Exposure of medical personnel to radiation during radionuclide therapy practices.

OBJECTIVES: Radioisotopes that emit beta radiation are used for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, of arthritic patients (radiosynovectomy) and treatment of bone metastases with, respectively, I-labelled lipiodol, colloidal citrate of Y or and Sm-labelled EDTMP. Radiation energy of these radioisotopes that emit beta or beta and gamma radiation (from 300 to 2000 keV) leads to an increase in radiation dose received by nuclear medicine staff. In this paper we focused on clinical and laboratory staff exposure during these types of metabolic radiation therapies. METHODS: Cylindrical LiF thermoluminescence dosimeters were used to measure radiation-related whole-body doses (WBDs) and finger doses of the clinical staff. RESULTS: Exposure of the two radiopharmacists and three nurses taking part in I-labelled lipiodol, Y-colloid and Sm-EDTMP therapies, for 12 months in succession, were 146 microSv and 750 microSv, respectively, considering WBD, and 14.6 mSv and 6.5 mSv, respectively, considering finger doses. Extrapolated annual exposures (six radiosynovectomies per year) for the rheumatologists were estimated to be 21 microSv (WBD) and 13.2 mSv (finger dose). Extrapolated annual WBDs and finger doses (25 I-labelled lipiodol treatments per year) for radiologists were estimated to 165 microSv and 3.8 microSv, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fortunately, these doses were always lower than the limits reported in the European Directive EURATOM 96/29 05/13/1996 (WBD <20 mSv.year; finger dose: 500 mSv.year) but have to be added to those relative to other metabolic radiotherapies such as radioiodine treatments and new metabolic radiotherapies (Y-conjugated peptides or antibodies). Nevertheless, the global exposure of medical staff involved in all these clinical practices justifies dosimetry studies to validate protocols and radiation protection devices for each institution.

[Hemodialysis procedure in a patient treated with radioactive iodine]. / Procédure d'hémodialyse chez un patient traité par iode 131.

The treatment of a patient with 131I at activity over 740 mega Becquerel (MBq) must be performed in a nuclear medicine department. Isolation is stopped if the patient radiation level is less than 20 muSv/hour at one meter. As regards patients with chronic renal failure treated with hemodialysis (HD), the first HD session will eliminate the major part of the radioactivity. French regulations do not give definite recommendations for this session. However, it imposes to collect liquid and solid wastes contaminated by radioactivity. Thus, it seems necessary to collect dialysate and solid wastes and to stock them in a room dedicated to radiation decay. The risk for dialysis staff is to be contaminated by an accidental ingestion of a biologic fluid from the patient. The usual protection barriers used during the HD session are sufficient: mask, gloves, overgarments, cap. There is no risk linked to external exposure to radiations. The maximal theoretical dose received by the staff during the session is 65 muSv, while annual maximal dose for public exposed to radiations is 1000 muSv. Although the dosimetric follow-up of dialysis staff is not mandatory, the nuclear medicine department of Marseille University Hospital has decided to do it in an information perspective. The session is performed in the presence of a radiation safety technician who gives film badges and active dosimeters to the dialysis staff. He reports the dialysis staff to the nuclear safety agency (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire).

Technologist radiation exposure in routine clinical practice with 18F-FDG PET.

OBJECTIVE: The use of 18F-FDG for clinical PET studies increases technologist radiation dose exposure because of the higher gamma-radiation energy of this isotope than of other conventional medical gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes. Therefore, 18F-FDG imaging necessitates stronger radiation protection requirements. The aims of this study were to assess technologist whole-body and extremity exposure in our PET department and to evaluate the efficiency of our radiation protection devices (homemade syringe drawing device, semiautomated injector, and video tracking of patients). METHODS: Radiation dose assessment was performed for monodose as well as for multidose 18F-FDG packaging with both LiF thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD) and electronic personal dosimeters (ED) during 5 successive 18F-FDG PET steps (from syringe filling to patient departure). RESULTS: The mean +/- SD total effective doses received by technologists (n = 50) during all of the working steps were 3.24 +/- 2.1 and 3.01 +/- 1.4 microSv, respectively, as measured with ED and TLD (345 +/- 84 MBq injected). These values were confirmed by daily TLD technologist whole-body dose measurements (2.98 +/- 1.8 microSv; 294 +/- 78 MBq injected; n = 48). Finger irradiation doses during preparation of single 18F-FDG syringes were 204.9 +/- 24 and 198.4 +/- 23 microSv with multidose vials (345 +/- 93 MBq injected) and 127.3 +/- 76 and 55.9 +/- 47 microSv with monodose vials (302 +/- 43 MBq injected) for the right hand and the left hand, respectively. The protection afforded by the semiautomated injector, estimated as the ratio of the doses received by TLD placed on the syringe shield and on the external face of the injector, was near 2,000. CONCLUSION: These results showed that technologist radiation doses in our PET department were lower than those reported in the literature. This finding may be explained by the use of a homemade syringe drawing device, a semiautomated injector, and patient video tracking, allowing a shorter duration of contact between the technologist and the patient. Extrapolation of these results to an annual dose (4 patients per day per technologist) revealed that the annual extrapolated exposure values remained under the authorized limits for workers classified to work in a radioactivity-controlled area.

Radiation doses to cohabitants of patients undergoing radioiodine ablation for thyroid cancer: poor compliance with radiation protection guidelines but low radiation exposure.

BACKGROUND: The drive to reduce hospital stay after radioiodine remnant ablation in patients with thyroid cancer may increase the risk of radiation exposure to family members. The aim of this study was to evaluate the key determinants of dose exposure to familial members, with particular reference to the degree of adherence to current radiation safety guidelines. METHODS: All participants prospectively received our standard departmental oral and written safety instructions, with a mandatory 3-day restriction period. The postmicturition radiation levels of treated patients were measured (at 1-m distance) at the time of discharge using a portable radiometer. The radiation exposure of cohabitants was assessed with an optically stimulated luminescence-based personal dosimeter during the 3 days after hospital discharge. A questionnaire was used to assess the adherence of relatives/cohabitants to radiation safety guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients with thyroid cancer and 48 household members were included. At 48 h post therapy, the patient's median emission at 1-m distance was 13.4 µSv/h. The mean cumulative cohabitant exposure was 102 µSv (<50-1000). A positive correlation between cohabitant radiation exposure and the radiation level of the patient was observed (P=0.016). This correlation was absent when the recommended guidelines were followed (P=0.56). Only 17 household members (35.4%) strictly followed the recommended guidelines, but dose exposures exceeded 0.3 mSv in only four cases, in which a mean of between 5.8 and 9.5 h were spent in close proximity to the patient in the first 3 days, including sleeping with treated patients in half of the cases. CONCLUSION: Despite poor compliance with safety guidelines, a short-stay protocol respects current legislation, and is applicable to most patients treated with 3.7 GBq for radioiodine remnant ablation.