EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 3 P.M. (CT) TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012
Media Advisory: To contact Rebecca Smith-Bindman, M.D., call Jason Bardi at 415-502-4608 or email email@example.com. To contact editorial co-author George T. O’Connor, M.D., M.S., call Gina DiGravio at 617-638-8480 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
CHICAGO – Among six large integrated health care systems between 1996 and 2010 there was a substantial increase in the use of advanced diagnostic imaging, including approximately a tripling of the use of computed tomography and nearly a quadrupling of the use of magnetic resonance imaging, as well as a substantial increase in estimated radiation exposure, according to a study in the June 13 issue of JAMA.
“The use of diagnostic imaging in the Medicare population has increased significantly over the last 2 decades, particularly using expensive new technologies such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear medicine positron emission tomography (PET). The development and improvement in these advanced diagnostic imaging technologies is widely credited with leading to earlier and more accurate diagnoses of disease using noninvasive techniques,” according to background information in the article. The authors note that computed tomography and nuclear medicine examinations deliver much higher doses of ionizing radiation than conventional radiographs, and evidence has linked exposure to radiation levels in this range with the development of radiation-induced cancers.
“Most studies that have evaluated patterns of diagnostic imaging have assessed insurance claims for fee-for-service insured populations where financial incentives encourage imaging. No large, multisite studies have assessed imaging trends in integrated health care delivery systems that are clinically and fiscally accountable for the outcomes and health status of the population served. Understanding imaging utilization and associated radiation exposure in these settings could help us determine how much of the increase in imaging may be independent of direct financial incentives,” the researchers write.
Rebecca Smith-Bindman, M.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues conducted a study to estimate trends in imaging utilization and associated radiation exposure among members of integrated health care systems. The study consisted of an analysis of electronic records of members of 6 large integrated health systems from different regions of the United States. Review of medical records allowed estimation of radiation exposure from selected tests. Between 1 million and 2 million member-patients were included each year from 1996 to 2010. Enrollees underwent a total of 30.9 million imaging examinations during the study period, reflecting an average of 1.18 tests per person per year, of which 35 percent involved advanced diagnostic imaging (i.e., CT, MRI, nuclear medicine, and ultrasound).
The researchers found that use of radiography and angiography/fluoroscopy rates were relatively stable over time: radiography increased 1.2 percent per year, and angiography/fluoroscopy decreased 1.3 percent per year. “In contrast, the utilization of advanced diagnostic imaging changed markedly. Computed tomography examinations tripled (52/1000 enrollees in 1996 to 149/1000 in 2010, 7.8 percent annual growth); MRIs quadrupled (17/1000 to 65/1000,10 percent annual growth); ultrasounds approximately doubled over the same period (134/1000 to 230/1000, 3.9 percent annual growth). Nuclear medicine rates decreased (32/1000 to 21/1000, 3 percent annual decline), although after 2004, PET imaging rates increased from 0.24 per 1,000 enrollees to 3.6 per 1,000 enrollees, 57 percent annual growth.”
The authors also found that the increase in the utilization of CT was associated with an increase in estimated exposure to radiation, with the average per capita effective dose increasing from 1.2 mSv in 1996 to 2.3 mSv in 2010. The percent of enrollees who received high (> 20-30 mSv) or very high (> 50 mSv) radiation exposure during a given year also approximately doubled across study years. The researchers also estimated that by 2010, 2.5 percent of enrollees received a high annual dose of greater than 20 to 50 mSv, and 1.4 percent received a very high annual dose of greater than 50 mSv. By 2010, 6.8 percent of patients who underwent imaging received a high dose of more than 20 to 50 mSv and 3.9 percent of patients received a very high dose above 50 mSv during this single year.
The researchers write that the “increase in imaging use over this period was likely driven by many factors, including improvements in the technology that have led to expansion of clinical applications, patient- and physician-generated demand, defensive medical practices, and medical uncertainly—all factors that would be expected to influence utilization across all systems of medical care.”
“The increase in use of advanced diagnostic imaging has almost certainly contributed to both improved patient care processes and outcomes, but there are remarkably few data to quantify the benefits of imaging. Given the high costs of imaging—estimated at $100 billion annually—and the potential risks of cancer and other harms, these benefits should be quantified and evidence-based guidelines for using imaging should be developed that clearly balance benefits against financial costs and health risk.”
(JAMA. 2012;307:2400-2409. Available pre-embargo to the media at http://media.jamanetwork.com)
Editor’s Note: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network Across Health Care Systems and grants from the National Institutes of Health. All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.
Please Note: For this study, there will be multimedia content available, including the JAMA Report video, embedded and downloadable video, audio files, text, documents, and related links. This content will be available at 3 p.m. CT Tuesday, June 12 at this link.
Editorial: Lung Cancer Screening, Radiation, Risks, Benefits, and Uncertainty
George T. O’Connor, M.D., M.S., of the Boston University School of Medicine, and Contributing Editor, JAMA, and Hiroto Hatabu, M.D., Ph.D., of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, write in an accompanying editorial that while the data from this study and another recent report indicate that a nontrivial number of patients in the United States receive a high or very high annual exposure to ionizing radiation from imaging studies in a given year, “these data are not linked to clinical outcomes and do not reveal whether the radiation risks from these imaging studies are outweighed by the health benefits provided by the diagnostic information obtained.”
“The data also cannot address how much of this testing is driven by defensive practice styles due to concerns about malpractice. They do, however, suggest that clinicians need to consider—and discuss with their patients—radiation risks when ordering diagnostic tests, possibly taking into account the cumulative radiation exposure a patient has received in recent months or years. Furthermore, the radiation risks and financial costs of advanced diagnostic imaging clearly warrant more research, including studies using informatics infrastructures such as that used by Smith-Bindman et al, to enhance decision support to guide the use of these technologies.”
(JAMA. 2012;307:2434-2435. Available pre-embargo to the media at http://media.jamanetwork.com)
Editor’s Note: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr. O’Connor reported no conflicts. Dr. Hatabu reported receiving research grant support from Toshiba Medical, Canon and AZE.
# # #