Krystal Bowen Professor Leslie Wolcott ENC 1102 April, 5,2013

Literature Review
Introduction: Radiology is a field of medicine that is continuously evolving in the medical community because growth is imperative for improving patients overall health care and furthering the technological advances that are vital to the development within this discourse community. Recent studies have focused on the impact of repeated radiation exposure that exposes patients to ionizing ions which has a correlation with the development of cariogenic cells (cancer cells). This new research focuses on the parallel between patients who go into the hospital for injures varying from blunt force trauma, to cancer because they commonly are treated with CT and PET scans as a way for physicians to effectively uncover what lies below the surface to help with the diagnostic process. In order to find out if there is a link between radiation exposure and cancer, various test were conducted and they discovered that it is not the test that are causing the cancer in patients but the lack of documentation which leads to repetitious exposure to the ions of radiation that are commonly ignored, and could potentially get stimulated somewhere within the body and form carcinoma. Overall it was imperative to uncover if there was causation to this correlation because it should be known who is at greater risk,

and what could potentially be a solution to exposure. Now the next necessary step is to educate not only physicians and their staff, but also the public. Lack of guidelines for children undergoing imaging: Radiologist commonly use the computed tomography scan for a diagnostic tool because of its great imaging quality and its efficiency. As a result whenever children require evaluation for significant trauma they will typically get a CT scan, however there are no guidelines or assessment to measure impact on children despite the intensity of the radiation released. Radiation dosage is magnified in children due to their small body size, making them more susceptible to the long-term carcinogenic effects of radiation. Yet the question rarely arises whether to determine if the liberal attitude towards children diagnostic process is appropriate, because of its overall long-term potential repercussions of exposing them to radiation due to scans. In recent years people have become more aware and concerned over the radiation exposure delivered to kids through the imaging process. Resulting in a national campaign that promotes imaging gently. Despite the constant unfolding of information and research that has taken place there still has yet to be set guidelines that have been developed, however over recent years it has been determined that less of these scans are being done on children. Doctors who are looking for alternatives and are unaware: Overall the research between the correlation of radiation and causing cancer is new within this discourse community so many physicians are unaware and are leaving not only themselves but also their staff and patients defenseless. The studys are not proposing that if anyone is exposed to radiation because of the imagining process will automatically develop carcinoma, it is on the contrary advocating the need for regulatory

usage and the need for alternative methods as a form of preventative action. The interchange of the various procedures that cancer patients go through over the period of their treatment results in them having a higher risk of radiation exposure than the average patient. Radiologists have now recently began to start performing alternative procedures in order to decrease the risk of contact, it includes regulating the use of radiation if possible during interventional procedures, and documentation of dosage given. In addition radiologist are somewhat starting to feel obligated to hold regular staff radiation safety educational programs, because they are exposed to small amounts of it daily due their jobs in the department. Largely radiologists are becoming more aware and are starting to consistently use procedures that reduce additional exposure in order to be preventative. This is important because this is a major not only scientific development in the community but also a moral one, because prior to the extensive research that has validated these question physicians would not inform there staff or use alternative methods despite it being equally as effective and cheaper that the scans. Conclusion: As a result of new questions being asked in this community a wave of new research has been done to determine how radiation can lead to cancer in patients. There has also been research on who is affected and if there needs to be a change in diagnostic methodology. With more people having cancer and people continuously getting injured the need for imaging will never change, but is more likely to increase in use. However, as more research is done on this new development it is prevalent that it is becoming necessary for all physicians need to give more attention to educating one another, their

staff and patients in order to close the gap between there discourse community and the public. Overall I found the lack of t of knowledge to patients through advertisements or PR campaigns to be quite alarming particularly because it was only mentioned in only one article. In addition to that which is a subsidiary of Food and Drug Administration, did a study to determine if patients should be given informed consent forms in order to communicate the risks of radiation-induced cancer due to radiation based imaging. Unfortunately despite that attempt nothing was done physicians disagreed on what was the best way to give this knowledge to patients, as a result nothing much became of it. This is precisely why there should be a convention were they discuss the prior research and create a format either through patients consent forms or through various educational tools i.e.(brochures, pamphlets).

Work Cited:
Racadio, JM. "Controlling Radiation Exposure During Interventional Procedures In Childhood Cancer Patients." Pediatric Radiology 39.(n.d.): S71-S73.Science Citation Index. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. Ronald M. Stewart, et al. "Pediatric Radiation Exposure During The Initial Evaluation For Blunt Trauma."Journal Of Trauma Injury Infection And Critical Care70.3 (n.d.): 724-730. Biological Abstracts 1969 - Present. Web. 1 Mar. 2013.

Scaife, ER, and MD Rollins. "Managing Radiation Risk In The Evaluation Of The Pediatric Trauma Patient." Seminars In Pediatric Surgery 19.4 (n.d.): 252256. Science Citation Index. Web. 8 Mar. 2013. Seidenbusch, MC, and K Schneider. "Radiation Exposure Of Children In Pediatric Radiology - Part 1: Referral Criteria And X-Ray Examination Frequencies At A University Children's Hospital Between 1976 And 2003." Rofo-Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiet Der Rontgenstrahlen Und Der Bildgebenden Verfahren180.5 (n.d.): 410-422. Science Citation Index. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. S Simoneaux, et al. "What Physicians Think About The Need For Informed Consent For Communicating The Risk Of Cancer From Low-Dose Radiation." Pediatric Radiology39.9 (n.d.): 917-925. Science Citation Index. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. T Inoue, et al. "Evaluation Of The Risk Of Radiation Exposure From New 18FDG PET/CT Plans Versus Conventional X-Ray Plans In Patients With Pediatric Cancers."Annals Of Nuclear Medicine 24.4 (n.d.): 261-267.Science Citation Index. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.