Using personal monitoring data to derive organ doses for medical radiation workers in the Million Person Study-considerations regarding NCRP Commentary no. 30.

The study of low dose and low-dose rate exposure is of central importance in understanding the possible range of health effects from prolonged exposures to radiation. The One Million Person Study of Radiation Workers and Veterans (MPS) of low-dose health effects was designed to evaluate radiation risks among healthy American workers and veterans. The MPS is evaluating low-dose and dose-rate effects, intakes of radioactive elements, cancer and non-cancer outcomes, as well as differences in risks between women and men. Medical radiation workers make up a large group of individuals occupationally exposed to low doses of radiation from external x-ray/gamma exposures. For the MPS, about 100 000 United States medical radiation workers have been selected for study. The approach to the complex dosimetry circumstances for such workers over three to four decades of occupation were initially and broadly described in National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report No. 178. NCRP Commentary No. 30 provides more detail and describes an optimum approach for using personal monitoring data to estimate lung and other organ doses applicable to the cohort and provides specific precautions/considerations applicable to the dosimetry of medical radiation worker organ doses for use in epidemiologic studies. The use of protective aprons creates dosimetric complexity. It is recommended that dose values from dosimeters worn over a protective apron be reduced by a factor of 20 for estimating mean organ doses to tissues located in the torso and that 15% of the marrow should be assumed to remain unshielded for exposure scenarios when aprons are worn. Conversion coefficients relating personal dose equivalent,Hp(10) in mSv, to mean absorbed doses to organs and tissues,DTin mGy, for females and males for six exposure scenarios have been determined and presented for use in the MPS. This Memorandum summarises several key points in NCRP Commentary No. 30.

ICRP Publication 140: Radiological Protection in Therapy with Radiopharmaceuticals.

Radiopharmaceuticals are increasingly used for the treatment of various cancers with novel radionuclides, compounds, tracer molecules, and administration techniques. The goal of radiation therapy, including therapy with radiopharmaceuticals, is to optimise the relationship between tumour control probability and potential complications in normal organs and tissues. Essential to this optimisation is the ability to quantify the radiation doses delivered to both tumours and normal tissues. This publication provides an overview of therapeutic procedures and a framework for calculating radiation doses for various treatment approaches. In radiopharmaceutical therapy, the absorbed dose to an organ or tissue is governed by radiopharmaceutical uptake, retention in and clearance from the various organs and tissues of the body, together with radionuclide physical half-life. Biokinetic parameters are determined by direct measurements made using techniques that vary in complexity. For treatment planning, absorbed dose calculations are usually performed prior to therapy using a trace-labelled diagnostic administration, or retrospective dosimetry may be performed on the basis of the activity already administered following each therapeutic administration. Uncertainty analyses provide additional information about sources of bias and random variation and their magnitudes; these analyses show the reliability and quality of absorbed dose calculations. Effective dose can provide an approximate measure of lifetime risk of detriment attributable to the stochastic effects of radiation exposure, principally cancer, but effective dose does not predict future cancer incidence for an individual and does not apply to short-term deterministic effects associated with radiopharmaceutical therapy. Accident prevention in radiation therapy should be an integral part of the design of facilities, equipment, and administration procedures. Minimisation of staff exposures includes consideration of equipment design, proper shielding and handling of sources, and personal protective equipment and tools, as well as education and training to promote awareness and engagement in radiological protection. The decision to hold or release a patient after radiopharmaceutical therapy should account for potential radiation dose to members of the public and carers that may result from residual radioactivity in the patient. In these situations, specific radiological protection guidance should be provided to patients and carers.

Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection.

The recently published NCRP Commentary No. 27 evaluated the new information from epidemiologic studies as to their degree of support for applying the linear nonthreshold (LNT) model of carcinogenic effects for radiation protection purposes (NCRP 2018 Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection, Commentary No. 27 (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements)). The aim was to determine whether recent epidemiologic studies of low-LET radiation, particularly those at low doses and/or low dose rates (LD/LDR), broadly support the LNT model of carcinogenic risk or, on the contrary, demonstrate sufficient evidence that the LNT model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection. An updated review was needed because a considerable number of reports of radiation epidemiologic studies based on new or updated data have been published since other major reviews were conducted by national and international scientific committees. The Commentary provides a critical review of the LD/LDR studies that are most directly applicable to current occupational, environmental and medical radiation exposure circumstances. This Memorandum summarises several of the more important LD/LDR studies that incorporate radiation dose responses for solid cancer and leukemia that were reviewed in Commentary No. 27. In addition, an overview is provided of radiation studies of breast and thyroid cancers, and cancer after childhood exposures. Non-cancers are briefly touched upon such as ischemic heart disease, cataracts, and heritable genetic effects. To assess the applicability and utility of the LNT model for radiation protection, the Commentary evaluated 29 epidemiologic studies or groups of studies, primarily of total solid cancer, in terms of strengths and weaknesses in their epidemiologic methods, dosimetry approaches, and statistical modelling, and the degree to which they supported a LNT model for continued use in radiation protection. Recommendations for how to make epidemiologic radiation studies more informative are outlined. The NCRP Committee recognises that the risks from LD/LDR exposures are small and uncertain. The Committee judged that the available epidemiologic data were broadly supportive of the LNT model and that at this time no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes.

Radiotherapeutic implications of the updated ICRP thresholds for tissue reactions related to cataracts and circulatory diseases.

Radiation therapy of cancer patients involves a trade-off between a sufficient tumour dose for a high probability of local control and dose to organs at risk that is low enough to lead to a clinically acceptable probability of toxicity. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reviewed epidemiological evidence and provided updated estimates of 'practical' threshold doses for tissue injury, as defined at the level of 1% incidence, in ICRP Publication 118. Particular attention was paid to cataracts and circulatory diseases. ICRP recommended nominal absorbed dose threshold for these outcomes as low as 0.5 Gy. Threshold doses for tissue reactions can be reached in some patients during radiation therapy. Modern treatment planning systems do not account for such low doses accurately, and doses to therapy patients from associated imaging procedures are not generally accounted for. While local control is paramount, the observations of ICRP Publication 118 suggest that radiation therapy plans and processes should be examined with particular care. The research needs are discussed in this paper.

ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures.

Abstract: In recent publications, such as Publications 117 and 120, the Commission provided practical advice for physicians and other healthcare personnel on measures to protect their patients and themselves during interventional procedures. These measures can only be effective if they are encompassed by a framework of radiological protection elements, and by the availability of professionals with responsibilities in radiological protection. This framework includes a radiological protection programme with a strategy for exposure monitoring, protective garments, education and training, and quality assurance of the programme implementation. Professionals with responsibilities in occupational radiological protection for interventional procedures include: medical physicists; radiological protection specialists; personnel working in dosimetry services; clinical applications support personnel from the suppliers and maintenance companies; staff engaged in training, standardisation of equipment, and procedures; staff responsible for occupational health; hospital administrators responsible for providing financial support; and professional bodies and regulators. This publication addresses these elements and these audiences, and provides advice on specific issues, such as assessment of effective dose from dosimeter readings when an apron is worn, estimation of exposure of the lens of the eye (with and without protective eyewear), extremity monitoring, selection and testing of protective garments, and auditing the interventional procedures when occupational doses are unusually high or low (the latter meaning that the dosimeter may not have been worn).

Effect of leaded glasses and thyroid shielding on cone beam CT radiation dose in an adult female phantom.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of leaded glasses in reducing the lens of eye dose and of lead thyroid collars in reducing the dose to the thyroid gland of an adult female from dental cone beam CT (CBCT). The effect of collimation on the radiation dose in head organs is also examined. METHODS: Dose measurements were conducted by placing optically stimulated luminescent dosemeters in an anthropomorphic female phantom. Eye lens dose was measured by placing a dosemeter on the anterior surface of the phantom eye location. All exposures were performed on one commercially available dental CBCT machine, using selected collimation and exposure techniques. Each scan technique was performed without any lead shielding and then repeated with lead shielding in place. To calculate the percent reduction from lead shielding, the dose measured with lead shielding was divided by the dose measured without lead shielding. The percent reduction from collimation was calculated by comparing the dose measured with collimation to the dose measured without collimation. RESULTS: The dose to the internal eye for one of the scans without leaded glasses or thyroid shield was 0.450 cGy and with glasses and thyroid shield was 0.116 cGy (a 74% reduction). The reduction to the lens of the eye was from 0.396 cGy to 0.153 cGy (a 61% reduction). Without glasses or thyroid shield, the thyroid dose was 0.158 cGy; and when both glasses and shield were used, the thyroid dose was reduced to 0.091 cGy (a 42% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Collimation alone reduced the dose to the brain by up to 91%, with a similar reduction in other organs. Based on these data, leaded glasses, thyroid collars and collimation minimize the dose to organs outside the field of view.

Significant reduction in dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) eye dose through the use of leaded glasses.

OBJECTIVE: In light of the increased recognition of the potential for lens opacification after low-dose radiation exposures, we investigated the effect of leaded eyeglasses worn during dental cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) procedures on the radiation absorbed dose to the eye and suggest simple methods to reduce risk of radiation cataract development. STUDY DESIGN: Dose measurements were conducted with the use of 3 anthropomorphic phantoms: male (Alderson radiation therapy phantom), female (CIRS), and juvenile male (CIRS). All exposures were performed on the same dental CBCT machine (Imtec, Ardmore, OK) using 2 different scanning techniques but with identical machine parameters (120 kVp, 3.8 mA, 7.8 s). Scans were performed with and without leaded glasses and repeated 3 times. All measurements were recorded using calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters and optical luminescent dosimetry. RESULTS: Leaded glasses worn by adult and pediatric patients during CBCT scans may reduce radiation dose to the lens of the eye by as much as 67% (from 0.135 ± 0.004 mGy to 0.044 ± 0.002 mGy in pediatric patients). CONCLUSIONS: Leaded glasses do not appear to have a deleterious effect on the image quality in the area of clinical significance for dental imaging.