FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2082492426> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2082492426 endingPage "409" @default.
• W2082492426 startingPage "407" @default.
• W2082492426 abstract "This issue of the Journal contains a summary1 of proceedings of a think tank on patient radiation safety in adult cardiology, held in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia in February 2011. The summit was convened by the Duke Clinical Research Institute together with the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, and included participation by numerous professional societies sharing this concern, including ASNC. The think tank included a plenary session with talks on various aspects of the problem of patient radiation safety by luminaries in cardiac imaging as well as by industry and regulatory experts, a friendly debate on the benefits and risks of ionizing radiation for cardiovascular care, and breakout groups which developed goals—and strategies for accomplishing these goals—related to four critical issues: risk estimation, measuring and reporting radiation dose, dose-reduction strategies, and education and communication about radiation.An emphasis of the think tank and its proceedings, and reflected by its range of participants, is the need to engage the panoply of stakeholders with interests in patient radiation safety (Table 1). These range from basic and applied research scientists, who provide us with the data on radiation’s biological effects and the data and models used to quantify and compare radiation dose and risk, all of which inform our positions as clinicians towards the role and scope of radiation protection efforts2; to practitioners including various stripes of cardiologists, our staffs, and safety specialists such as medical physicists; to organizations which accredit and pay us; to the national and international organizations dedicated to radiation safety. Of course, all of these efforts begin and end with the patient, and reflecting this, one of the most popular talks at the think tank was that delivered by the patient advocate. Sustained efforts to ensure continuous quality improvement in the realm of radiation safety will require greater collaboration and communication between these stakeholders, as the base of expertise needed to ensure best practices will always be divided among these groups, and the responsibility to patients will always remain a shared effort.Table 1Stakeholders in the Radiological Protection of Patients*Indeed, ASNC is currently participating in numerous partnerships with other stakeholders to improve radiation safety for patients. These include 1) the Image Wisely™ campaign3, a multi-societal program spearheaded by radiology and medical physics societies aimed at lowering the amount of radiation used in medically necessary imaging studies as well as eliminating unneeded procedures; 2) the similarly-named but distinct Choosing Wisely™ program4 of the ABIM Foundation together with Consumer Reports and nine medical specialty organizations, aimed at sparking discussion between physicians and patients about the need for common medical tests and treatments that provide little benefit yet may harm (Table 2); 3) research and educational efforts together with the International Atomic Energy Agency and European Council of Nuclear Cardiology; and 4) a forthcoming conference, organized jointly with the Society for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, dedicated to improving laboratory practices for patient radiation safety.Table 2ASNC/Choosing Wisely’s List of Five Commonly-Used Nuclear Cardiology Procedures Whose Necessity Should Be Questioned or Discussed*Illustrating the importance of such cooperation, this clinically-driven think tank identified as a priority the intensification of basic and translational research into mechanisms of low-dose radiation effects. Such mechanisms include the bystander effect, a phenomenon through which irradiated cells can induce mutagenesis in neighboring unirradiated cells5, the adaptive response, through which previous exposure to a low “priming” dose of radiation may be cytoprotective against a subsequent larger dose6, and genomic instability, by which radiation exposure induces cellular instability that is transmitted to progeny cells, persistently increasing their rates of genetic changes.7 These phenomena and their convergence may result in cancer risks from low-dose radiation that are lower or higher than would be expected from the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis8, and thus their elucidation have potentially important clinical implications. The think tank proceedings communicate the need, as perceived by practicing physicians, for support of research into basic radiobiology. In fact the primary mechanism for funding such research, the Low Dose Radiation Research Program of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, has been threatened by recent budget cuts.9 Ultimately the interests of patients would be best served here by cooperation between stakeholders as varied as nuclear cardiologists, geneticists, and legislators.Appropriately, the think tank proceedings provide recommendations aimed at all stakeholders, not just cardiologists. What are some take-home messages that this document delivers specifically for the practitioner? The breakout group on reporting dose recommended ensuring consistent and complete recording in reports of radiation exposure and parameters required to estimate dose. For nuclear cardiology studies, this means we need to document in our reports the radiopharmaceutical(s) used and their administered activities (mCi). The breakout group on dose reduction strategies emphasized education to create a more uniform understanding and approach to dose minimization techniques. For nuclear cardiologists, ASNC has published several documents addressing dose reduction approaches and strategies10–12, which are worthy of study and implementation in our practices, and numerous talks at the annual meeting in Baltimore will focus on radiological protection, including an entire session on the theme of “Radiation Safety in Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT.” The breakout group on education and communication identified the need to disseminate best practices, including use of appropriateness guidelines and laboratory accreditation. Such appropriate use criteria exist and are regularly updated for radionuclide imaging13; these also merit careful study and implementation. Three organizations—the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission, the American College of Radiology, and the Joint Commission—offer the opportunity to have our laboratories accredited.Thus, by taking concrete efforts to improve radiation safety in our own practices, and by working together with a wide range of stakeholders to create a culture of safety, we can move towards the twin goals of keeping radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and keeping the benefits-to-risks balance of cardiac imaging as high as reasonably achievable (AHARA).1 As pointed out in the think tank proceedings, this is an ongoing process. While the Tyson’s Corner think tank represented neither a beginning nor an end of this journey, it served as an important meeting point to share ideas and set goals with a broad spectrum of experts, and a milestone along the road of progress for radiation protection in cardiovascular medicine." @default.
• W2082492426 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2082492426 creator A5042867497 @default.
• W2082492426 date "2012-04-27" @default.
• W2082492426 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2082492426 title "Lessons for Nuclear Cardiology from the DCRI/ACCF/AHA radiation think tank" @default.
• W2082492426 cites W1490630562 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W1566202000 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W1985223371 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W1992433767 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W2051567142 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W2052159889 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W2070715384 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W2084491525 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W2132305988 @default.
• W2082492426 cites W2901929978 @default.
• W2082492426 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-012-9566-1" @default.
• W2082492426 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3371275" @default.
• W2082492426 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22538765" @default.
• W2082492426 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2082492426 type Work @default.
• W2082492426 sameAs 2082492426 @default.
• W2082492426 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2082492426 countsByYear W20824924262014 @default.
• W2082492426 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2082492426 hasAuthorship W2082492426A5042867497 @default.
• W2082492426 hasBestOaLocation W20824924261 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConceptScore W2082492426C126322002 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConceptScore W2082492426C164705383 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConceptScore W2082492426C19527891 @default.
• W2082492426 hasConceptScore W2082492426C71924100 @default.
• W2082492426 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2082492426 hasLocation W20824924261 @default.
• W2082492426 hasLocation W20824924262 @default.
• W2082492426 hasLocation W20824924263 @default.
• W2082492426 hasLocation W20824924264 @default.
• W2082492426 hasOpenAccess W2082492426 @default.
• W2082492426 hasPrimaryLocation W20824924261 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2008851126 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2011347913 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2049397185 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2073151595 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2074833529 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2125804349 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2159512267 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2304633692 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2355498105 @default.
• W2082492426 hasRelatedWork W2399063111 @default.
• W2082492426 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W2082492426 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2082492426 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2082492426 magId "2082492426" @default.
• W2082492426 workType "article" @default.