Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 124, Issue 8, pp 714–720 | Cite as

Overdiagnosis and overimaging: an ethical issue for radiological protection

  • Sergio SalernoEmail author
  • Andrea Laghi
  • Marie-Claire Cantone
  • Paolo Sartori
  • Antonio Pinto
  • Guy Frija
RADIOBIOLOGY AND SAFETY
First Online:

Abstract

Aims and objectives

This study aimed to analyse the key factors that influence the overimaging using X-ray such as self-referral, defensive medicine and duplicate imaging studies and to emphasize the ethical problem that derives from it.

Materials and methods

In this study, we focused on the more frequent sources of overdiagnosis such as the total-body CT, proposed in the form of screening in both public and private sector, the choice of the most sensitive test for each pathology such as pulmonary embolism, ultrasound investigations mostly of the thyroid and of the prostate and MR examinations, especially of the musculoskeletal system.

Results

The direct follow of overdiagnosis and overimaging is the increase in the risk of contrast media infusion, radiant damage, and costs in the worldwide healthcare system. The theme of the costs of overdiagnosis is strongly related to inappropriate or poorly appropriate imaging examination.

Conclusions

We underline the ethical imperatives of trust and right conduct, because the major ethical problems in radiology emerge in the justification of medical exposures of patients in the practice. A close cooperation and collaboration across all the physicians responsible for patient care in requiring imaging examination is also important, balancing possible ionizing radiation disadvantages and patient benefits in terms of care.

Keywords

Overimaging Overdiagnosis Ethics Radiation protection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors but is a review of current clinical cases.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    ESR Executive Council 2009; European Society of Radiology (2010) The professional and organizational future of imaging. Insights Imaging 1:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP et al (2010) Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 257:240–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kouri BE, Parsons RG, Alpert HR (2002) Physician self-referral for diagnostic imaging: review of the empiric literature. AJR 179:843–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kainberger F (2017) Defensive medicine and overutilization of imaging-an issue of radiation protection. Wien Klin Wochenschr 129:157–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee TH, Brennan TA (2002) Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests. N Engl J Med 346:529–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP et al (2009) Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 253:453–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel T et al (2003) The implications of regional variations in medicare spending. Part 1. The content, quality and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med 138:273–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunnick NR, Applegate KE, Arenson RL (2005) The inappropriate use of imaging studies: a report of the 2004 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 2:401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blackmore CC, Castro A (2015) Improving the quality of imaging in the Emergency Department. Acad Emerg Med 22:1385–1392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Armao D, Semelka RC, Elias J Jr (2012) Radiology’s ethical responsibility for healthcare reform: tempering the overutilization of medical imaging and trimming down a heavyweight. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:512–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fenton JJ, Deyo RA (2003) Patient self-referral for radiologic screening tests: clinical and ethical concerns. J Am Board Fam Pract 16:494–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malone J (2013) Ethical issues in clinical radiology. In: Oughton D, Hansson SO (eds) Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 105–130Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ICRP (2007) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:2–4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Del Rosario PM (2015) Referral criteria and clinical decision support: radiological protection aspects for justification. ICRP 2015. Proceedings of the second international symposium on the system of radiological protection. Ann ICRP 44(1S):276–287Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ICRP (2018) Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann ICRP 47:(1)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cho KW (2016) Ethical foundations of the radiological protection system. ICRP, 2016. Proceeding of the third international symposium on the system of radiological protection. Ann ICRP 45(1S):297–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, Elshaug AG, Glasziou P, Halth I, Nagpal S, Saini V, Srivastava D, Chalmers K, Korenstein D (2017) Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. The Lancet 390(10090):156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silini G (1992) Sievert lecture. Ethical issues in radiation protection. Health Phys 63:139–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1979) Principles of biomedical ethics, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2012) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dauer LT, Thornton HR, Hay JL, Balter R, Williamson MJ, St Germain J (2011) Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients. AJR 196:756–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Busardò FP, Frati P, Santurro A, Zaami S, Fineschi V (2015) Errors and malpractice lawsuits in radiology: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiol Med 120(9):779–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olivetti L, Fileni A, De Stefano F, Cazzulani A, Battaglia G, Pescarini L (2008) The legal implications of error in radiology. Radiol Med 113(4):599–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramella S, Mandoliti G, Trodella L, D’Angelillo RM (2015) The first survey on defensive medicine in radiation oncology. Radiol Med 120(5):421–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lysfahl KB (2012) Utilization and utility of diagnostic imaging. Quantitative studies and normative considerations. University of Oslo. ISBN 978-82-8264-065-7Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sokol DK (2013) ‘First do no harm’ revisited. BMJ 25(347):f6426.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malone J, Zölzer F (2016) Pragmatic ethical basis for radiation protection in diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150713 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salerno S, Nardi C, Tudisca C, Matranga D et al (2018) Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients’ awareness about radiation risks? Radiol Med 123(10):788–798.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0909-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ICRP (2013) Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. ICRP Publication 121. Ann ICRP 42(2):12Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure. NEngl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Behbahani S et al (2017) “Incidentalomas” on abdominal and pelvic CT in emergency radiology: literature review and current management recommendations. Abdom Radiol 42:1046–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB et al (2005) Whole body CT screening spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 237:385–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hasan N, Kumar R, Kavuru MS (2014) Lung cancer screening beyond low-dose computed tomography: the role of novel biomarkers. Lung 192:639–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Myers RP, Fong A, Shaheen AA (2008) Utilization rates, communications and costs of percutaneous liver biopsy: a population-based study including 4275 biopsies. Liver Int 28:705–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moser KM, Fedullo PF, LitteJhon JK et al (1994) Frequent asymptomatic pulmonary embolism in patient with deep venous thrombosis. JAMA 271:223–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anderson DR, Khan SR, Rodger MA et al (2007) Computer tomographic pulmonary angiography vs ventilation-perfusion lung scanning in patients Wind suspected pulmonary embolism: a randomized controller trial. JAMA 298:2743–2753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    De Monaco NA, D’angelo Q, Kapoor WN et al (2008) Pulmonary embolism incidence in increasing with the use of spiral computer tomography. AJ Med 12:611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Colagrande S, Origgi D, Zatelli G, Giovagnoni A, Salerno S (2014) CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks. Radiol Med 119:803–810.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0393-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hopper KD, Landis JR, Meilstrup JW et al (1991) The prevalence of asymptomatic gallstones in the general population. Invest Radiol 26:939–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ezzat S, Sarti DA, Cain DR, Braunstein GD (1994) Thyroid incidentalomas. Prevalence by palpation and ultrasonography. Arch Int Med 154:1838–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fleshner N, Koltz L (2002) Role of “saturation biopsy” in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology 60:93–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Albin RJ (2010) The great prostate mistake. New York Times 10. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.html
  45. 45.
    Englund M, Guermazi A, Gale D et al (2008) Incidental Meniscal findings on knee MRI in middle-aged and elderly persons. N Engl J Med 359:1108–1115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kormick J, Trefelner E, McCarthy S et al (1990) Meniscal abnormalities in the asymptomatic population at MR imaging. Radiology 177:463–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadski MN, Obuchowski N et al (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 1994(331):69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cristofaro M, Busi Rizzi E, Schininà V et al (2011) Appropriateness: analysis of outpatient radiology request. Radiol Med.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0725-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Faletti C (2013) L’allarme dei Radiologi. Quotidiano sanità, October 4, 2013Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Linet MS et al (2012) Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin 62:75–100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vaiserman A et al (2018) Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation: current scientific debates and regulatory issues. Dose Response 16:112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ten Haaf K, de Koning HJ (2015) Overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening: why modelling is essential. J Epidemiol Community Health 69:1035–1039CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Newton EH (2017) Addressing overuse in emergency medicine: evidence of a role for greater patient engagement. Clin Exp Emerg Med 4:189–200CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Morris E et al (2015) Implications of overdiagnosis: impact on screening mammography practices. Popul Health Manag 18(Suppl 1):S3–S11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Carrier M et al (2010) Subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosed by computed tomography: incidence and clinical implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the management outcome studies. J Thromb Haemost 8:1716–1722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Puliti D et al (2012) Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):42–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Warren LM, Dance DR, Young KC (2016) Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography. Br J Radiol 89(1067):20150897CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hendrick RE, Helvie MA (2011) United States preventive services task force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR 196(2):W112-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Miglioretti DL et al (2016) Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening: a modelling study. Ann Intern Med 164:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Patz EF Jr et al (2014) Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med 174:269–274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    De Koning HJ et al (2014) Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modelling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 160:311–320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Usman Ali M et al (2016) Screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 89:301–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Moyer VA (2014) USPST force, screening for lung cancer US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160:330–338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Salerno S, Marrale M, Geraci C, Caruso G, Re GL, Casto AL, Midiri M (2016) Cumulative doses analysis in young trauma patients: a single-centre experience. La Radiol Med 121:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Humphrey LL et al (2013) Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 159:411–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rampinelli C et al (2017) Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis. BMJ 356:j347CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Crowley KD et al (2015) Comments on estimating risks of low radiation doses-a critical review of the BEIR VII report and its use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis by Edward J. Calabrese and Michael K. O’Connor. Radiat Res 183(4):476–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Drescher FS, Sirovich BE (2016) Use of computed tomography in emergency departments in the united states: a decade of coughs and colds. JAMA Intern Med 176:273–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant’Andrea University HospitalSapienza-University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental SciencesUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of RadiologySS Giovanni e Paolo HospitalVeniceItaly
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyCTO HospitalNaplesItaly
  6. 6.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Hopital Européen Georges Pompidou Paris APHPUniversité Paris-DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options