Justification of CT for Individual Health Assessment of Asymptomatic Persons: A World Health Organization Consultation

被引:8
作者
Malone, Jim [1 ]
Perez, Maria del Rosario [2 ]
Friberg, Eva Godske [3 ]
Prokop, Mathias [4 ]
Jung, Seung Eun [5 ]
Griebel, Jurgen [6 ]
Ebdon-Jackson, Steve [7 ]
机构
[1] St James Hosp, Trinity Ctr Hlth Sci, Sch Med, Dublin, Ireland
[2] WHO, Dept Publ Hlth Environm & Social Determinants Hlt, Radiat Programme, Geneva, Switzerland
[3] Norwegian Radiat Protect Author, Sect Med Applicat, Dept Radiat Applicat, Osteras, Norway
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Radiol Nucl Med, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Catholic Univ Korea, Seoul St Marys Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[6] BfS, Neuherberg, Germany
[7] Publ Hlth England, Directorate CRCE, Didcot, Oxon, England
关键词
Radiation risk; CT scans; justification; asymptomatic; ethics; public health; WHO; IHA; BREAST-CANCER MORTALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.020
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
An international expert consultation was convened by the World Health Organization (WHO). The purpose of the meeting was to review the use of CT in examining asymptomatic people. This is often referred to as individual health assessment (IHA). IHA was identified as a global phenomenon unenthusiastically tolerated, and not actively promoted, structured, or regulated in most countries. This paper identifies the state of the art for IHA and some considerations in relation to its justification, in different regions of the world. The outcomes reached include the following: questions around terminology and culture of IHA practice; review of IHA in some countries, regions, and international bodies; dilemmas for participants in IHA; risk communication, education, and training for professions and public; the desirability of guidelines and clinical audit; social, ethical, public health, and resource considerations; and a framework for IHA and regulatory considerations. Three subcategories of examination for asymptomatic individuals were identified: formal screening programs; examinations for which the evidence base or risk profile is incomplete; and opportunistic examinations with little or no evidence or risk profile to suggest they have any merit. The latter challenges the justification principle of radiation protection. In addition, the issue of the costs, direct and indirect, associated with false positives and/or equivocal/incidental findings were highlighted These and other considerations make it difficult to view some IHA as a bona fide medical activity. To allow it to be viewed as such requires that it be conducted within a robust clinical governance framework that includes regulatory dimensions.
引用
收藏
页码:1447 / 1457
页数:11
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
Amis E Stephen Jr, 2007, J Am Coll Radiol, V4, P272, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.03.002
[2]  
[Anonymous], EXPOSURE ASYMPTOMATI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 12 REP IMP PERS IN X
[4]  
[Anonymous], MED RAD EXP EUR PO 1
[5]  
[Anonymous], 16 REP PAT RAD DOS I
[6]  
[Anonymous], IMPROVING QUALITY CU
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2009, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement report No. 160: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States
[8]  
[Anonymous], JUSTIFICATION TOOLS
[9]  
[Anonymous], M REP JUST US RAD ME
[10]  
[Anonymous], JUST COMP TOM CT IND