden from thoracic CT in various age categories (40% for all ages combined). The median effective dose for nuclear medicine lung perfusion was 0.6-0.86 mSv and for gastrointestinal fluoroscopy 0.17-0.27 mSv. Because of their low frequency, these procedures contributed less to the total effective dose than thoracic radiography. CONCLUSION: This study shows that CT made the largest contribution to the radiation dose from imaging (excluding cardiac intervention). However, although the dose per conventional radiograph was low, the large number of examinations resulted in a substantial total effective dose. Therefore, it is important to consider the frequency of conventional radiography while calculating cumulative dose for individuals. The findings of this study will help the HARMONIC project to improve risk assessment by minimizing the uncertainty associated with cumulative dose calculations.

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.