Zener R, et al. - An analysis was performed to investigate the patient perception of radiation-related cancer risk from interventional radiology (IR) procedures and whether informed radiation consent was warranted. Several patients desired to discuss cancer-related radiation risks with both radiologists and physicians. Informed radiation consent was recommended for procedures with high anticipated radiation doses.

Methods

• The researchers prospectively administered a multiple-choice survey to 68 adults undergoing a body or neuro-IR procedure with ionizing radiation exposure.
• They performed subgroup analysis with chi-square or Fisher exact test based on patient past IR history (P < .05).

Results

• Findings revealed that 81% of patients desired to be informed if there was a radiation-related 3% increased cancer risk over 5 years.
• Although 55% considered 3% a small risk, 28% wanted additional discussion about the risks and alternate options, and 15% agreed to proceed if it were a life-saving procedure: 89%, 80%, and 67% of patients wanted to be informed with exposure risks of 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, and 1 in 10,000, respectively.
• Irrespective of past IR history (P=.15), only 53% were aware that they were going to be exposed to radiation.
• Most patients believed that radiation consent required inclusion of radiation-related cancer risks (85%).
• The researchers found no significant association of past IR history with wanting consent to include cancer-related risk (100% vs 76%; P=.01) and deterministic risks (70% vs 41%; P=.04).
• Both the referring physician and the interventional radiologist were believed to be responsible for obtaining radiation consent, by a majority (69%) of the patients .
• Regardless of past IR history, 65% of patients wanted verbal consent followed by signed written consent.