Radiation Safety and Accidental Radiation Exposures in Nuclear Medicine

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in prostate cancer. Radiolabeled small molecules that bind with high affinity to its active extracellular center have emerged as a potential new diagnostic standard of reference for prostate cancer, resulting in images with extraordinary tumor-to-background contrast. Currently, gallium 68 (68Ga)-PSMA-11 (or HBED-PSMA) is the most widely used radiotracer for PSMA positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) or PSMA PET/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Evolving evidence demonstrates superior sensitivity and specificity of PSMA PET compared to conventional imaging, with frequent identification of subcentimeter prostate cancer lesions. PSMA PET is effective for imaging disease in the prostate, lymph nodes, soft tissue, and bone in a "one-stop-shop" examination. There is emerging evidence for its clinical value in staging of high-risk primary prostate cancer and localization of disease in biochemical recurrence. The high sensitivity provided by PSMA PET, with frequent identification of small-volume disease, is redefining patterns of disease spread compared with those seen at conventional imaging. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, PSMA PET is frequently used for theranostic selection (eg, lutetium 177-PSMA radionuclide therapy), but its potential use for therapy monitoring is still under debate. However, evidence on its proper use to improve patient-related outcomes, particularly in the setting of early biochemical recurrence and targeted treatment of oligometastatic disease, is still missing. Despite the term prostate specific, PSMA functions as a folate hydrolase and is expressed in a range of normal tissues and in other benign and malignant processes. Knowledge of its physiologic distribution and other causes of uptake is essential to minimize false-positive imaging findings. ©RSNA, 2018.

Abstract Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3–5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies. Nonetheless, the meaning of the terms “error” and “discrepancy” and the relationship to medical negligence are frequently misunderstood. This review outlines the incidence of such events, the ways they can be categorized to aid understanding, and potential contributing factors, both human- and system-based. Possible strategies to minimise error are considered, along with the means of dealing with perceived underperformance when it is identified. The inevitability of imperfection is explained, while the importance of striving to minimise such imperfection is emphasised. Teaching Points • Discrepancies between radiology reports and subsequent patient outcomes are not inevitably errors. • Radiologist reporting performance cannot be perfect, and some errors are inevitable. • Error or discrepancy in radiology reporting does not equate negligence. • Radiologist errors occur for many reasons, both human- and system-derived. • Strategies exist to minimise error causes and to learn from errors made.