Editor's Choice - Estimated Radiation Dose to the Operator During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate operator organ doses from fluoroscopically guided infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures, using the detailed exposure information contained in radiation dose structured reports. METHODS: Conversion factors relating kerma area product (PKA) to primary operator organ doses were calculated using Monte Carlo methods for 91 beam angles and seven x-ray spectra typical of clinical practice. A computer program was written, which selects the appropriate conversion factor for each exposure listed in a structured report and multiplies it by the respective PKA. This system was used to estimate operator doses for 81 EVAR procedures for which structured reports were available. The impact of different shielding scenarios and variations in operator position was also investigated. RESULTS: Without any shielding, the median estimated effective dose was 113 µSv (interquartile range [IQR] 71, 252 µSv). The highest median organ doses were for the colon (154 µSv, IQR 81, 343) and stomach (133 µSv, IQR 76, 307). These dose estimates represent all exposures, including fluoroscopy and non-fluoroscopic digital acquisitions. With minimal shielding provided by 0.25 mm of Pb covering the torso and upper legs, the effective dose was reduced by a factor of around 6. With additional shielding from ceiling and table shields, a 25 to 50 fold reduction in dose is achievable. Estimated doses were highest where the primary beam was pointed directly away from the operator. CONCLUSION: The models suggest that with optimal use of shielding, operator doses can be reduced to levels equivalent to one to two days of natural background exposure and well below statutory dose limits.

Patient radiation dose from x-ray guided endovascular aneurysm repair: a Monte Carlo approach using voxel phantoms and detailed exposure information.

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a well-established minimally invasive technique that relies on x-ray guidance to introduce a stent through the femoral artery and manipulate it into place. The aim of this study was to estimate patient organ and effective doses from EVAR procedures using anatomically realistic computational phantoms and detailed exposure information from radiation dose structured reports (RDSR). Methods: Lookup tables of conversion factors relating kerma area product (PKA) to organ doses for 49 different beam angles were produced using Monte Carlo simulations (MCNPX2.7) with International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) adult male and female voxel phantoms for EVAR procedures of varying complexity (infra-renal, fenestrated/branched and thoracic EVAR). Beam angle specific correction factors were calculated to adjust doses according to x-ray energy. A MATLAB function was written to find the appropriate conversion factor in the lookup table for each exposure described in the RDSR, perform energy corrections and multiply by the respective exposure PKA. Using this approach, organ doses were estimated for 183 EVAR procedures in which RDSRs were available. A number of simplified dose estimation methodologies were also investigated for situations in which RDSR data are not available. Results: Mean estimated bone marrow doses were 57 (range: 2-247), 86 (2-328) and 54 (8-250) mGy for infra-renal, fenestrated/branched and thoracic EVAR, respectively. Respective effective doses were 27 (1-208), 54 (1-180) and 37 (5-167) mSv. Dose estimates using non-individualised, average conversion factors, along with those produced using the alternative Monte Carlo code PCXMC, yielded reasonably similar results overall, though variation for individual procedures could exceed 100% for some organs. In conclusion, radiation doses from x-ray guided endovascular aneurysm repairs are potentially high, though this must be placed in the context of the life sparing nature and high success rate for this procedure.

Quantities for assessing high doses to the body: a short review of the current status.

Tissue reactions are the most clinically significant consequences of high-dose exposures to ionizing radiation. However, there is currently no universally recognized or recommended dose quantity that can be used to assess generalized risks to individuals following whole body exposures in the high-dose range. This is particularly problematic in emergency response situations, for example, following external exposures of large numbers of individuals: in attempts to relate the triage dosemeter absorbed dose to the risk to the individual, such that a 'dose' may subsequently be reported to medical professionals, it is necessary to first agree on the quantity to be reported. The current paper presents a brief review of the likely scenarios and emergency dosimetry techniques that require such a quantity, before examining the biological constraints and requirements that might underpin any future definition. The aim of this work is to outline the arguments for developing a commonly agreed dose quantity for reporting high-dose radiation exposures.

Quantities for assessing high photon doses to the body: a calculational approach.

Tissue reactions are the most clinically significant consequences of high-dose exposures to ionising radiation. However, currently there is no universally recognized dose quantity that can be used to assess and report generalised risks to individuals following whole body exposures in the high-dose range. In this work, a number of potential dose quantities are presented and discussed, with mathematical modelling techniques employed to compare them and explore when their differences are most or least manifest. The results are interpreted to propose the average (D GRB) of the absorbed doses to the stomach, small intestine, red bone marrow, and brain as the optimum quantity for informing assessments of risk. A second, maximally conservative dose quantity (D Max) is also suggested, which places limits on any under-estimates resulting from the adoption of D GRB. The primary aim of this work is to spark debate, with further work required to refine the final choice of quantity or quantities most appropriate for the full range of different potential exposure scenarios.

The impact of iodinated contrast media on intravascular and extravascular absorbed doses in X-ray imaging: A microdosimetric analysis.

Studies suggest iodinated contrast media (ICM) may increase organ dose and blood cell DNA damage for a given X-ray exposure. The impact of ICM on dose/damage to extravascular cells and cancer risks is unclear. METHODS: We used Monte Carlo modelling to investigate the microscopic distribution of absorbed dose outside the lumen of arteries, capillaries and interstitial fluids containing blood and various concentrations of iodine. Models were irradiated with four X-ray spectra representing clinical procedures. RESULTS: For the artery model, The average dose enhancement factors (DEF) to blood were 1.70, 2.38, 7.38, and 12.34 for mass concentrations of iodine in blood (ρiI) of 5, 10, 50 and 100 mg/ml, respectively, compared to 0 mg/ml. Average DEFs were reduced to 1.26, 1.51, 3.48 and 5.56, respectively, in the first micrometre of the vessel wall, falling to 1.01, 1.02, 1.06 and 1.09 at 40-50 µm from the lumen edge. For the capillary models, DEF for extravascular tissues was on average 48% lower than DEF for the whole model, including capillaries. A similar situation was observed for the interstitial model, with DEF to the cell nucleus being 35% lower than DEF for the whole model. CONCLUSIONS: While ICM may modify the absorbed doses from diagnostic X-ray examinations, the effect is smaller than suggested by assays of circulating blood cells or blood dose enhancement. Conversely, the potentially large increase in dose to the endothelium of blood vessels means that macroscopic organ doses may underestimate the risk of radiation induced cardiovascular disease for ICM-enhanced exposures.

Enhanced radiation dose and DNA damage associated with iodinated contrast media in diagnostic X-ray imaging.

A review was undertaken of studies reporting increased DNA damage in circulating blood cells and increased organ doses, for X-ray exposures enhanced by iodinated contrast media (ICM), compared to unenhanced imaging. This effect may be due to ICM molecules acting as a source of secondary radiation (Auger/photoelectrons, fluorescence X-rays) following absorption of primary X-ray photons. It is unclear if the reported increase in DNA damage to blood cells necessarily implies an increased risk of developing cancer. Upon ICM-enhancement, the attenuation properties of blood differ substantially from surrounding tissues. Increased energy deposition is likely to occur within very close proximity to ICM molecules (within a few tens of micrometres). Consequently, in many situations, damage and dose enhancement may be restricted to the blood and vessel wall only. Increased cancer risks may be possible, in cases where ICM molecules are given sufficient time to reach the capillary network and interstitial fluid at the time of exposure. In all situations, the extrapolation of blood cell damage to other tissues requires caution where contrast media are involved. Future research is needed to determine the impact of ICM on dose to cells outside the blood itself and vessel walls, and to determine the concentration of ICM in blood vessels and interstitial fluid at the time of exposure.