|
Advancing radiation safety, quality assurance, and scientific integrity in medical imaging: Highlights from the physics sessions of IRC 2025
|
H. Mozdarani   , M. Bakhshandeh , H. Keivan , V. Changizi , O. Azadbakht , H. Zamani , R.K. Samani , E. Soleimani , S.M.J. Mortazavi |
| Department of Radiology Technology, School of Allied Medical Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Mohsen Bakhshandeh |
|
|
Abstract: (271 Views) |
The Physics Sessions of the 40th Iranian Congress of Radiology (IRC 2025) focused on improving patient safety, diagnostic accuracy, and evidence-based practice across ionizing and non-ionizing imaging modalities. The lectures emphasized that high-quality imaging requires effective radiation protection, rigorous quality assurance (QA), and well-trained professionals. A major theme of the congress was the development of a strong radiation safety culture based on justification, optimization (ALARA), and dose limitation. Speakers highlighted the importance of leadership, structured education, standardized safety protocols, and transparent communication in reducing unnecessary radiation exposure to patients and healthcare workers. Another key topic was quality control in diagnostic imaging. Properly implemented QA programs improve image quality while minimizing radiation dose. Monitoring parameters such as spatial and contrast resolution, image noise, artifacts, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) is essential for maintaining diagnostic reliability and reducing repeat examinations. The congress also reviewed evolving evidence regarding patient lead shielding. Recent findings indicate that routine shielding may provide limited benefit in modern imaging systems and can occasionally interfere with automatic exposure control (AEC) or image quality. Current radiation protection strategies increasingly emphasize optimized imaging parameters, precise collimation, and avoidance of repeat imaging. Sessions on neonatal and obstetric ultrasound safety stressed the importance of monitoring Thermal Index (TI) and Mechanical Index (MI), minimizing scan duration, and improving operator awareness. Discussions on the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model concluded that despite evidence of non-linear biological responses at low doses, the LNT model remains a practical and conservative framework for radiation protection policy. |
|
| Keywords: Radiation safety culture, ALARA, ultrasound safety, linear no-threshold model, medical imaging optimization. |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 572 kb]
(75 Downloads)
|
|
Type of Study: News and Features |
Subject:
Radiation Biology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
|
1. 1. Hall EJ and Giaccia AJ (2018) Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 8th ed: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2. Valentin J (2007) International commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication No.103. 3. Little JB (2000) Radiation carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis, 21(3): 397-404. [ DOI:10.1093/carcin/21.3.397] 4. NCRP Report No. 184 (2018) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 5. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM (2009) The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology, 251(1): 13-22. [ DOI:10.1148/radiol.2511080671] 6. Mozdarani H (2012) Biological complexities in radiation carcinogenesis and cancer radiotherapy: impact of new biological paradigms. Genes, 3(1):90-114. [ DOI:10.3390/genes3010090] 7. Radiation UNSCotEoA. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation, united nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation (UNSCEAR) 2013 report, volume II: Scientific Annex B-Effects of radiation exposure of children: United Nations; 2014. 8. Wojcik A and Zölzer F (2024) The scientific nature of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model used in the system of radiological protection. Radiat Environ Biophys, 63(4): 483-9. [ DOI:10.1007/s00411-024-01092-1] 9. Kanani A, Krasowska J, Fornalski KW, Bevelacqua JJ, Welsh J, Mortazavi S (2025) Adaptive response: A scoping review of its implications in medicine, space exploration, and beyond. Dose Response, 23(3): 15593258251360051. [ DOI:10.1177/15593258251360051] 10. Mortazavi S, Rabiee S, Fallah A, Rashidfar R, Seyyedi Z, Vafapour H, et al. (2025) Adaptive Responses in high-radiation environments: Insights from chernobyl wildlife and ramsar residents. Dose Response, 23(4):15593258251385632. [ DOI:10.1177/15593258251385632] 11. Brooks AL and Couch L (2006) DOE program--developing a scientific basis for responses to low-dose exposures: impact on dose-response relationships. Dose Response, 5(1): 11-25. [ DOI:10.2203/dose-response.06-001.Brooks] 12. Barnett S and Maulik D (2001) Guidelines and recommendations for safe use of Doppler ultrasound in perinatal applications. Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 10(2): 75-84. [ DOI:10.1080/jmf.10.2.75.84] 13. Lalzad A, Wong F, Schneider M (2017) Neonatal cranial ultrasound: are current safety guidelines appropriate? Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 43(3): 553-60. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.11.002] 14. Fatahi Asl J, Farzanegan Z, Tahmasbi M, Birgani SM, Malekzade M, Yazdaninejad H (2021) Evaluation of the scan duration and mechanical and thermal indices applied for the diagnostic ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med, 40(9): 1839-50. [ DOI:10.1002/jum.15565] 15. Church CC and Miller MW (2007) Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 93(1-3): 331-53. [ DOI:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2006.07.015] 16. Rosman NP, Vassar R, Doros G, DeRosa J, Froman A, DiMauro A, et al. (2018) Association of prenatal ultrasonography and autism spectrum disorder. JAMA Pediatr, 172(4): 336-44. [ DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5634] 17. Bromley B, Spitz J, Fuchs K, Thornburg LL (2014) Do clinical practitioners seeking credentialing for nuchal translucency measurement demonstrate compliance with biosafety recommendations? Experience of the nuchal translucency quality review program. J Ultrasound Med, 33(7): 1209-14. [ DOI:10.7863/ultra.33.7.1209] 18. Mashiane SE, van Dyk B, Casmod Y (2019) Ultrasound biosafety: Knowledge and opinions of health practitioners who perform obstetric scans in South Africa. Health SA, 24: 1028. [ DOI:10.4102/hsag.v24i0.1028] |
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
|
Mozdarani H, Bakhshandeh M, Keivan H, Changizi V, Azadbakht O, Zamani H, et al . Advancing radiation safety, quality assurance, and scientific integrity in medical imaging: Highlights from the physics sessions of IRC 2025. Int J Radiat Res 2026; 24 (3) :921-924 URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-7265-en.html
|
