Register for Updates | Search | Contacts | Site Map | Member Login


View Comment

Submitted by Peter Hiles, British Institute of Radiology
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document Radiological Protection in Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

The report is very comprehensive and fills a gap where there has been a lack of discussion and consensus on the safety aspects of this exciting imaging modality.

Just a few comments:

1) The report probably needs to emphasis the fact that CBCT is also called 3D imaging. Our clinical colleagues tend to know it as 3D and may not understand the title which solely mentions ‘Cone Beam Computed Tomography CBCT’. 3D is certainly mentioned within the content of the report however it should also be in the glossary if not in the title itself.

 2) Recent radiation safety guidance and legislation endorses the importance of multi-disciplinary working. It may be useful to include a recommendation endorsing the importance of this especially with regard to dose and image quality optimisation.

3) there have been moves in USA and Europe to help define "suitably qualified expert" (line 1561). These could be referenced.

4) From line 1816: it is suggested that the report recommends development of AEC and its use should, as this can help to reduce patient dose.