The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists
Recommendations from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists on early-stage breast cancer, low risk prostate cancer, palliation of bone metastases, and brain metastases. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) is a not-for-profit association of members who deliver skills, knowledge, insight, time and commitments to promote the science and practice of the medical specialties of clinical radiology (diagnostic and interventional) and radiation oncology in Australia and New Zealand.
6.
Don’t request computed tomography (CT) head scans in patients with a head injury, unless indicated by a validated clinical decision rule.
Most head injuries presenting to emergency departments will be minor and do not require immediate neurosurgical intervention or inpatient care. Mild head injury patients can be risk stratified into ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk groups based on the presence or absence of identified clinical risk factors. Current validated clinical decision rules include the Canadian CT Head Rule (for adults) or the PECARN (Paediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network) Tool (for children). These rules can safely identify patients who can be discharged home, without CT scanning.
This is a joint recommendation with Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM).
Recommendation released April 2015
Supporting evidence
- Finkelstein E, Corso P, Miller T, Associates. The Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
- Haydel MJ, Preston CA, Mills TJ, Luber S, Blaudeau E, DeBlieux PM. Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343(2): 100-5.
- Mower W, Hoffman J, Herbert M, Wolfson A, Pollack C, Zucker M, et al. Developing a clinical decision instrument to rule out intracranial injuries in patients with minor head trauma: methodology of the NEXUS II investigation. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 40(5): 505-14.
- Mower WR, Hoffman JR, Herbert M, Wolfson AB, Pollack CV, Jr., Zucker MI. Developing a decision instrument to guide computed tomographic imaging of blunt head injury patients. J Trauma. 2005; 59(4): 954-9.
- Stiell IG, Lesiuk H, Wells G, McKnight R, Brison R, Clement C, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule Study for patients with minor head injury: Rationale, objectives, and methodology for phase I (derivation). Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38(2): 160-9.
- Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001; 357(9266): 1391-6.
- Stiell IG, Lesiuk H, Wells GA, Coyle D, McKnight RD, Brison R, et al. Canadian CT head rule study for patients with minor head injury: methodology for phase II (validation and economic analysis). Annals of emergency medicine. 2001; 38(3): 317-22.
- Ro Y, Shin S, Holmes J, Song K, Park J, Cho J, et al. Comparison of clinical performance of cranial computed tomography rules in patients with minor head injury: a multicenter prospective study. Academic emergency medicine. 2011; 18(6): 597-604.
- Bouida W, Marghli S, Souissi S, Ksibi H, Methammem M, Haguiga H, et al. Prediction Value of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for Positive Head CT Scan and Acute Neurosurgical Procedures in Minor Head Trauma: A Multicenter External Validation Study. Annals of emergency medicine. 2012; 61(5): 521-7.
Paediatric Specific References
- Kuppermann N, Holmes JF, Dayan PS, Hoyle JD, Jr., Atabaki SM, Holubkov R, et al. Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-important brain injuries after head trauma: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2009; 374(9696): 1160-70.
- Dunning J, Daly JP, Lomas JP, Lecky F, Batchelor J, Mackway-Jones K. Derivation of the children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children. Arch Dis Child. 2006; 91(11): 885-91.
- Osmond M, Klassen T, Wells G, Correll R, Jarvis A, Joubert G, et al. CATCH: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury. CMAJ. 2010; 182(4): 341-8.
How this list was made
Clinical radiology recommendations 1-6 (April 2015)
A team of five Lead Radiologists were nominated to guide RANZCR's Choosing Wisely contribution. These Lead Radiologists analysed previous work completed by RANZCR, in particular a series of Education Modules for Appropriate Imaging Referrals.
These modules had been developed from an extensive evidence base and with multiple stakeholder input. Using the evidence from the Education Modules, the Lead Radiologists developed a draft recommendations list, which was then further developed and endorsed by RANZCR's Quality and Safety Committee, before being circulated to the RANZCR membership for consultation with a request for alternative recommendations. Member feedback was reviewed by the Lead Radiologists prior to ratification of the final recommendations by the Faculty of Clinical Radiology Council. The final six items selected were those that were felt to meet the goals of Choosing Wisely, i.e. those which are frequently requested or which might expose patients to unnecessary radiation.
Due to the fundamental role of diagnostic imaging in supporting diagnosis across the healthcare system, RANZCR worked closely with other Colleges throughout the project via the Advisory Panel. Following identification of two common recommendations with the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, it was agreed by both Colleges to present these items jointly.
Radiation oncology recommendations 7-10 (September 2021)
Recommendations relating to radiation oncology from the Choosing Wisely and Choosing Wisely Canada were circulated around the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Council to determine which recommendations were applicable to the Australian and New Zealand context. The selected recommendations were then put to the Quality Improvement and Economics and Workforce Committees, with each being asked to rank the recommendations. The five highest ranked recommendations were then put to the radiation oncology membership for consultation prior to being formally approved by the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Council. Recommendations 7-10 are adapted from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2013 and 2014 lists. Recommendation 11 is adapted from Choosing Wisely Canada’s Oncology list. Each organisation was approached for—and subsequently granted—approval to adapt these recommendations as part of the Choosing Wisely Australia campaign.
This initial list has now been reviewed with recommendations 7, 8 & 10 remaining unchanged, recommendation 9 has been updated based on the advice of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Quality Improvement Committee and Recommendation 11 has been replaced based on the feedback of the Quality Improvement Committee and the Policy and Advocacy team.
- 1 Don’t request imaging for acute ankle trauma unless indicated by the Ottawa Ankle Rules (localised bone tenderness or inability to weight-bear as defined in the Rules).
- 2 Don’t request duplex compression ultrasound for suspected lower limb deep venous thrombosis in ambulatory outpatients unless the Wells Score (deep venous thrombosis risk assessment score) is greater than 2, OR if less than 2, D dimer assay is positive.
-
3
Don’t request any diagnostic testing for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) unless indicated by Wells Score (or Charlotte Rule) followed by PE Rule-out Criteria (in patients not pregnant). Low risk patients in whom diagnostic testing is indicated should have PE excluded by a negative D dimer, not imaging.
- 4 Don't perform imaging for patients with non-specific acute low back pain and no indicators of a serious cause for low back pain.
- 5 Don't request imaging of the cervical spine in trauma patients, unless indicated by a validated clinical decision rule.
- 6 Don’t request computed tomography (CT) head scans in patients with a head injury, unless indicated by a validated clinical decision rule.
- 7 Don’t initiate whole-breast radiation therapy as a part of breast conservation therapy in women age ≥50 years with early-stage invasive breast cancer without considering shorter treatment schedules.
- 8 Don’t initiate management of low risk prostate cancer without discussing active surveillance.
- 9 Don’t routinely use more than one fraction for palliation of non-complex bone metastases.
- 10 Don't routinely add adjuvant whole-brain radiation therapy to stereotactic radiosurgery for limited brain metastases.
- 11 Do not proceed with any treatment for localised prostate cancer unless the man has been offered a consultation with a urologist and a radiation oncologist, and taken time to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option.