Dosimetry for the study of medical radiation workers with a focus on the mean absorbed dose to the lung, brain and other organs.

BACKGROUND: The reconstruction of lifetime radiation doses for medical workers presents special challenges not commonly encountered for the other worker cohorts comprising the Million Worker Study. METHODS: The selection of approximately 175,000 medical radiation workers relies on using estimates of lifetime and annual personal monitoring results collected since 1977. Approaches have been created to adjust the monitoring results so that mean organ absorbed doses can be estimated. RESULTS: Changes in medical technology and practices have altered the radiation exposure environments to which a worker may have been exposed during their career. Other temporal factors include shifts in regulatory requirements that influenced the conduct of radiation monitoring and the changes in the measured dose quantities. CONCLUSIONS: The use of leaded aprons during exposure to lower energy X rays encountered in fluoroscopically based radiology adds complexity to account for the shielding of the organs located in the torso when dosimeters were worn over leaded aprons. Estimating doses to unshielded tissues such as the brain and lens of the eye become less challenging when dosimeters are worn at the collar above the apron. The absence of leaded aprons in the higher energy photon settings lead to a more straightforward process of relating dosimeter results to mean organ doses.

Evolution of radiation protection for medical workers.

Within a few months of discovery, X-rays were being used worldwide for diagnosis and within a year or two for therapy. It became clear very quickly that while there were immense benefits, there were significant associated hazards, not only for the patients, but also for the operators of the equipment. Simple radiation protection measures were implemented within a decade or two and radiation protection for physicians and other operators has continued to evolve over the last century driven by cycles of widening uses, new technologies, realization of previously unidentified effects, development of recommendations and regulations, along with the rise of related societies and professional organizations. Today, the continue acceleration of medical radiation uses in diagnostic imaging and in therapeutic modalities not imagined at the turn of this century, such as positron emission tomography, calls for constant vigilance and flexibility to provide adequate protection for the growing numbers of medical radiation workers.

Patient Exposure from Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures in the United States: Procedure Volume and Effective Dose for the Period 2006-2016.

Background Comprehensive assessments of the frequency and associated doses from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures are rarely conducted. The use of these procedures and the population-based radiation dose increased remarkably from 1980 to 2006. Purpose To determine the change in per capita radiation exposure in the United States from 2006 to 2016. Materials and Methods The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements conducted a retrospective assessment for 2016 and compared the results to previously published data for the year 2006. Effective dose values for procedures were obtained from the literature, and frequency data were obtained from commercial, governmental, and professional society data. Results In the United States in 2006, an estimated 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations were performed. This value remained essentially the same for 2016 even though the U.S. population had increased by about 24 million people. The number of CT scans performed increased from 67 million to 84 million, but the number of other procedures (eg, diagnostic fluoroscopy) and nuclear medicine procedures decreased from 17 million to 13.5 million. The number of dental radiographic and dental CT examinations performed was estimated to be about 320 million in 2016. Using the tissue-weighting factors from Publication 60 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the U.S. annual individual (per capita) effective dose from diagnostic and interventional medical procedures was estimated to have been 2.9 mSv in 2006 and 2.3 mSv in 2016, with the collective doses being 885 000 and 755 000 person-sievert, respectively. Conclusion The trend from 1980 to 2006 of increasing dose from medical radiation has reversed. Estimated 2016 total collective effective dose and radiation dose per capita dose are lower than in 2006. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Einstein in this issue.

Summary of NCRP 2019 Annual Meeting, NCRP Meeting the Challenge at 90: Providing Best Answers to Your Most Pressing Questions About Radiation.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) held its 55 Annual Meeting 1-2 April 2019 in Bethesda, Maryland. The 2019 meeting was a special year for NCRP as it marked the 90 Anniversary of the founding of the predecessor organization, US Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection. Leaders for the scientific portion of the meeting were Fred A. Mettler, Jr., M.D. (Chair), University of New Mexico School of Medicine; Jerrold T. Bushberg, Ph.D. (Co-Chair), University of California Davis; and Richard J. Vetter, Ph.D. (Co-Chair), Mayo Clinic. The meeting was designed to explore important areas of inquiry associated with use of ionizing radiation relevant to radiation protection, addressing frequently asked questions and concerns from both members of the public and radiation professionals. The meeting was organized into six sessions plus three honorary lectures and a special presentation. This paper summarizes the scientific content of the six sessions and is based on the notes of the co-chairs and the slides of the speakers. The three honorary lectures are included as other papers in this issue.

Patient Radiation Exposure: Imaging During Radiation Oncology Procedures: Executive Summary of NCRP Report No. 184.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recently assessed patient radiation exposure in the United States, which was summarized in its 2019 NCRP Report No. 184. This work involved an estimation of the number of medical procedures using ionizing radiation, as well as the associated effective doses from these procedures. The NCRP Report No. 184 committee elected to not incorporate radiation dose from radiotherapy into its calculated population dose exposures, as the assessment of effective dose for the population undergoing radiotherapy is more complex than that for other medical radiation exposures. However, the aim of NCRP Report No. 184 was to raise awareness of ancillary radiation exposures to patients undergoing radiotherapy. Overall, it was estimated that annually, in 2016, approximately 800,000 patients received approximately 1 million courses of radiation therapy. Each of these treatments includes various types of imaging that may not be familiar to radiologists or others. Exposures from radiotherapy planning and delivery are reviewed in the report and summarized in this executive summary. The imaging techniques, use of this imaging, and associated tissue doses are described. Imaging can contribute a few percent to the planned treatment doses (which are prescribed to specified target volumes) as well as exposing patients to radiation outside of the target volume (in the imaging field of view).

Selected Radiation Safety Aspects Including Transportation and Lodging After Outpatient 131I Therapy for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Whether radioactive iodine (131I) treatments for differentiated thyroid cancer should be performed as an outpatient or inpatient remains controversial. The objective of this study was to survey selected aspects of radiation safety of patients treated with 131I for differentiated thyroid cancer as an outpatient. METHODS: An e-mail invitation was sent to over 15,000 members of ThyCa: Thyroid Cancer Survivors' Association, Inc. to complete a web-based survey on selected aspects of radiation safety regarding their last outpatient 131I treatment. RESULTS: A total of 1549 patients completed the survey. Forty-five percent (699/1541) of the respondents reported no discussion on the choice of an inpatient or outpatient treatment. Moreover, 5% (79/1541) of the respondents reported that their insurance company made the decision. Survey respondents recalled receiving oral and written radiation safety instructions 97% (1459/1504) and 93% (1351/1447) of the time, respectively. Nuclear medicine physicians delivered oral and written instructions to 54% (807/1504) and 41% (602/1462) of the respondents, respectively. Eighty-eight percent (1208/1370) of the respondents were discharged within 1 hour after receiving their 131I treatment, and 97% (1334/1373) traveled in their own car after being released from the treating facility. Immediately post-therapy, 94% (1398/1488) of the respondents stayed at their own home or a relative's home, while 5% (76/1488) resided in a public lodging. The specific recommendations received by patients about radiation precautions varied widely among the respondents. Ninety-nine percent (1451/1467) of the respondents believed they were compliant with the instructions. CONCLUSION: This is the largest, patient-based survey published regarding selected radiation safety aspects of outpatient 131I treatment. This survey suggests several concerns about radiation safety, such as the decision process regarding inpatient versus outpatient treatment, instructions about radiation safety, transportation, and lodging after radioiodine therapy. These concerns warrant further discussion, guidelines, and/or policies.

Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in prostate cancer treatment trials.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee convened four working groups to recommend core sets of patient-reported outcomes to be routinely incorporated in clinical trials. The Prostate Cancer Working Group included physicians, researchers, and a patient advocate. The group's process included 1) a systematic literature review to determine the prevalence and severity of symptoms, 2) a multistakeholder meeting sponsored by the NCI to review the evidence and build consensus, and 3) a postmeeting expert panel synthesis of findings to finalize recommendations. Five domains were recommended for localized prostate cancer: urinary incontinence, urinary obstruction and irritation, bowel-related symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and hormonal symptoms. Four domains were recommended for advanced prostate cancer: pain, fatigue, mental well-being, and physical well-being. Additional domains for consideration include decisional regret, satisfaction with care, and anxiety related to prostate cancer. These recommendations have been endorsed by the NCI for implementation.

Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast.

PURPOSE: Recent studies have raised concerns about exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. Little has been published regarding the relative exposure and risks associated with breast imaging techniques such as breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI), molecular breast imaging (MBI), or positron emission mammography (PEM). The purpose of this article was to estimate and compare the risks of radiation-induced cancer from mammography and techniques such as PEM, BSGI, and MBI in a screening environment. METHODS: The authors used a common scheme for all estimates of cancer incidence and mortality based on the excess absolute risk model from the BEIR VII report. The lifetime attributable risk model was used to estimate the lifetime risk of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality. All estimates of cancer incidence and mortality were based on a population of 100 000 females followed from birth to age 80 and adjusted for the fraction that survives to various ages between 0 and 80. Assuming annual screening from ages 40 to 80 and from ages 50 to 80, the cumulative cancer incidence and mortality attributed to digital mammography, screen-film mammography, MBI, BSGI, and PEM was calculated. The corresponding cancer incidence and mortality from natural background radiation was calculated as a useful reference. Assuming a 15%-32% reduction in mortality from screening, the benefit/risk ratio for the different imaging modalities was evaluated. RESULTS: Using conventional doses of 925 MBq Tc-99m sestamibi for MBI and BSGI and 370 MBq F-18 FDG for PEM, the cumulative cancer incidence and mortality were found to be 15-30 times higher than digital mammography. The benefit/risk ratio for annual digital mammography was >50:1 for both the 40-80 and 50-80 screening groups, but dropped to 3:1 for the 40-49 age group. If the primary use of MBI, BSGI, and PEM is in women with dense breast tissue, then the administered doses need to be in the range 75-150 MBq for Tc-99m sestamibi and 35 MBq-70 MBq for F-18 FDG in order to obtain benefit/risk ratios comparable to those of mammography in these age groups. These dose ranges should be achievable with enhancements to current technology while maintaining a reasonable examination time. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the dose estimates in this study clearly indicate that if molecular imaging techniques are to be of value in screening for breast cancer, then the administered doses need to be substantially reduced to better match the effective doses of mammography.

Replacement of 137Cs irradiators with x-ray irradiators.

Self-shielded 137Cs irradiators have been used for many years to irradiate blood products to prevent graft vs. host disease and to irradiate cells and small animals in research. A report by the National Academy of Sciences recommends that careful consideration be given to replacement of 137Cs irradiators with x-ray irradiators. Several manufacturers and users of x-ray irradiators were contacted to determine costs of replacing and maintaining 137Cs irradiators with x-ray units and to assess users' experience with x-ray irradiators. Purchase costs of x-ray units are similar to 137Cs irradiators, but maintenance costs are significantly higher if annual service contracts are used. Performance of the two irradiator types appears to be equivalent, but in some cases x-ray irradiations may need to be performed in multiple configurations to achieve adequate uniformity in dose. No literature reports were found that evaluated the biological effectiveness of x rays vs. 137Cs gamma rays; therefore, a careful study should be conducted to determine the biological effectiveness of x rays vs. 137Cs gamma rays for biological responses relevant to transfusion medicine and immunological research. Throughput may be problematic for large transfusion medicine programs, and back-up plans may be necessary in case the x-ray unit needs to be taken out of service for extended maintenance. Disposition of a 137Cs irradiator will add to the cost of replacement with an x-ray unit, but disposal may be possible through the U.S. Department of Energy's Off-Site Source Recovery Program.

Medical health physics: a review.

Medical health physics is the profession dedicated to the protection of healthcare providers, members of the public, and patients from unwarranted radiation exposure. Medical health physicists must be knowledgeable in the principles of health physics and in the applications of radiation in medicine. Advances in medical health physics require the definition of problems, testing of hypotheses, and gathering of evidence to defend changes in health physics practice and to assist medical practitioners in making changes in their practices as appropriate. Advances in radiation medicine have resulted in new modalities and procedures, some of which have significant potential to cause serious harm. Examples included in this review include radiologic procedures that require very long fluoroscopy times, radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies, and intravascular brachytherapy. This review summarizes evidence that supports changes in consensus recommendations, regulations, and health physics practices associated with recent advances in radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiation oncology. Medical health physicists must continue to gather evidence to support intelligent but practical methods for protection of personnel, the public, and patients as modalities and applications evolve in the practice of medicine.

Medical health physics: a review.

Medical health physics is the profession dedicated to the protection of healthcare providers, members of the public, and patients from unwarranted radiation exposure. Medical health physicists must be knowledgeable in the principles of health physics and in the applications of radiation in medicine. Advances in medical health physics require the definition of problems, testing of hypotheses, and gathering of evidence to defend changes in health physics practice and to assist medical practitioners in making changes in their practices as appropriate. Advances in radiation medicine have resulted in new modalities and procedures, some of which have significant potential to cause serious harm. Examples included in this review include radiologic procedures that require very long fluoroscopy times, radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies, and intravascular brachytherapy. This review summarizes evidence that supports changes in consensus recommendations, regulations, and health physics practices associated with recent advances in radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiation oncology. Medical health physicists must continue to gather evidence to support intelligent but practical methods for protection of personnel, the public, and patients as modalities and applications evolve in the practice of medicine.

Radiation exposure to operating room personnel during transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with radiation exposure (RE) to operating room personnel during transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between May 1998 and December 2000, 155 patients underwent TIPPB with fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance. Data for each case included: operating room time (OT), anesthesia time (AT), fluoroscopy time (FT), number and type of seed implanted, total seed activity, and resident participation. RESULTS: Personnel RE per case, FT, OT, and AT decreased as case number increased. Whole body badge dose per case decreased from a mean of 0.15+/-0.01 mSv (15+/-1 mrem) in 1998 to 0.074+/-0.011 mSv (7+/-1 mrem) in 2000. Average FT per case decreased from a mean of 17:27 min (range, 10:40-28:23) in 1998 to 12:08 min (range, 6:40-31:00) in 2000. Resident participation was associated with increased FT. Mean whole body and ring badge doses for the treating radiation oncologist were 0.0076 mSv/min (0.76 mrem/min) and 0.05 mSv/min (5.26 mrem/min) of FT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FT was the predominant factor that related to RE during TIPPB. Treating radiation oncologists were exposed to less than 20 mSv per 100 cases, significantly less than other fluoroscopically guided procedures. Nonetheless, appropriate radiation exposure precautions during TIPPB should continue.