A pregnant goat in the machine: memories of working in radiology

NHS

From dark art to a pregnant goat in the machine, Dr Richard Keal reflects on his NHS career in radiology. 

 

RKeal

When I started training in medicine in 1971, radiology was literally a dark art. The Middlesex Hospital X-ray department was in the basement of the hospital, a gloomy place populated by pale individuals, some wearing red goggles, who were rarely seen outside and certainly never communicated with medical students. We heard rumours of strange investigations performed there, such as air-encephalograms, which sounded more like medieval torture than anything diagnostic. Radiology had very little impact on my life as a medical student apart from my elective in Hamilton, Ontario in 1975. Here I heard a lecture by an eminent neuro-radiologist from England lamenting that he had had to come to Canada to see images from the new “EMI Scanner” – the start of the revolution in imaging.

After qualifying, I tried several specialities before ending up as a cardiology registrar. Here I was responsible for all the emergency pacing and assisting at cardiac catheterisations. I had no radiation protection training other than being told that we had to wear lead coats and radiation monitoring badges. The portable image intensifier kept cutting out and it was only when I was training in radiology that I learnt that this was due to the permitted time limit being exceeded. I often wonder whether this was the reason I developed cataracts later on.

A further career change found me training in radiology in Aberdeen. This was an exciting time: Aberdeen had two CT scanners, new real time ultrasound machines and a completely new department no longer hidden in the basement. However the real star was the NMR (as it was called then) scanner. When I arrived to train in 1983, The Mark 1 (the world’s first whole-body MRI scanner) had been relegated to research use and was available for the radiology trainees to use. I had my head scanned on it. The 64 x 64 pixel image at least proved I had a brain! I was unfortunate to have been scanned just after a pregnant goat had been in it and the smell was indescribable. We were the first trainees in the world to be taught and examined on MRI imaging for our part 1 exam. Looking at the scanner, now in the museum in Aberdeen, it is impossible to believe that a machine built of copper plumbing components with a chicken wire and aluminium foil Faraday cage and a ZX81 processor could have ever produced images.

Coming to Leicester in 1986 was like a step back in time! No MRI, a B-mode ultrasound system and a CT scanner that no registrars were allowed access to. It was here that I did my first (and last) trans-lumber aortagram and saw other investigations such as cervical myleograms. I had learnt to do lymphangiograms in Aberdeen and I used to spend many a quiet morning performing them.

With my interest in cardiac imaging, I was appointed as a consultant cardiac radiologist at the cardio-thoracic centre. I was one of the few radiologists in the country with an interest in echocardiography and in close cooperation with the cardiac surgeons, introduced intra-operative trans-oesophageal echocardiography into the operating theatres, a technique now commonplace and performed usually by anaesthetists today. As a radiologist, the hospital management were used to me asking for expensive pieces of equipment and when it came to replacing our echocardiography systems, they didn’t ask any questions when I told them that digital imaging was now standard, replacing VHS tapes, and that we required a digital archive. The result was the largest digital echocardiography department in Europe complete with a 400 GB optical jukebox the size of a small room. I followed this up by persuading them to install the first dedicated cardiac MRI scanner in the country.

I started my career by learning invasive cardiac catheterisation and ended it by performing CT coronary angiograms, such has been the pace of change in the last 40 years. Unfortunately, imaging appears to have superseded history and the workload is now excessive. The hospital I worked in now has three MRI scanners (two cardiac), two CT scanners, numerous echocardiography systems, two SPECT systems and a PET scanner; all imaging techniques that didn’t exist or were in their infancy when I started in medicine. What does the future hold?


About Dr Richard Keal

1973

I was born in 1953 and educated at Alleyn’s School in Dulwich. I scraped into the Middlesex Hospital Medical School in 1971 with three Cs at A-level having never studied any biology. After an uneventful medical school career, apart from failing pharmacology twice, I qualified in 1976. I immediately married the lovely nurse I had met over the tea urn on the first ward I was on as a medical student. Uncertain as to what area to specialise in, I tried several specialities as a junior doctor including A & E, cardio-thoracic surgery, thoracic medicine and cardiology. I finally settled on radiology and was offered a registrar post in Aberdeen in 1983 after being sent to see a psychiatrist to ensure I was sane. I moved to Leicester in 1986 as a senior registrar and was appointed as a Consultant Cardiac Radiologist at Groby Road Hospital on 1April 1990. In 1995, I became Head of Department at Glenfield Hospital and continued in post until deposed by the merger of the three Leicester Hospitals in 2002. I spent the next years as the grumpy old man of the department gradually withdrawing from various modalities as new consultants were appointed. I retired in 2013, but continued part-time as clinical head of cardiac nuclear medicine and ARSAC license holder. I finally retired in 2017 when the MDU fees became greater than my private practice earnings. Our three sons are pursuing highly successful careers outside medicine.

My first radiology job in the NHS

NHS

What does a jazz band, a ghost train and a figure in dark goggles have in common? They are all part of the NHS 70 memories of Professor Ralph McCready.

Ralph McCready

As a houseman I had the privilege of working for Professor Frank Pantridge, inventor of the defibrillator. I was fascinated by his catheter lab with the combination of physiology and radiology. So I decided to become a radiologist but was advised to go to England (from Northern Ireland) and obtain an impressive degree so that I could return if I wished. So I went to Guy’s Hospital, London to study for an MSc in Radiation Physics and Biology and the Diploma in Medical Radiodiagnosis (DMRD), paying my own fees.

Guy’s Radiology Department was interesting. The radiology chief was Dr Tom Hills who smoked cigars, had a tiny lead apron over the appropriate parts and had made an automatic wet X-ray film processing system.

It was obvious I would never get a radiology job at Guy’s coming from Belfast, speaking strangely, and not having the MRCP (Membership of the Royal College Physicians examination) so I applied for a Senior House Officer (SHO) position at the Hammersmith Hospital London where everybody was equal.

At the Hammersmith I was told by the other applicants that I would not get the job as I had come from Belfast. However I was determined to leave the interview with my head held high. I was first in to the SHO interview and was amazed to see a long row of people on the other side of the table headed by Professor Robert Steiner. He opened the questioning by asking why I was a member of the Musician’s Union. I explained that all my colleagues in the White Eagles Jazz Band had failed their exams, left the University and turned professional. To continue to play with them I had to join the Union. Then I was asked what else I had done, so rising to the occasion I told them I had been the ghost in a ghost train in an Amusement Park. I was bored so I connected the light over the skeleton to be permanently on. The little children came out saying that there was a ghost reading the Daily Telegraph beside the skeleton. Of course nobody believed them and the people outside poured in to see what was going on.

I emerged from the interview after forty minutes to tell the other candidates how awful the interview had been. I was appointed to the position! Professor Steiner used me to do all the odd jobs in the X-ray department for the next two years. As the junior doctor I worked in the dark with the oldest Watson X-ray set. Every time I took an erect X-ray the large steel edged cassette containing the film would slide across and usually fall out of the carriage landing on the floor with a loud crash frightening everybody in the darkened room.

It was a time of great innovation at the Hammersmith: the first renal transplant was carried out; micturating cystograms were started. After initial problems with old ladies standing up in the dark being unable to ‘pee’ when the urine hit the steel bucket with a tinkle, the problem was solved by lining the bucket with sound deadening polythene. Friday was ladies’ day when I was the only radiologist who performed Hysterosalpingography. It was done in a small room with a boiling water sterilizer in the corner. When I came out to view the films the steam poured out of the door and I would appear in a cloud of steam as a fearsome figure wearing large dark goggles and a long lead apron to the consternation of the waiting mixture of NHS and private practice ladies.

Professor Steiner was a great leader and inspiration. I will always be grateful to him appointing me to a job in the Hammersmith to start my career in the NHS. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/college/obituaries/professor-robert-steiner


About Ralph McCready

I graduated in Medicine from Queen’s University Belfast and then worked as a Houseman in the Royal Victoria Hospital. When I came to England I studied for the MSc in Radiation Physics and Biology and the Diploma in Radiodiagnosis at Guy’s Hospital London. After working as an SHO in Radiology at the Hammersmith Hospital I was appointed to a research position at the Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, Surrey. With the development of a Nuclear Medicine Department at the Royal Marsden Hospital I became the consultant in charge for over 40 years. In 1987 I was awarded a DSc by Queen’s University Belfast, the British Institute of Radiology Barclay Prize in 1973, an Hon. FRCR in 1975, an Honorary Fellowship of the Faculty of Radiologists Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland in 1992 and made an Honorary Member of the Japanese Radiological Society also in 1992. I was appointed to a personal chair in Radiological Sciences in the Institute of Cancer Research in 1990.

As a founder member of the British Nuclear Medicine Society I have recently co-edited a book celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Society and the development of radionuclide studies in the UK.https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-28624-2

When MRI created excitement in the air

NHS

Dr Adrian Thomas shares his experience of working as a radiologist and how excited he was to see the EMI/CT scanner for the first time. 

 

adrian thomas

Dr Adrian Thomas

In my time as a radiologist I have seen the amazing growth and flowering of radiology. I entered medical school in 1972, which was the year that the CT/EMI scanner was announced by Godfrey Hounsfield and James Ambrose at the BIR Annual Congress; and I started radiology at Hammersmith Hospital in 1981, which coincided with the opening of their MRI scanner. I don’t think that either of these events were connected!

 

picture. 1

X-ray Television at Farnborough Hospital in 1970

When I started medical school everything looked so advanced and exciting to my young eyes. As I look back now it all seems rather primitive. Computers were in their infancy, and imaging was almost all traditional. However, I liked the X-ray departments that I saw, and was taught by Peter Bretland at the Whittington Hospital, and by the great George Simon who was a pioneer chest radiologist. Both were inspirational teachers.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Old X-ray cassette, pre-digital

The juniors today will find it difficult to understand how very different things were. As a junior doctor, practising emergency medicine or surgery with only minimal imaging was not easy. Many assumptions were made. So for example, an older person with left iliac fossa pain and fever was assumed to have acute diverticulitis. They were treated with intravenous fluids, antibiotics and a nasogastric tube; a barium enema was then arranged as an outpatient. Many exploratory laparotomies were performed for undiagnosed acute symptoms, and the surgeon had only a limited idea as to what would be found. We had plain films, contrast studies and nuclear medicine, but no CT and only limited access to ultrasound. I can remember patients who would have been managed entirely differently today with modern imaging. In particular, an accurate diagnosis made by CT or ultrasound may preclude the need for invasive surgery.

5 Store for conventional film packets

Store for conventional film packets. Large storage rooms were needed for storing X-ray film packets, with many filing clerks

I was a surgical houseman in 1978-9, and I recollect one particular patient that had done something that you should never do, that is to polish the floor  underneath a carpet. He had come downstairs, and had stepped onto the carpet. The carpet had slid forwards, and he fell backwards hitting himself hard on the occiput. He presented with a severe headache, but no neurological signs. His skull plain film X-ray showed no fracture, and I admitted him for neurological observations. After 24 hours he remained well, but still had his severe headache. The surgical team decided to keep him in  hospital for further observation. We kept him for well over a week, and he remained well although with a persistent headache. We then finally sent him home. I had a phone call some days later from another hospital. My patient had unfortunately died, and the other team wanted to know what we had been doing. I explained what had happened, and the voice on the ‘phone said that this was all very reasonable and we could not be criticised. Today the patient would have been scanned, a potentially treatable lesion could have been found, and this young man could be alive today.

3 Traditional cassette opened to show intensifying screens and film

Traditional cassette opened to show intensifying screens and film

I had first seen the EMI/CT scanner when my consultant took his firm of neurology students to see the new scanner at the National Hospital in Queen Square, where he had clinical sessions. I was fascinated by the images we saw, and the radiologist Ivan Moseley showed us the capability of the scanner. I could feel the excitement in the air, and a knowledge as to how much we could learn about the natural history of various diseases. I was also aware of the excitement in the air when I was at Hammersmith Hospital as a registrar  in Radiology. We were being taught tradition imaging – plain films, barium meals and enemas, and IVPs. I became quite good at TLAs (trans-lumbar aortograms), when a long needle was passed into the prone anaesthetised patient, and contrast injected to show the peripheral vessels. However, whilst I was learning the traditional techniques, Graeme Bydder, from the MRI Unit, used to join us for our lunchtime meetings and show us the recent scans hot off the printer. This was long before the days of digital transfer of images and PACS. I remember being excited by the images of NMR as it was called then, and realising how the neurosciences would be revolutionised.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Bags of films for reporting. Once a common scene in reporting rooms

Imaging has utterly transformed both the practice of medicine, and also how we look at ourselves. It is all too easy to be cynical about the modern world and whist things may always improve major advances have been made. However, all of these changes were quite unpredictable when the NHS was set up, and it is a major achievement that these new imaging techniques have been introduced. Modern imaging is readily available for our patients, and has transformed untold numbers of lives. Godfrey Hounsfield was always very humbled by the many letters that he received from patients and relatives thanking him for his invention.


About Dr Adrian Thomas

Adrian Thomas is a radiologist, and visiting professor at Canterbury Christ Church University. He has been President of the Radiology Section of the Royal Society of Medicine, and of the British Society for the History of Medicine. He is the Honorary Historian to the British Institute of Radiology. Adrian has written extensively on the history of radiology writing many papers, books and articles. He is currently, with a colleague, writing a biography of the first woman radiologist and woman hospital physicist.  He has had a long-term interest in role development in radiography, and teaches postgraduate radiographers.

 

A revolution in imaging: radiology memories for #NHS70

NHS

Professor Adrian K Dixon was born in the same year that the NHS began. Here he reflects on what the NHS has given him and the revolution he has experienced in the world of radiology.

 

Adrian Dixon

Professor Adrian K Dixon

I was born in 1948 and, 70 years on, I remain one of the most passionate supporters of the NHS. Like many of my generation, I have received huge personal benefit from the NHS over the years; both my elbow fractures were brilliantly treated in Accident and Emergency Units; joint replacements for osteoarthritis have provided renewed mobility latterly; audiology services have looked after my long-term inherited deafness and allowed me to function reasonably well so far.

Training in medicine in Cambridge (1966–9) and London (St Bartholomew’s Hospital, 1969–72) was very different from nowadays. On hour one, day one, as a young houseman, sister said to me: “There are three patients for myelography today –  there are three trays set up for lumbar puncture – all you have to do is to send some cerebrospinal (CSF) fluid off to the lab and instil the Myodil before they go down to radiology where Professor du Boulay will be waiting….!” I had not even seen a lumbar puncture at that stage but I learnt quickly at the hands of an excellent registrar. Then I went off for training in General Medicine at Nottingham General Hospital in the excellent Professorial Unit led by Professor Mitchell and Dr (later Professor) Hampton. Any patient over 65 then was ‘geriatric’. I well remember one elderly lady recovering from a cardiac event who was not quite well enough to go home where she lived alone – I said: “I think you need a few days in our convalescent home in Cleethorpes (yes, the NHS provided such things in those days!)”. Her reply: “Oh lovely; I have never seen the sea”. No package holidays or low-cost flights back then!

I was extremely lucky to train in radiology during the 1970s and to be involved with the beginning of the revolution in imaging, namely the introduction of ultrasound, CT and MRI. These advances were truly miraculous compared with the fluoroscopic techniques of old. Indeed image intensification was only just becoming sophisticated while I was training and I did my fair share of barium work using direct fluoroscopy following dark adaptation with red goggles! This even persisted after my move to Cambridge when I was given responsibility for imaging services at the local geriatric hospital where the ageing equipment was nearly as old as some of the patients!

Picture1

After a brief spell in paediatric radiology, I became fascinated by Computed Tomography and I was lucky to be appointed as a Research Fellow at St Bartholomew’s Hospital. There, Dr Ian Kelsey Fry had the foresight to install one cranial and one whole body CT systeminto 2 standard X-ray rooms (an excellent strategy – replacing old technology rather than merely adding on the new). This gave me the experience to be appointed as a young lecturer/Honorary Consultant at the newly emerging Clinical School in Cambridge (thanks to the risk taken by my lifelong friend Professor Tom Sherwood).

In partnership with NHS radiological stars in Cambridge (Desmond Hawkins and Chris Flower, to name but two), Tom Sherwood forged a highly successful combined University/NHS Radiology Department which continues to this day. I was fortunate to be given free rein to develop Body CT and the townspeople generously raised the money for a machine which was opened by HRH the Prince of Wales in 1981. But the NHS was not quite ready for CT! Not only did the town-based charity have to pay for the building, it also had to provide running costs for the first five years; we only received subsequent NHS funding in 1986 after a thorough Department of Health Audit of our work. Even then the local NHS was sceptical; the local oncologists saved the day by suggesting that they could manage more of their patients as outpatients if CT was available. The outstanding local fundraisers were so successful that the charity was able to fund top-of-the range MRI systems in Cambridge for some decades thereafter. Although there was one generous distribution of NHS funding for CT systems on the back of Sir Mike Richards’ cancer initiatives, NHS funding for high-end equipment has never really been properly addressed.


About Professor Adrian K Dixon

BIR Toshiba Mayneord Adrian Dixon 4

Professor Adrian K Dixon

Professor Dixon is Emeritus Professor of Radiology at the University of Cambridge and a retired Consultant Radiologist. He has published extensively on Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging and has edited several textbooks. He was Warden of the Royal College of Radiologists (Clinical Radiology, 2002–2006) and MR Clinical Guardian to the UK Department of Health (2004–2007). He has been awarded honorary Fellowship/Membership of Radiological Societies in Austria, Australia & New Zealand, France, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. He was Editor-in-Chief of European Radiology 2007–12 and was awarded the Gold Medal of the European Society of Radiology in 2014. He has been awarded Honorary Degrees by Munich and Cork. He was Master of Peterhouse, University of Cambridge 2008–2016.

Review – The Unofficial Guide to Radiology: 100 Practice Chest X-Rays with Full Colour Annotations and Full X-Ray Reports

Tom Campion

The Unofficial Guide to Radiology won the BIR/Philips

Trainee award for Excellence in 2015.   Tom Campion, radiology trainee at Bart’s Hospital, London and Valandis Kostas, Senior Radiographer from Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital  reflect on the latest addition to the series which focuses on chest x-ray interpretation and is designed to support professionals and students.

Valandis KostasA follow-up to the Unofficial Guide to Radiology, and part of the Unofficial Guide to Medicine series, this new book The Unofficial Guide to Radiology: 100 Practice Chest X-rays, with full colour annotations and full X-ray reports  has at its heart the inspiring idea that the development of educational resources should be driven by those who use them. The result is a fantastic resource for reporting radiographers, medical students, junior doctors in any specialty, providing a comprehensive and practical approach to chest x-ray interpretation.

41Vnk61P4sL._SX352_BO1,204,203,200_Right from the start, the book’s cover is self-explanatory and is easily perceived to be about chest X-ray interpretations.   The 100 chest X-ray cases are presented in a test-yourself format, with the images and case history presented on one page and the interpretation and report on the next.

The cases are separated in three coloured divisions: Standard (orange), Intermediate (purple) and Advanced (blue). The first page provides the reader with a short clinical indication followed by the associated chest X-ray in high quality, all in one page. The second page then evaluates the technical features, again using a colour code scheme which is then diagrammatically presented on the same chest X-ray, but on a smaller scale. It may be coincidence that the orange, purple and blue technical features can also be perceived as standard, intermediate and advanced technical points to look out for from a radiographer’s perspective. Finally, there is a short but precise summary demonstrating a report of the chest X-ray followed by further management for the patient.

The image quality is excellent in comparison to most other available textbooks, with crisp full-page images allowing the detail of the images to be explored – crucial in the days of PACS when every possible abnormality can be magnified a hundredfold.

Each ‘answer’ page has a consistent format, embedding a sensible interpretation pathway, and a clear layout highlighting both normal and abnormal findings. The consistency, and the detailed and comprehensive annotations, allows the reader to build up an idea of ‘normal’ over the course of the cases, continuously reinforcing important structures to check on every radiograph.

The multidisciplinary approach to development also comes through strongly, with suggested first management steps in response to each radiograph placing the interpretation firmly in the pragmatic clinical world. However, the ‘reporting’ style employed also develops familiarity with the language of radiologists; if this can sometimes seems overly formal or formulaic, it serves a purpose in ensuring that clinicians and radiologists are on the same page.

The clinical cases provided are realistic and are what you expect to find whether in Accident and Emergency and/or outpatient, GP clinics. From pathologies to pneumothoraxes, fractures to line insertions, most scenarios are covered in this book.

Valandis Kostas strongly recommends this book to all grade and advanced radiographers. He observes that the book provides the patient pathway link from clinical presentation to radiology, to treatment and type of follow up imaging required i.e. CT and/or chest clinic referral. The layout enables understanding of the acquired chest x-ray, vital for best practice.

He particularly applauded the section on quality of the chest X-ray, using the similar 10 point image quality check radiographers use in their clearance of X-rays they undertake. Patient I.D, rotation, penetration and inspiration are a few examples. Furthermore, the case layout educates radiographers the importance of these checks to aid image interpretation for diagnosis whilst encouraging learning about chest pathologies. This will eliminate the repetitious perception of the chest X-ray and it will encourage radiographers to maintain high quality chest radiographs for accurate diagnosis and reduce false negatives and false positives.

The clinical details provided in the case vignettes are of a level of detail that surpasses most of those seen in clinical practice; hopefully, the detail provided here will also serve to demonstrate to clinicians who read the book how fundamental these details are, and serve as a resource on helpful requesting as well as interpretation of chest radiographs.

An important area for radiographers and radiologists that is not covered in as much detail is the inadequate chest x-ray, and perhaps the book could be improved by including a few examples of misses/near misses from poor quality radiographs in order to educate readers on when a repeat X-ray is required.

Tom Campion, trainee radiologist  would happily recommend the book to anyone whose job involves X-ray reporting as it delivers a solid foundation in interpretation skills and serves  as both a thoughtfully structured introduction to the beginner and a handy reference to the more experienced.

Both Valandis and Tom felt that the book would make a great app or online tool  in the future.

The Unofficial Guide to Radiology £19.99

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unofficial-Guide-Radiology-Practice-Annotations/dp/1910399019

Images: (Top left) Tom Campion, (top right) Valandis Kostas.

AUTHORS:

by Mohammed Rashid Akhtar MBBS BSc (Hons) FRCR (Author), Na’eem Ahmed MBBS BSc (Author), Nihad Khan MBBS BSc (Author)

EDITORS:

Mark Rodrigues MBChB(Hons) BSc(Hons) FRCR (Editor), Zeshan Qureshi BM BSc (Hons) MSc MRCPCH (Editor)

 

Breaking the mould – how  radiographer reporting is better for the patient.

nigel-thomas

Professor Nigel Thomas from the University of Salford explains why allowing a radiographer to report X-rays  is not threat to the radiology profession.

 

 

 

I’ll nail my colours to the mast straight away, and state that I have been an active proponent of radiographer role extension in general, and radiographer reporting in particular, for over 20 years.

I first became involved in mid 1995 when the University of Salford (then University College Salford) asked for help in setting up a formal plain film reporting course for radiographers. The context for this was the unresolved tension between the large numbers of unreported films in most X-ray Departments and the realisation that radiographers as a group of professionals were often working below their full potential – a real untapped resource within our own departments. Becoming involved in the process seemed to me to be a very obvious thing to do, and I have never had any regrets about doing so. I don’t believe that I have contributed to the demise of my profession, and I certainly don’t feel like a “turkey voting for Christmas”.

Over the years since then, radiographers have increased the breadth of their involvement in reporting (to currently include some types of MR scanning and CT, as well as gastro-intestinal contrast studies amongst other things), as well as developing a career structure which encompasses working at Advanced Practitioner and Consultant Radiographer levels (the latter being a particular success in the world of breast imaging, where consultant radiographers can follow an entire patient journey by being able to perform and report mammograms, perform and report breast ultrasound and perform guided biopsies, as well as having counselling skills).

It was clear from the beginning that there would be opposition to the idea of radiographer reporting, both from the radiology establishment, and, to a much lesser extent, from within the radiography profession itself. In order to ensure that the process of creating reporting radiographers was as good as it could be, certain quality measures were put into place. No radiographer can report in the UK without a recognised qualification (at PgC or Pgd level) gained from a higher education institution. In the context of the workplace, reporting is done within an agreed scheme of work (signed off by the employing Trust Board), and regular audit is undertaken.

In 2017 between 15 and 20% of all plain film examinations in the UK are reported by radiographers, and there are now over 50 people in consultant radiographer grades around the country. Reporting radiographers have been “part of the furniture” in X-ray departments for over 20 years, and generations of junior doctors, nurses and physiotherapists have been familiar with using them as a port of call for advice on the interpretation of images.

And yet, despite all of the above, resistance to radiographer reporting persists. I find this particularly perplexing for several reasons:

  1. The reporting shortfall still persists, and patients are being put at risk by our failure to report their examinations in a timely and accurate way – would we rather leave them unreported?
  2. Radiologists have more than enough to do – there are too few of us, and our time is used to apply our unique skill set to report labour intensive complex examinations, undertake time-consuming interventional procedures, and provide a commitment to the support of MDTs.
  3. There is a substantial body of sound scientific evidence (published in the major UK peer-reviewed radiological journals) that radiographer reporting works, is safe, and is of a comparable standard to that provided by medical staff in many areas.
  4. Radiologists have been involved in this process from day 1 – advising on course content, giving lectures, acting as examiners and external examiners, and, most importantly, acting as mentors to radiographers in training at their places of work.

The final irony for me, as we progress into the 21st century is that, despite all the above, it is clear that some of my colleagues are much keener to gain help from computers than humans. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)  will have a huge role to play in the routine provision of a radiology service in the near future, but reporting radiographers can help patients here and now.

References

Berman L, de Lacey G, Twomey E, Twomey B, Welch, T and Eban, R. ‘Reducing errors in the accident department: a simple method using radiographers’, British Medical Journal 1985; 290: 421-2

Loughran,C.F., Reporting of fracture radiographs by radiographers: the impact of a training programme. British Journal of Radiology, 67(802), 945 –950, 1994

Judith Kelly, Peter Hogg, Suzanne Henwood. The role of a consultant breast radiographer: A description and a reflection. Radiography, Volume 14, Supplement 1, e2-e10, 2008.

Brealey, S., Hewitt, C., Scally, A., Hahn, S., Godfrey, C., and Thomas, N.B. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers’ plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice. British Journal of Radiology, 82, (979), 600-604, 2009.

Piper, K., Buscall, K., Thomas, N.B., MRI reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme. Radiography, Volume 16, Issue 2, 136-142, May 2010

  1. Piper, S. Cox, A. Paterson, A. Thomas, N.B. Thomas, N. Jeyagopal, N. Woznitza. Chest reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme, Radiography, Volume 20, Issue 2, 94-99, February 2014
  1. Snaith, M. Hardy, E.F. Lewis Radiographer reporting in the UK: A longitudinal analysis

Radiography, Volume 21, Issue 2, 119-123, 2015

About Nigel Thomas

Born and raised in Cornwall, I qualified from St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London in 1981 having gained an intercalated B.Sc in Biochemistry in 1978.

My radiology training was undertaken on the North Western Training Scheme (based in Manchester), and I was appointed as Consultant Radiologist to North Manchester General Hospital in 1989.In 2005 I moved to a Consultant post at Trafford General Hospital and retired as a full-time NHS Consultant Radiologist in 2015.

I currently work as an independent Consultant Radiologist and, amongst other roles, am a mentor to Reporting Radiographers at two large Foundation Trusts in the Manchester conurbation.

I first became involved in the process of radiographer role development at the University of Salford in 1995, and was appointed as an Honorary Professor there in 2000. I have over 40 publications in scientific journals, and am a co-author of a standard textbook of Obstetric and Gynaecological Ultrasound scanning.

 

Image: Courtesy of Nottingham University Hospitals

 

Top tips for honest science messages in the media

13-kate-elliottScience is often misrepresented in the media. The BIR supports the charity Sense about Science in their call for all research to be openly and honestly reported. This year we supported one of their Voice of Young Science workshops called “Standing up for Science” held on 16 September 2016 in London.

Here, Kate Elliott, Medical Physicist at  Mount Vernon Cancer Centre was one of three lucky BIR members to attend the workshop which gave young researchers top tips and advice on how to get their scientific messages across as clearly and accurately as possible.

 

I hate speaking in public and even the thought of writing this article terrified me. Why then, you might ask, did I apply to go on the Standing up for Science media workshop?

I often get annoyed at the coverage of science in the media and the misuse of statistics and results. Recently, the Brexit “debate” has left me ranting at friends, and I often find myself defending junior doctors on social media. When I received the email from BIR advertising the media workshop, it struck me as an opportunity to learn what I could do to positively influence the public perception of science, and to hear first-hand from journalists about their involvement.

The first session consisted of a panel of three scientists who told us of personal experiences with the press and offered advice based on this. An example which stood out to me as a healthcare scientist was Professor Stephen Keevil’s use of the media to highlight a problem with a new EU directive on physical agents[1], which could  have caused problems for MRI. Politicians took heed of his criticism, and effected a change to the directive in Brussels. This was a great example of how the media can be used effectively to influence policy – something that is likely to become increasingly important in the next few years.

The second session was a panel of three journalists, who explained their daily process for13-standing-up-for-science-workshop-sept-2016selecting and pitching stories. Science stories are selected based on interest, accessibility, and importance. These are pitched to the editors, who decide which ones to take further. The journalists pointed out that their duty is to their audience, not to science. Unfortunately, science has to compete with news on David Beckham’s haircut. Time constraints are also a problem. They write multiple articles a day (I’m three weeks and counting on this one…), so it’s important for scientists to be available to discuss their research on the day it’s published.

The third panel was about the nuts and bolts of how to interact with the media, and recommended campaigns such as Sense about Science’s “Ask for Evidence” campaign.

I left the event with the following advice to keep in mind:

  • If you disagree with something: speak out. If the public only hears one side of the story, that’s the side they’ll believe.
  • Stick to a few key points. Get those across, even if it means having to ignore questions or turn them around in an infuriatingly politician-like way!
  • Be available. If you’ve put out a press release, you need to be able to respond quickly. Journalists work to very stringent time scales, so being available in a week’s time is going to be too late.
  • Talk to the public. Attend events such as Pint of Science, or become a STEM ambassador, because that will really help you learn to speak in layman’s terms and get you used to answering obscure questions.
  • Get training. If not full media training, a workshop like this is a really good way to be slightly more prepared – and you get to hear about all the interesting science other people are involved in!

Image: BIR members  Jim Zhong, Kate Elliott and Maureen Obioha Agwanihu who attended the workshop

[1] https://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/MRI-Report-Stephen-Keevil.pdf

MRI safety: Putting staff and patients first

 

Darren Hudson

 

Darren Hudson

 

To mark MRI Safety week (25 – 31 July), Darren Hudson, MRI Clinical Lead at InHealth highlights his top tips for making the MRI environment safe for both patients and staff.

He also explains how InHealth are ensuring their multidisciplinary teams get timely reminders about MRI best practice.

 

 

 

 

MRI Safety week marks the 15th anniversary of a terrible accident.  Six-year old Michael Colombini was killed by a portable oxygen cylinder when it was inadvertently brought into the MR scan room of Westchester Hospital, in America. This tragedy sparked important discussions in the US around safety in MR. In the UK, the MHRA produced their first guidance in 1993  [1][2] produced around the requirements and training needed to safely operate MR scanning facilities. This was last updated in 2015.

What’s the danger?

The static magnetic field in which MRI staff work is over 30,000 times stronger than the earth’s own magnetic field. It is always on, 24/7, regardless of whether scanning is being performed.

MRI safety imageThe greatest impact this can have is a missile effect on ferromagnetic items which may be
taken into the MRI scan room, causing them to be accelerated at very high speed towards the centre of the scanner. Depending on the nature and size of the object, whether it’s an earring or a wheelchair, the consequences can be very dangerous, and at worst catastrophic.

InHealth safety

InHealth logo

To mark the week InHealth are sending out some daily reminders to staff covering specific MR safety topics to help serve as a refresher around some keys aspects of MR safety and to raise awareness of good practice.

Key themes covered are object management and labelling, positioning of patients to prevent burns, communication with patients to ensure they alert staff to any discomfort or concerns, keeping patients cool, protecting patients from noise,  best practice on how to get feedback from patients and making sure all medical devices and implants are regularly checked for safety in accordance with guidelines.

As corporate members to the BIR we are working together to raise awareness of, and share support for MR safety within the wider imaging community.

Radiographers and clinical support staff play a key role in implementing the safety framework established across MRI services, with their knowledge and experience of the procedures and policies in place helping to ensure we maintain the safety of patients, visitors and staff.

Importantly, it has been shown that the most significant MR accidents are as a result of a cascade effect from a number of apparent minor breaches of safety procedures rather than from a single mistake. It is therefore essential we all remain vigilant and adhere accurately to the safety policies and procedures. Any potential breach of procedure or near-miss is a warning and as such these instances should be reported to ensure lessons can be learnt and acted upon to avoid more serious untoward events.

Reporting

Reporting of incidents and near misses is vital so that we can anticipate and prempt problems that may be arise so they can be addressed before more serious incidents may occur – today it may only be some coins, tomorrow it could be something more serious!

The human factor

Our fallibilities as human beings, both as staff and our patients, can adversely impact on MRI safety. To help promote MR safety InHealth staff are encouraged to undertake e-learning modules to highlight the hazards in MRI.

By working together and maintaining a cycle of safety procedures we can ensure that the MRI room is the safest environment it can be for both patients and staff.

[1]  Safety Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Equipment in Clinical Use

[2]   ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices: 2013

InHealth logo

https://www.inhealthgroup.com/

Neuroimaging assessments in dementia

Vanessa Newman
Dr Vanessa Newman

Dementia is the leading cause of disability in people over 60 years old. Imaging is increasingly used to diagnose dementia to complement physical, cognitive and mental examinations.

Here, Dr Vanessa Newman explores the role of imaging in detecting this cruel and debilitating illness that effects over one million people in the UK.

Dementia: a global burden

Dementia is a leading cause of disability in people aged >60 years, representing a significant burden on patients in terms of quality of life, disability and mortality associated with the condition. This further impacts caregivers, health services and society in general. According to the World Alzheimer Report 2015, it is estimated there are 46.8 million people living with dementia worldwide and this number is due to double every 20 years. Of the 9.2 million people with dementia in Europe over 1.03 million live in the UK, representing a considerable health economic burden. Furthermore, general improved life expectancy of the global population is anticipated to correspond with increased prevalence of dementia.[1,2]

The impact of dementia on informal caregivers – such as family members and friends – is substantial and can result in physical and mental illness, social isolation and poor quality of life for them. Although their participation in the care of dementia patients may alleviate burden on healthcare systems and residential care homes, informal caregiving is not without societal costs caused by absenteeism from work.[2]

Different forms of dementia

Dementia is a progressive illness that affects not only a person’s memory but also their behaviour, mood, cognition and ability to perform daily activities. Progression of dementia is associated with both genetic predisposition and lifestyle factors, including smoking, alcohol, exercise and diet. There are a number of different dementia subtypes with varying incidence in the population, including vascular dementia (VaD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Parkinson’s dementia (PD) and mixed dementia. However, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most prevalent form, representing 62% of the dementia population.[3–6]

Diagnosing dementia

Although the majority of patients are diagnosed with dementia in later life, evidence shows that irreversible, pathological changes within the brain occur long before the onset of clinical symptoms. Gradual changes within the brain lead to progressive cognitive impairment and patients often experience a transitional period of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), during which a differential diagnosis may not be possible.[3,7–10]

Formal assessment of cognitive decline, as undertaken by dementia experts, usually includes physical, cognitive and mental examinations [e.g. the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)], plus a review of education and functional levels, medications and health history.[4,11]

Dementia assessment using brain biomarkers and structural imaging

There are several protein deposition biomarkers that may be used to assist in a diagnosis of dementing diseases, such as the presence of TDP-43 (FTD), Lewy bodies (DLB), alpha-synuclein (Parkinson’s disease), plus tau and β-amyloid which are typical in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (although not exclusive to this dementia subtype).[12,13] Historically, reliable diagnoses might only be made post-mortem using histopathology. However, increasingly the imaging of biomarkers or their effect on the living brain can be made earlier on in the course of disease, before evidence of memory impairment is seen.[12,13]

Piramal blog image 1

Fig 1. Source: Jovalekic et al. EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry (2017) 1:11. doi:10.1186/s41181-016-0015-3 (Copyright held by Piramal Lifesciences).

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling via lumbar puncture can help detect abnormal levels of soluble β‑amyloid42, total tau (T-tau) and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), which may assist during the diagnostic workup of dementia patients being assessed for AD.[14] However, lumbar puncture is an invasive method and some patients may refuse the procedure or are contraindicated, for example, if they receive anticoagulant medications. In addition, CSF-based analyses show variability between immunoassay platforms and biomarker concentrations, which may present challenges to clinicians.[14–17]

Brain imaging in patients can assist a clinical diagnosis by examining presence of cerebral pathologies and structural changes, including MRI and CT that can detect subcortical vascular changes. Single-photon emission CT (SPECT) measuring perfusion can help differentiate AD, VaD and FTD,[4,11] while 2-(18F)Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) may assist in detecting impaired neuronal activity by measuring the cerebral metabolic rate of glucose. This has been used to detect abnormal patterns in the brain and the potential to predict conversion from MCI to AD or the diagnosis of AD has been demonstrated.[8,9,18–20] Both SPECT-perfusion imaging and FDG-PET are indirect measures of disease that detect characteristic changes in glucose and oxygen metabolism. However, these imaging modalities show limitations in reflecting the aetiology of prodromal or mild AD.[8,9,11,19,20]

Brain β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition and plaque formation occurs early in the pathogenesis of AD, therefore offering the potential to assist in an early clinical diagnosis of patients being evaluated for Alzheimer’s dementia and other forms of cognitive impairment. Amyloid-PET is a relatively recent imaging modality and three 18F-labelled imaging agents are licensed for use in the EU that can detect the presence of β-amyloid neuritic plaques in the living brain, with validated visual assessment methods using histopathology as the standard of truth (Fig.2).[13,21] According to published appropriate use criteria, amyloid-PET is considered to have greatest utility in a subset of dementia patients:[22–24]

  • where there is an established persistent or progressive unexplained memory impairment (unclear diagnosis); or
  • where brain Aβ is a diagnostic consideration based on core clinical criteria, and where knowledge of this pathology may alter patient management; or
  • with progressive dementia and atypical age of onset (usually <65 years of age).

Piramal blog image 2

Fig 2: 18F-labelled imaging agents have the ability to detect the presence of β-amyloid neuritic plaques in the living brain (immunohistochemistry with monoclonal 6E10 Aβ antibody).[13]

Fig. 2: Source: Jovalekic et al. EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry (2017) 1:11. doi:10.1186/s41181-016-0015-3 (Copyright held by Piramal Lifesciences).

Amyloid-PET does not alone provide a diagnosis, rather it forms part of the greater assessment workup by clinical experts, including neurologists, psychiatrists and geriatricians. The knowledge of the presence or absence of β-amyloid plaques has been shown to support a confident differential diagnosis and a tailored patient care plan, including use of medications where appropriate. There is also added value for patients and their caregivers in knowing the cause of dementia, enabling decision-making and planning for the future including the possibility of enrolling into clinical trials.[5,6,8,22–28]

 The future of diagnostic imaging

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is reviewing guidance on the organisation and delivery of diagnostic services, due for publication in August 2017. The scope of the revised guidance will encompass imaging in neurodegenerative diseases, as part of the wider radiology/nuclear medicine service in the NHS. This will affect not only patients, but all staff who use, refer and interpret diagnostic services in both primary, secondary and tertiary care.[29]

Author: Vanessa Newman (MD-V, PhD), Medical Affairs Director at Piramal Imaging Ltd

References

  1. Alzheimer-Europe, The prevalence of dementia in Europe. 2015, Alzheimer Europe: Luxembourg.
  2. Prince, M., World Alzheimer Report 2015: The Global Impact of Dementia – an analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends, A.s.D.I. (ADI), Editor. 1015: London.
  3. Prince, M., World Alzheimer Report 2014: Dementia and Risk Reduction – an analysis of protective and modifyable factors, A.s.D. International, Editor. 2014, Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI): London, UK.
  4. NICE, Clinical guideline 42: Dementia: Supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. 2006, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): London, UK.
  5. Deckers, K., et al., Target risk factors for dementia prevention: a systematic review and Delphi consensus study on the evidence from observational studies. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2015. 30(3): p. 234-46.
  6. Kivipelto, M. and F. Mangialasche, Alzheimer disease: To what extent can Alzheimer disease be prevented? Nat Rev Neurol, 2014. 10(10): p. 552-3.
  7. Catafau, A.M. and Bullich, S., Amyloid PET imaging: applications beyond Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Transl Imaging, 2015. 3(1): p. 39-55.
  8. Sabri, O., et al., Florbetaben PET imaging to detect amyloid beta plaques in Alzheimer’s disease: phase 3 study. Alzheimers Dement, 2015. 11(8): p. 964-74.
  9. Sabri, O., et al., Beta-amyloid imaging with florbetaben. Clin Transl Imaging, 2015. 3(1): p. 13-26.
  10. Vos, S.J., et al., Prediction of Alzheimer disease in subjects with amnestic and nonamnestic MCI. Neurology, 2013. 80(12): p. 1124-32.
  11. Bloudek, L.M., et al., Review and meta-analysis of biomarkers and diagnostic imaging in Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis, 2011. 26(4): p. 627-45.
  12. Sperling, R.A., Karlawish, J., and Johnson K.A., Preclinical Alzheimer disease-the challenges ahead. Nat Rev Neurol, 2013. 9(1): p. 54-8.
  13. Jovalekic, A., et al., New protein deposition tracers in the pipeline. EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry, 2017. 1(1).
  14. Roe, C.M., et al., Amyloid imaging and CSF biomarkers in predicting cognitive impairment up to 7.5 years later. Neurology, 2013. 80(19): p. 1784-91.
  15. Dubois, B., et al., Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: the IWG-2 criteria. The Lancet Neurology, 2014. 13(6): p. 614-629.
  16. Perret-Liaudet, A., et al., Risk of Alzheimer’s disease biological misdiagnosis linked to cerebrospinal collection tubes. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012. 31(1): p. 13-20.
  17. Kang, J.H., et al., Clinical utility and analytical challenges in measurement of cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-beta(1-42) and tau proteins as Alzheimer disease biomarkers. Clin Chem, 2013. 59(6): p. 903-16.
  18. Ng, S., et al., Visual Assessment Versus Quantitative Assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2007. 48(4): p. 547-552.
  19. Perani, D., et al., A survey of FDG- and amyloid-PET imaging in dementia and GRADE analysis. Biomed Res Int, 2014. 2014: p. 785039.
  20. Piramal, NeuraCeq (florbetaben 18F) Summary of Product Characteristics. 2015, Piramal Imaging Ltd.
  21. EMA. Human Medicines: European public assessment reports. 2016 [cited 2016 July]; Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124.
  22. Johnson, K.A., et al., Appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET: a report of the Amyloid Imaging Task Force, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimers Dement, 2013. 9(1): p. e-1-16.
  23. Johnson, K.A., et al., Update on appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET imaging: dementia experts, mild cognitive impairment, and education. J Nucl Med, 2013. 54(7): p. 1011-3.
  24. Scarsbrook, A. and Barrington S., Evidence-based indications for the use of PET-CT in the United Kingdom 2016, R.C.o.P. Royal College of Radiologists, Editor. 2016, RCR, RCP: London, UK.
  25. Bang, J., Spina, S., and Miller, B.L., Frontotemporal dementia. The Lancet, 2015. 386(10004): p. 1672-1682.
  26. Kobylecki, C., et al., A Positron Emission Tomography Study of [18f]-Florbetapir in Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2013. 84(11): p. e2-e2.
  27. Barthel, H., Seibyl, J., and Sabri O., The role of positron emission tomography imaging in understanding Alzheimer’s disease. Expert Rev Neurother, 2015. 15(4): p. 395-406.
  28. Pontecorvo, M.J., et al., A randomized, controlled, multicenter, international study of the impact of florbetapir (<sup>18</sup>F) PET amyloid imaging on patient management and outcome. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. 11(7): p. P334.
  29. NICE. Dementia – assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers: GUIDANCE. NICE Guidance 2016 [cited 2016 June]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-cgwave0792.

About Vanessa Newman

Vanessa’s background is in neurology (epilepsy and Down’s syndrome) and more recently in the field of neuroimaging in dementia. She has worked at Piramal Imaging since early 2015 and during this time has had the pleasure of seeing how quickly this area of medicine is moving, with increasing methods and imaging diagnostics available for use with people living with dementia.

Date of preparation: July 2016. ©Piramal Imaging Ltd. UK/FBB/1015/0021

Piramal Imaging Ltd, Langstone Technology Park, Langstone Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 1SA, United Kingdom

Piramal Imaging Ltd medical information enquiries: Medicalaffairs.imaging@piramal.com
Piramal Imaging Ltd media enquiries: inquiries.imaging@piramal.com

Piramal is a British Institute of Radiology corporate member.

Piramal logo

The Pelvic Radiation Disease Association – a voice for patients

Claire Poole

Claire Poole

Radiotherapy is an effective treatment for pelvic cancers but it is not widely known that the radiotherapy can affect healthy tissue and bone causing severe pain, incontinence and distress.

Here, Claire Poole explains what it’s like to have Pelvic Radiation Disease (PRD) and why she risked her life to raise money for the charity which has given her so much support.

 

 

Each year, in the UK, about 30,000 patients receive radiotherapy for pelvic cancers, half of whom are left with altered bowel and bladder functions that drastically impede a return to normal living.  Symptoms of severe pain, nausea and vomiting, incontinence, damage to bones, gut/stomach issues can appear shortly after treatment, or months – even years – afterwards.  Patients who report problems to their oncologists, surgeons and radiotherapists are often told that “We’ve cured your cancer so what’s the fuss about?. This response is common and also unacceptable. There are effective ways to manage late effects of pelvic radiotherapy (now recognised as PRD) and patients fortunate enough to get appropriate treatment report an average 70% improvement in symptoms.

Sky dive 1

Risking my life for PRDA

On Saturday 18th June 2016, I threw myself out of a plane at 15,000 ft. I harnessed my fearand put my life in the hands of the fantastic team at Go Skydive in Salisbury to do a tandem skydive, plummeting to earth at 125mph. I did this wacky thing to raise money for the Pelvic Radiation Disease Association (PRDA).

PRDA is a very small charity run by volunteers. The charity works so very hard trying to raise awareness of this condition among health professionals. PRD, the late effects of pelvic radiotherapy is not widely recognised by our own GPs or indeed the NHS. It has become a big part of mine, my partner, my two children, my family and friends’ lives.

I was diagnosed with cervical cancer four years ago, and had intense treatment consisting of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and internal radiotherapy. Thankfully, due to the treatment received I am still here, however, the radiotherapy treatment has changed my life. Yes it killed the cancer, but it also killed my insides.

Radiotherapy burns, it burns everything it touches. So while radiotherapy is highly effective in treating pelvic tumours, due to the nature of the treatment, it can affect tissues and other organs in the pelvic area. During my treatment not only were the cancer cells burnt and killed, but also all my healthy cells, tissues, bowel and bladder badly affected. Any cancer patient who receives radiotherapy to the pelvic area, will probably at some point experience the late effects of the cancer treatment. This could occur anything up to two to three years or longer after treatment. If this happens, as it did to myself and many other patients, we become unable to enjoy our cancer free lives. Our quality of life is hugely affected, from severe pain, nausea and vomiting, incontinence, damage to bones, gut/stomach issues. All of which can be either minor or cause you to be housebound or even hospitalised. All of which I have, and do experience.

I am a patient at the Royal Marsden and have been now for a few years. A very special man put me in touch with PRDA, a Dr Jervoise Andreyev. This wonderful man is a consultant gastroenterologist, who specialises in PRD and started PRDA. Dr Andreyev has made a huge difference to my life. Without the care of this man and his team, I would not be where I am today. I am not cured, but I am on treatments, have made lifestyle changes and I’m completing a medical trial. All with the help of Dr Andreyev, his team and PRDA.

Why did I raise money for this charity that many of you have never heard of?

I want to get PRD noticed and talked about and to publicise PRDA, to enable PRDA to help and support the thousands of other patients like me, who thought it was OK and normal, to have their quality of life taken from them just because they have had cancer. It is NOT OK. After all, we have fought so hard to beat cancer, surely we deserve to be given the best treatment and support possible, to try and live the rest of our lives happy and healthier with our families and friends?

Thank you so much for taking time in your day to read this. Please, please help me and others to raise as much money as possible to keep this wonderful charity going. To continue helping the thousands of brave, strong, beautiful women and men who need the support of PRDA in their lives”.

About the Pelvic Radiation Disease Association, (PRDA)

logo for PRDA

PRDA is  a support organisation of patients, carers and medical professionals formed in 2007 became a registered charity in 2012 (no 1147802).  We currently have 5 volunteer Trustees and 1 part-time self-employed Administrator. We publicise and increase awareness of PRD and provide support and advice to patients suffering from consequences of treatment. We inform and educate cancer nurse specialists, radiographers, oncologists, gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons, gynaecologists and urologists, about the symptoms and effects of PRD and provide clear and simple advice on how to refer patients for specialised help and treatment.

PRDA runs a telephone help line and an ‘email a nurse specialist’ advice service and are backed by a multidisciplinary team of experts to advise us on medical questions. Our website www.prda.org.uk provides support and advice for sufferers and we receive enquiries from around the world. The charity hosts support meetings covering such topics as diet, exercise, self-help, sexual health and radiography addressed by specialists on these topics – our aim is to provide help to enable people to cope better with the consequences of their treatment.

We present the charity’s work and objectives at major conferences throughout the UK via information stands and talks by patient ‘experts’ and have designed and produced literature for both patients and health professionals, working closely with other charities, particularly Macmillan Cancer support, Prostate Cancer, Beating Bowel Cancer, Bowel Cancer UK and Jo’s Trust (cervical cancer). These partnerships are essential to our work and together with Macmillan we chaired a Pan Pelvic Cancer committee of likeminded charities. In 2015 this resulted in a highly successful programme of training days for specialist helpline nurses from major cancer charities, an activity we strive to continue. We currently have an ongoing project in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support to list all gastroenterologists in the UK prepared to see patients with PRD.

PRDA has an active Facebook group with members both from the UK as well as other parts of the world, in particular the USA. This is a closed group and applications can be accepted via the PRDA website.

www.prda.org.uk

Registered charity number 1147802

(England & Wales) and a company limited by guarantee number 7998409