Radiation exposure in the environment of patients after application of radiopharmaceuticals

2009 ◽  
Vol 48 (01) ◽  
pp. 17-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Boldt ◽  
C. Kobe ◽  
J. Hammes ◽  
W. Eschner ◽  
H. Schicha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Radioactive Source ◽  
Detailed Knowledge ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Photon Dose ◽  
High Maximum ◽  
Radiation Measurements

Summary Aim: After therapeutical application of radionuclides the patient has to be regarded as a radioactive source. The radiation exposure differs from diagnostic nuclear medicine due to the amount of radioactivity and due to β-radiation. Measurements of photon dose rates were carried out and estimates of β-radiation outside the patient using Monte-Carlo methods. Calculations of maximum β-ranges in tissue were also performed. Detailed knowledge of the radiation exposure close to the patient is of major importance with respect to radiation protection of the staff. Method: Photon dose rates for 32 patients were determined after treatment with [131I]NaI and [131I]meta-iodobenzylguanidin, [32P]Na2HPO4, [90Y]Zevalin and [153Sm]EDTMP. Readings were taken immediately after application at eight distances. Results: For therapies with 131I photon dose rates amount to 2 mSv·h-1·GBq-1 close to the patient. Taking the typical activities of 3.7 GBq for thyroid carcinoma and up to 11 GBq for mIBG therapies into account this leads to a considerable radiation exposure of approximately 7.5 mSv/h and 20 mSv/h, respectively. At a distance of 2 m the dose rates fall to 1/100 compared to the vicinity. For 153Sm the maximum of 100 μSv·h-1·GBq-1 is significantly lower compared to therapies using radioiodine. After application of 32P or 90Y all photon dose rates are lower (>10 μSv·h-1·GBq-1) but in both cases high energy β-particles associated with high maximum ranges exceeding 1 cm in tissue have to be considered. Conclusion: The remarkable difference of the dose rates in the vicinity of the radioactive patient compared to readings at 2 m distance underlines the major importance of the distance for radiation protection. After application of nuclides emitting high energy β-particles their contribution outside the patient should be considered. For typical procedures in the patient's vicinty the radiation exposure of the personnel remains below the annual limit of 20 mSv.

Radiation exposure in the environment of patients after application of radiopharmaceuticals

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (06) ◽  
pp. 267-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Boldt ◽  
C. Kobe ◽  
W. Eschner ◽  
H. Schicha ◽  
F. Sudbrock
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radioactive Source ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
The Public ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Photon Dose ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Study Dose

Summary Aim: After application of radiopharmaceuticals the patient becomes a radioactive source which leads to radiation exposure in the proximity. The photon dose rates after administration of different radiopharmaceuticals used in diagnostic nuclear medicine were measured at several distances and different time intervals. These data are of importance for estimating the exposure of technologists and members of the public. Patients, method: In this study dose rates were measured for 67 patients after application of the following radiopharmaceuticals: 99mTc-HDP as well as 99mTcpertechnetate, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, 111In-Octreotid and Zevalin® and 123I-mIBG in addition to 123I-NaI. The dose rates were measured immediately following application at six different distances to the patient. After two hours the measurements were repeated and – whenever possible – after 24 hours and seven days. Results: Immediately following application the highest dose rates were below 1 mSv / h: with a maximum at 780 μSv/h for 18F (370 MBq), 250 μSv/h for 99mTc (700 MBq), 150 μSv/h for 111In (185 MBq) and 132 μSv/ h for 123I (370 MBq). At a distance of 0.5 m the values decrease significantly by an order of magnitude. Two hours after application the values are diminished to 1/3 (99mTc, 18F), to nearly ½ (123I) but remain in the same order of magnitude for the longer-lived 111In radiopharmaceuticals. Conclusion: For greater distances the doses remain below the limits outlined in the national legislation.

Radiation doses deriving from patients treated with 166Ho-ferric hydroxide

2003 ◽  
Vol 42 (06) ◽  
pp. 251-254
Author(s):  
C. Pirich ◽  
P. John ◽  
S. Ofluoglu ◽  
H. Sinzinger ◽  
E. Havlik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Ferric Hydroxide ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Radiation Doses ◽  
Annual Dose ◽  
Tracer Injection ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Protection Devices

Summary Aim: To estimate radiation doses deriving from patients treated with 166Ho ferric hydroxide. Methods: For radiation synoviorthesis about 900 ± 100 MBq 166Ho ferric hydroxide was injected into the knee joint of 16 patients. To estimate the radiation exposure of persons in the neighbourhood of the patients measurements of the dose rates were performed at 0.5 m, 1 m and 2 m distance of the treated joint 10 min after tracer injection. Measurements were carried out with and without radiation protection devices of the syringe. Results: The initial values of the dose rate were 11.9 μSv/h at 0.5 m, 3.5 μSv/h at 1 m and 1 μSv/h at 2 m distance, respectively. The whole body doses were 2.9 μSv for the physician and 4.6 μSv for the technologist. The finger doses for the technologist and the physician were ranging from 65 to 111 μSv. After discharge at home other persons might receive 118 μSv. Conclusion: Our results, under very strict assumptions, clearly demonstrate that the calculated radiation exposure to medical and non medical personnel is well below the maximum annual dose limit. The use of any additional radiation protection device as syringe shielding does not significantly lower radiation exposure.

EVALUATION OF RADIATION DOSE IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS AROUND THE PATIENT TABLE DURING INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY PROJECTIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 188 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204
Author(s):  
Y Lahfi ◽  
A Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Interventional Cardiology ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Patient Table ◽  
The Right

Abstract The aim of the present study was to evaluate the radiation exposure around the patient table as relative to the cardiologist position dose value. The dose rates at eight points presuming staff positions were measured for PA, LAO 30° and RAO 30° radiographic projections, and then normalized to the cardiologist’s position dose-rate value. The results show that in PA and RAO 30° projections, the normalized dose rate was higher by 9–22% at the right side of the table at a distance of 50 cm, while it was higher up to 31% at the left side for the same measured points in the LAO 30°. The differences of normalized dose rates for the both table sides were lower and decreased at farther positions. The obtained results correspond to the recommendations of staff radiation protection in Cath-labs with regards to X-ray tube and detector positions.

Коэффициент эффективности (DDREF) дозы и мощноcти доз: ненужные, спорные и противоречивые вопросы

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-27
Author(s):  
Julio Abel ◽  
Julio Abel
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Radiation Effects ◽  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Mathematical Formulation ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Radiation Risks ◽  
Risk Estimates

Purpose: The aim of the paper is to review the genesis and evolution of the concept termed dose and dose rate effectiveness factor or DDREF, to expose critiques on the concept and to suggest some curse of action on its use. Material and methods: Mainly using the UNSCEAR reporting and ICRP recommendations as the main reference material, the paper describes the evolution (since the 70’s) of the conundrum of inferring radiation risk at low dose and dose-rate. People are usually exposed to radiation at much lower doses and dose rates than those for which quantitative evaluations of incidence of radiation effects are available – a situation that tempted experts to search for a factor relating the epidemiological attribution of effects at high doses and dose-rates with the subjective inference of risk at low doses and dose-rates. The formal introduction and mathematical formulation of the concept by UNSCEAR and ICRP (in the 90’s), is recalled. It is then underlined that the latest UNSCEAR radiation risk estimates did not use a DDREF concept, making it de facto unneeded for purposes of radiation risk attribution. The paper also summarizes the continuous use of the concept for radiation protection purposes and related concerns as well as some current public misunderstandings and apprehension on the DDREF (particularly the aftermath of the Fukushima Dai’ichi NPP accident). It finally discusses epistemological weaknesses of the concept itself. Results: It seems that the DDREF has become superseded by scientific developments and its use has turned out to be unneeded for the purposes of radiation risk estimates. The concept also appears to be arguable for radiation protection purposes, visibly controversial and epistemologically questionable Conclusions: It is suggested that: (i) the use of the DDREF can be definitely abandoned for radiation risk estimates; (ii) while recognizing that radiation protection has different purposes than radiation risk estimation, the discontinuation of using a DDREF for radiation protection might also be considered; (iii) for radiation exposure situations for which there are available epidemiological information that can be scientifically tested (namely which is confirmable and verifiable and therefore falsifiable), radiation risks should continue to be attributed in terms of frequentistic probabilities; and, (iv) for radiation exposure situations for which direct scientific evidence of effects is unavailable or unfeasible to obtain, radiation risks may need to be inferred on the basis of indirect evidence, scientific reasoning and professional judgment aimed at estimating their plausibility in terms of subjective probabilities.

Radioiodine treatment of feline hyperthyroidism in Germany

2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (06) ◽  
pp. 245-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Knietsch ◽  
T. Spillmann ◽  
E.-G. Grünbaum ◽  
R. Bauer ◽  
M. Puille
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Thyroid Function ◽  
Radioiodine Therapy ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Radioiodine Treatment ◽  
Normal Thyroid ◽  
Normal Thyroid Function ◽  
Body Activity ◽  
Thyroid Uptake

SummaryAim: Establishment of radioiodine treatment of feline hyperthyroidism in veterinary routine in accordance with German radiation protection regulations. Patients and methods: 35 cats with proven hyperthyroidism were treated with 131I in a special ward. Thyroid uptake and effective halflife were determined using gammacamera dosimetry. Patients were released when measured whole body activity was below the limit defined in the German “Strahlenschutzverordnung”. Results: 17/20 cats treated with 150 MBq radioiodine and 15/15 cats treated with 250 MBq had normal thyroid function after therapy, normal values for FT3 and FT4 were reached after two and normal TSH levels after three weeks. In 14 cats normal thyroid function was confirmed by controls 3-6 months later. Thyroidal iodine uptake was 24 ± 10%, effective halflife 2.5 ± 0.7 days. Whole body activity <1 MBq was reached 13 ± 4 days after application of 131I. Radiation exposure of cat owners was estimated as 1.97 Sv/MBq for adults. Conclusion: Radioiodine therapy of feline hyper-thyroidism is highly effective and safe. It can easily be performed in accordance with German radiation protection regulations, although this requires hospitalisation for approximately two weeks. Practical considerations on radiation exposure of cat owners do not justify this long interval. Regulations for the veterinary use of radioactive substances similar to existing regulations for medical use in humans are higly desirable.

Strahlengefahrdung und Strahlenschutz / Radiation Exposure and Radiation Protection

1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bamberg ◽  
D. van Beuningen ◽  
W. Gössner ◽  
Friedrich Heuck ◽  
H. Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection

Radiation exposure of the staff at the therapeutic and diagnostic nuclear medicine department

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (04) ◽  
pp. 175-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Dolezal
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Effective Dose ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Annual Effective Dose ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Professional Groups ◽  
Personal Dosimetry ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Administered Activity

SummaryAim: To assess a radiation exposure and the quality of radiation protection concerning a nuclear medicine staff at our department as a six-year retrospective study. Therapeutic radionuclides such as 131I, 153Sm, 186Re, 32P, 90Y and diagnostic ones as a 99mTc, 201Tl, 67Ga, 111In were used. Material, method: The effective dose was evaluated in the period of 2001–2006 for nuclear medicine physicians (n = 5), technologists (n = 9) and radiopharmacists (n = 2). A personnel film dosimeter and thermoluminescent ring dosimeter for measuring (1-month periods) the personal dose equivalent Hp(10) and Hp(0,07) were used by nuclear medicine workers. The wearing of dosimeters was obligatory within the framework of a nationwide service for personal dosimetry. The total administered activity of all radionuclides during these six years at our department was 17,779 GBq (99mTc 14 708 GBq, 131I 2490 GBq, others 581 GBq). The administered activity of 99mTc was similar, but the administered activity of 131I in 2006 increased by 200%, as compared with the year 2001. Results: The mean and one standard deviation (SD) of the personal annual effective dose (mSv) for nuclear medicine physicians was 1.9 ± 0.6, 1.8 ± 0.8, 1.2 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.8, 1.3 ± 0.6, 0.8 ± 0.4 and for nuclear medicine technologists was 1.9 ± 0.8, 1.7 ± 1.4, 1.0 ± 1.0, 1.1 ± 1.2, 0.9 ± 0.4 and 0.7 ± 0.2 in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively. The mean (n = 2, estimate of SD makes little sense) of the personal annual effective dose (mSv) for radiopharmacists was 3.2, 1.8, 0.6, 1.3, 0.6 and 0.3. Although the administered activity of 131I increased, the mean personal effective dose per year decreased during the six years. Conclusion: In all three professional groups of nuclear medicine workers a decreasing radiation exposure was found, although the administered activity of 131I increased during this six-year period. Our observations suggest successful radiation protection measures at our department.

Study on Radiation Dose Calculation of PWR Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen Yang ◽  
Xing Li ◽  
Jinrong Qiu ◽  
Lun Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Normal Condition ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Storage Pool ◽  
Transport Container ◽  
Photon Dose ◽  
Spent Fuel Storage ◽  
Fuel Storage

Abstract With the rapid development of nuclear energy, spent fuel will accumulate in large quantities. Spent fuel is generally cooled and placed in a storage pool, and then transported to a reprocessing plant at an appropriate time. Because spent fuel is content with a high level of radiation, spent fuel storage and transportation safety play important roles in the nuclear safety. Radiation dose safety are checked and validated using source analysis and Monte Carlo method to establish a radiation dose rate calculation model for PWR spent fuel storage pool and transport container. The calculation results show that the neutron and photon dose rates decrease exponentially with increase of water level under normal condition of storage pool. The attenuation multiples of neutron and photon dose rates are 4.64 and 1.59, respectively. According to radiation dose levels in different water height situations, spent fuel pool under loss of coolant accident can be divides into five workplaces. They are supervision zone, regular zone, intermittent zone, restricted zone and radiation zone. Under normal condition of transport container, the dose rates at the surface of the container and at a distance of 1 m from the surface are 0.1759 mSv/h and 0.0732 mSv/h, respectively. The dose rates decrease with the increasing radius of break accident, and dose rate at the surface of the transport container is 0.278 mSv/h when the break radius is 20 cm. Transport container conforms to the radiation safety standards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This study can provide some reference for radiation safety analysis of spent fuel storage and transportation.

scholarly journals Intraoperative 2D C-arm and 3D O-arm in children: a comparative phantom study

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 550-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Prod’homme ◽  
M. Sans-Merce ◽  
N. Pitteloud ◽  
J. Damet ◽  
P. Lascombes
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Scattered Radiation ◽  
Intraoperative Imaging ◽  
Radiation Doses ◽  
Organ Doses ◽  
Thermoluminescent Dosimeters ◽  
Dose Rates ◽  
Absorbed Doses ◽  
Entrance Dose ◽  
Student’S T

Purpose Exposure to ionizing radiation is a concern for children during intraoperative imaging. We aimed to assess the radiation exposure to the paediatric patient with 2D and 3D imaging. Methods To evaluate the radiation exposure, patient absorbed doses to the organs were measured in an anthropomorphic phantom representing a five-year-old child, using thermoluminescent dosimeters. For comparative purposes, organ doses were measured using a C-arm for one minute of fluoroscopy and one acquisition with an O-arm. The cone-beam was centred on the pelvis. Direct and scattered irradiations were measured and compared (Student’s t-test). Skin entrance dose rates were also evaluated. Results All radiation doses were expressed in µGy. Direct radiation doses of pelvic organs were between 631.22 and 1691.87 for the O-arm and between 214.08 and 737.51 for the C-arm, and were not significant (p = 0.07). Close scattered radiation on abdominal organs were between 25.11 and 114.85 for the O-arm and between 8.03 and 55.34 for the C-arm, and were not significant (p = 0.07). Far scattered radiation doses on thorax, neck and head varied from 0.86 to 6.42 for the O-arm and from 0.04 to 3.08 for the C-arm, and were significant (p = 0.02). The dose rate at the skin entrance was 328.58 µGy.s−1 for the O-arm and 1.90 with the C-arm. Conclusion During imaging of the pelvis, absorbed doses for a 3D O-arm acquisition were higher than with one minute fluoroscopy with the C-arm. Further clinical studies comparing effective doses are needed to assess ionizing risks of the intraoperative imaging systems in children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document