Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences最新文献

This correspondence is in response to the Letter to the Editor “Evaluating Proton Versus Photon Therapy: A Call for Nuanced Decision-Making”. A balanced evidence-based approach that is patient-centred is needed when deciding between proton versus photon radiotherapy.

Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answering the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.

This editorial provides insight into value-based healthcare in Australia, including organisations such as New South Wales (NSW) Health, which has a focus on implementing and scaling value-based healthcare. This includes exemplary programmes in applying value-based principles in commissioning medical imaging services and expanding hypofractionation radiation therapy for breast cancer patients across the system. This special issue also showcases research in value-based healthcare and its application in medical radiation sciences in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), computed tomography (CT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy.

Poster Abstracts – Student Conference

Introduction: Radiographer preliminary image evaluation (PIE) is a patient safety mechanism where radiographers provide a written comment describing potential pathology in radiographs they have acquired. This can assist emergency referrers in making a diagnosis when a radiologist's report is unavailable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of radiographer PIE in interpreting paediatric trauma radiographs in an Australian emergency department.

Methods: A randomised sample of paediatric radiographic examinations (aged 16 years and under) from January 2022 to June 2023 was retrospectively reviewed. The anatomical regions reviewed included the appendicular and axial skeleton, chest and abdomen. The PIE for each examination was compared to the radiologist report to indicate if the radiographer's evaluation was a true negative/positive or false negative/positive value. This was used to calculate mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy. Discrepant PIE interpretations were further investigated.

Results: A total of 498 PIEs were reviewed. The overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 93.3%, 84.3% and 98.1%, respectively. Cases with no participation and those marked as unsure for pathology represented 0.4% and 2.6% of the sample, respectively. The extremities were identified as a region frequently misinterpreted.

Conclusion: Radiographers in this study maintained a high diagnostic accuracy in interpreting paediatric radiographs. PIE may complement the emergency referrer's diagnosis when a radiologist report is unavailable to promote appropriate and timely treatment for paediatric patients in the emergency department. Further research with a larger sample may support targeted training to improve PIE performance in regions frequently misinterpreted.

This brief overview of the current state of clinician performed focused ultrasound (Emergency PoCUS) by emergency practitioners in Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) has touched on its history, scope of practice both mandated and context-dependent, complex embedding in clinical diagnostic reasoning and range of governance issues. It is the author's hope that an ongoing understanding and interplay between the three professional groups most closely involved in the use of ultrasound to improve patient care and health-care flow can continue to work closely together for the ultimate benefit of patients in multiple contexts in ANZ and beyond.

Introduction: Positioning aids are frequently used in image guided surgery (IGS). This study evaluates the impact of positioning aids on radiation dose and image quality (IQ) in IGS and the potential for dose optimised imaging via the choice of positioning aid type selected for clinical use.

Methods: Foam and gel positioning aids were evaluated in this study. Anthropomorphic phantoms were used to simulate clinically relevant procedures. Patient and staff radiation exposure were estimated via incident air kerma rate and scatter dose rate measurements, respectively. Perspex phantoms were used to assess the impact of the positioning aid location within the field of view (FOV) on radiation dose, via the reference entrance point air kerma rate displayed on the C-arm. IQ was analysed objectively via contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements.

Results: An average dose rate reduction of 24% and 27% were measured for the simulated patient and surgeon locations, respectively, when gel was replaced with foam, over all anthropomorphic phantom sizes and procedures. A maximum increase in dose rate of 3% for foam and 57% for gel were calculated with a change in positioning aid location within the FOV. In most instances, an improvement in CNR and SNR was observed with the replacement of gel with foam positioning aids.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that the choice of positioning aids used in IGS can significantly impact radiation dose and IQ. With collaboration between radiographers and the perioperative team, it is recommended sites optimise their selection of positioning aids in IGS.