Beth A. Schueler

This slide presentation uses real-world examples from diverse modern systems to categorize digital radiographic artifacts by likely cause and outlines investigation and mitigation strategies to improve troubleshooting, artifact prevention, and patient care.

Purpose: Since the initial edition of this Guideline was published in 2010, it has become increasingly clear that occupational protection involves more than just radiation protection. Additionally, radiation exposure to operators and staff occurs from sources other than fluoroscopy. This Guideline has been updated to incorporate these topics and to reflect new information on occupational protection in interventional radiology. Methods: The CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee, in conjunction with SIR, established a writing panel of twelve clinicians, medical physics experts, and others with internationally recognised expertise in occupational protection in interventional radiology. The writing panel identified regulations, guidelines, and radiation protection documents from international and national sources, including governments, radiation protection organizations, and professional associations. Additionally, the writing panel performed a pragmatic search on PubMed for relevant studies published in English between 2011 and 2025. The final recommendations were developed by consensus. Results: The revised Guideline provides advice and guidance to physicians, radiographers, nurses, medical physics experts, and all other staff involved in interventional radiology. It also includes an online-only Annex with additional, in-depth coverage of several of the included topics.

Data suggest that radiation-induced cataracts may form without a threshold and at low-radiation doses. Staff involved in interventional radiology and cardiology fluoroscopy-guided procedures have the potential to be exposed to radiation levels that may lead to eye lens injury and the occurrence of opacifications have been reported. Estimates of lens dose for various fluoroscopy procedures and predicted annual dosages have been provided in numerous publications. Available tools for eye lens radiation protection include accessory shields, drapes and glasses. While some tools are valuable, others provide limited protection to the eye. Reducing patient radiation dose will also reduce occupational exposure. Significant variability in reported dose measurements indicate dose levels are highly dependent on individual actions and exposure reduction is possible. Further follow-up studies of staff lens opacification are recommended along with eye lens dose measurements under current clinical practice conditions.

The effectiveness of commercially available radiation protection devices for operators performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures is variable, and information regarding device use...

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM’s Executive Committee May 28, 2019

Introduction: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Image acquisition technique varies across mammograms to limit radiation and produce a clinically useful image. We examined whether acquisition technique parameters at the time of mammography were associated with mammographic density and whether the acquisition parameters confounded the density and breast cancer association. Methods: We examined this question within the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS) cohort, comprised of 19,924 women (51.2% of eligible) seen in the Mayo Clinic mammography screening practice from 2003 to 2006. A case-cohort design, comprising 318 incident breast cancers diagnosed through December 2009 and a random subcohort of 2,259, was used to examine potential confounding of mammogram acquisition technique parameters (x-ray tube voltage peak (kVp), milliampere-seconds (mAs), thickness and compression force) on the density and breast cancer association. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System four-category tissue composition measure (BI-RADS) and percent density (PD) (Cumulus program) were estimated from screen-film mammograms at time of enrollment. Spearman correlation coefficients (r) and means (standard deviations) were used to examine the relationship of density measures with acquisition parameters. Hazard ratios (HR) and C-statistics were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for age, menopausal status, body mass index and postmenopausal hormones. A change in the HR of at least 15% indicated confounding. Results: Adjusted PD and BI-RADS density were associated with breast cancer (p-trends < 0.001), with a 3 to 4-fold increased risk in the extremely dense vs. fatty BI-RADS categories (HR: 3.0, 95% CI, 1.7 - 5.1) and the ≥ 25% vs. ≤ 5% PD categories (HR: 3.8, 95% CI, 2.5 - 5.9). Of the acquisition parameters, kVp was not correlated with PD (r = 0.04, p = 0.07). Although thickness (r = -0.27, p < 0.001), compression force (r = -0.16, p < 0.001), and mAs (r = -0.06, p = 0.008) were inversely correlated with PD, they did not confound the PD or BI-RADS associations with breast cancer and their inclusion did not improve discriminatory accuracy. Results were similar for associations of dense and non-dense area with breast cancer. Conclusions: We confirmed a strong association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk that was not confounded by mammogram acquisition technique.