Radiation doses to technologists working with 18F-FDG in a PET center with high patient capacity

• Autorzy: Demir M. , Demir B. , Yaşar D. , Sayman H. B. , Halac M. , Ahmed A. S. , Özcan K. , Uslu I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The increasing numbers of PET studies for routine diagnosis creates a real hazard to radiation workers. The aim of this study is to estimate the annual whole-body and finger radiation dose to technologists working with 18F-FDG in a PET center with high patient potential. In our PET center, the number of PET imaging has increased almost to 5000 studies per year. Our standard dose for tumor imaging is 518 MBq of 18F-FDG. Five technologists performing all steps of 18F-FDG imaging (5 patients per technologist in a day) were officially involved round the week for handling and injecting 18F-FDG to patients. Whole-body and finger dose measurements with TLDs were performed for two different time periods: i) before shielding precautions during the first 6 months (without a shielding for sterile syringe and without a lead container for shielded syringe) and ii) after shielding precautions during the next 6 months (with a shielding for sterile syringe and with a lead container for shielded syringe). The average annual whole-body radiation dose for one technologist before shielding precautions was 7.82 mSv and after shielding precautions was 5.76 mSv. On the other hand, while the average annual finger radiation doses for one technologist before shielding precautions were 210.36 and 293.72 mSv for the left and right hand, after shielding precautions were they 158.16 and 217.58 mSv for the left and right hand, respectively. According to our results, if one technologist performs the whole-body PET imaging of 5 patients per day, the annual radiation dose to this technologist will not exceed the recommended limits by ICRP.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

whole-body dose; finger doses; personnel dosimetry; 18F-FDG; PET-CT

• Wydawca: Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology
• Czasopismo: Nukleonika
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: Vol. 55, No. 1
• Strony: 107--112
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 17 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Demir M.

autor

Demir B.

autor

Yaşar D.

autor

Sayman H. B.

autor

Halac M.

autor

Ahmed A. S.

autor

Özcan K.

autor

Uslu I.

• Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University, 34098, Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey, Tel.: [phone], Fax: [phone]/22981,

Bibliografia

• 1. Benatar NA, Cronin BF, O’Doherty MJ (2000) Radiation dose rates from patients undergoing PET: implications for technologists and waiting areas. Eur J Nucl Med 27:583–589
• 2. Biran T, Weininger J, Malchi S, Marciano R, Chisin R (2004) Measurements of occupational exposure for a technologist performing 18F-FDG scans. Health Phys 87;5:539–544
• 3. Bixler A, Springer G, Lovas R (1999) Practical aspects of radiation safety for using fluorine-18. J Nucl Med Technol 27:14–16
• 4. Chiesa C, De Sanctis V, Crippa F et al. (1997) Radiation dose to technicians per nuclear medicine procedure: comparison between technetium-99m, gallium-67 and iodine-131. Eur J Nucl Med 24;11:1380–1389
• 5. Council of the European Union (1996) Council Directive 96/29/ EURATOM of 13 May 1966 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. Official J Eur Common L159:1–14
• 6. Cronin B, Marsden PK, Q’Doherty MJ (1999) Are restrictions to behavior of patients required following fluorine-18 fluorodeoxiglucose positron emission tomographic studies? Eur J Nucl Med 26:121–128
• 7. Guillet B, Qentin P, Waultier S, Bourrrell M, Pisano P, Mundler O (2005) Technologist radiation exposure in routine clinical practice with 18FDG PET. J Nucl Med Technol 33:175–179
• 8. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991) ICRP Publication 60: 1990 Recommendation of the ICRP. Pergamon Press, New York
• 9. Lineman H, Will E, Beuthien-Baumann B (2000) Investigations of radiation exposure of the medical personnel during F-18-FDG PET studies. Nuklearmedizin 39:77–81
• 10. McCormic VA, Miklos JA (1993) Radiation dose to positron emission tomography technologists during quantitative vs. qualitative studies. J Nucl Med 34:769–772
• 11. McElroy NL (1998) Worker dose analysis based on real time dosimetry. Health Phys 74:608–609
• 12. Mejia AA, Nakamura T, Masatoshi I, Hatazawa J, Masaki M, Watanuki S (1991) Estimation of absorbed doses in humans due to intravenous administration of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in PET studies. J Nucl Med 32;4:699–706
• 13. Robert FO, Gunawardana DH, Pathmaraj K et al. (2005) Radiation dose to PET technologists and strategies to lower occupational exposure. J Nucl Med Technol 33:44–47
• 14. Robinson CN, Young JG, Wallace AB, Ibbetson VJ (2005) A study of the personal radiation dose received by nuclear medicine technologists working in a dedicated PET scanner. Radiat Safety J 88;1:17–21
• 15. Seierstad T, Stranded E, Bjering K et al. (2007) Doses to nuclear technicians in a dedicated PET/CT centre utilising 18F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Radiat Prot Dosim 123;2:246–249
• 16. Tandon P, Venkatesh M, Bhatt BC (2007) Extremity dosimetry for radiation workers handling unsealed radionuclides in nuclear medicine departments in India. Health Phys 92;2:112–118
• 17. Zeff BW, Yester MV (2005) Patient self-attenuation and technologist dose in positron emission tomography. Med Phys 32;4:861–865