European survey on the use of patient contact shielding during radiological examinations.

OBJECTIVES: Contact shielding (CS) of patients during X-ray studies has been used for decades to protect radiosensitive organs. This practice has not changed much despite increasing evidence that CS is not useful in many cases. The Gonad And Patient Shielding (GAPS) group-founded by representatives of the main European bodies involved in radiology-promoted this survey to assess the current practice of CS among European radiology departments and the attitude towards a non-shielding policy. METHODS: Over a four-month period (15 May-15th September 2021) European Society of Radiology and European Society of Paediatric Radiology radiologist members were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. RESULTS: 225 centres from 35 countries responded to this survey. CS was routinely applied in at least one radiological modality in 49.2% of centres performing studies in adults, 57.5% of centres performing studies in children, and 47.8% of centres performing studies on pregnant women. CS was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. 83.6% respondents would follow European recommendations on the use of CS when provided by the main European bodies involved in radiology. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that CS is still largely used across Europe. However, a non-shielding policy could be adopted in most departments if European professional societies provided recommendations. In this regard, a strong commitment by European and national professional societies to educate and inform practitioners, patients and carers is paramount. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: According to this survey expectations of patients and carers, and skepticism among professionals about the limited benefits of CS are the most important obstacles to the application of a no-shielding policy. A strong commitment from European and national professional societies to inform practitioners, patients and carers is fundamental.

European consensus on patient contact shielding.

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.

European consensus on patient contact shielding.

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.

Radiation field and dose inhomogeneities using an X-ray cabinet in radiation biology research.

PURPOSE: X-ray cabinets are replacing 137 Cs/60 Co sources in radiation biology research due to advantages in size, handling, and radiation protection. However, because of their different physical properties, X-ray cabinets are more susceptible to experimental influences than conventional sources. The aim of this study was to examine the variations related to the experimental setups typically used to investigate biological radiation effects with X-ray cabinets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A combined approach of physical dose measurements by thermoluminescence dosimetry and detection of biological effects by quantification of γH2AX and 53BP1 foci was used to analyze field inhomogeneity and evaluate the influence of the components of the experimental setup. RESULTS: Irradiation was performed using an X-ray tube (195 kV, 10 mA, 0.5-mm-thick copper filter, dose rate of 0.59 Gy/min). Thermoluminescence dosimetry revealed inhomogeneity and a dose decrease of up to 42.3% within the beam area (diameter 31.1 cm) compared to the dose at the center. This dose decrease was consistent with the observed decline in the number of radiation-induced foci by up to 55.9 %. Uniform dose distribution was measured after reducing the size of the radiation field (diameter 12.5 cm). However, when using 15-ml test tubes placed at different positions within this field, the dose decreased by up to 17% in comparison to the central position. Analysis of foci number revealed significant differences between the tubes for γH2AX (1 h) and 53BP1 (4 h) at different time points after irradiation. Neither removal of some tubes nor of the caps improved the dose decrease significantly. By contrast, when using 1.5-ml tubes, dose differences were less than 4%, and no significant differences in foci number were detected. CONCLUSION: X-ray cabinets are user-friendly irradiation units for investigating biological radiation effects. However, field inhomogeneities and experimental setup components considerably affect the delivered irradiation doses. For this reason, strict dosimetric monitoring of experimental irradiation setups is mandatory for reliable studies.

Use of out-of-field contact shielding on patients in medical imaging: A review of current guidelines, recommendations and legislative documents.

The use of patient contact-shielding has become a topic of intensive scientific debate. While it has been common practice during the last decades, some studies have questioned the efficiency of using such shielding while others have highlighted the inconsistencies in its application. The objective of this work is to review current recommendations and legislative documents on the use of out-of-field shielding in X-ray imaging, including those from national authorities and from international and national organisations and professional bodies. The review, performed within the framework of the activities of EURADOS Working Group 12, covers available recommendations on use of contact shielding in adult, pregnant and paediatric patients in general radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, mammography and dental radiology. It includes a comprehensive search of 83 documents from 32 countries and 6 international organisations over the last 39 years. In general, using shielding is recommended only under two conditions: if it does not compromise the diagnostic task and the performance of the procedure and/or if it reassures the patient and comforters that they are appropriately protected against potentially harmful effects of radiation. There are very few specific regulatory requirements to use shielding in a particular imaging modality, although they may consider use of shielding either as part of good radiological practice or as requirements for availability of protective or ancillary tools, without further specification of their use. There is a wide variety of positions among documents that recommend out-of-field shielding, those that do not recommend it and those that are not specific. Therefore, evidence-based consensus is still needed to ensure best and consistent practice.

Quality control in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) EFOMP-ESTRO-IAEA protocol (summary report).

The aim of the guideline presented in this article is to unify the test parameters for image quality evaluation and radiation output in all types of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems. The applications of CBCT spread over dental and interventional radiology, guided surgery and radiotherapy. The chosen tests provide the means to objectively evaluate the performance and monitor the constancy of the imaging chain. Experience from all involved associations has been collected to achieve a consensus that is rigorous and helpful for the practice. The guideline recommends to assess image quality in terms of uniformity, geometrical precision, voxel density values (or Hounsfield units where available), noise, low contrast resolution and spatial resolution measurements. These tests usually require the use of a phantom and evaluation software. Radiation output can be determined with a kerma-area product meter attached to the tube case. Alternatively, a solid state dosimeter attached to the flat panel and a simple geometric relationship can be used to calculate the dose to the isocentre. Summary tables including action levels and recommended frequencies for each test, as well as relevant references, are provided. If the radiation output or image quality deviates from expected values, or exceeds documented action levels for a given system, a more in depth system analysis (using conventional tests) and corrective maintenance work may be required.

Influence of a Commercial Lead Apron on Patient Skin Dose Delivered During Oral and Maxillofacial Examinations under Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of a commercial lead apron on patient skin dose delivered during maxillofacial CBCT in five critical regions by means of solid-state-dosimetry. Five anatomical regions (thyroid gland, left and right breast, gonads, back of the phantom torso) in an adult female anthropomorphic phantom were selected for dose measurement by means of the highly sensitive solid-state dosimeter QUART didoSVM. Ten repeated single exposures were assessed for each patient body region for a total of five commercial CBCT devices with and without a lead apron present. Shielded and non-shielded exposures were compared under the paired Wilcoxon test, with absolute and relative differences computed. Reproducibility was expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV) between the 10 repeated assessments. The highest doses observed at skin level were found at the thyroid (mean shielded ± SD: 450.5 ± 346.7 µGy; non-shielded: 339.2 ± 348.8 µGy, p = 0.4922). Shielding resulted in a highly significant (p < 0.001) 93% dose reduction in skin dose in the female breast region with a mean non-shielded dose of approximately 35 µGy. Dose reduction was also significantly lower for the back-region (mean: -65%, p < 0.0001) as well as for the gonad-region (mean: -98%, p < 0.0001) in the shielded situation. Reproducibility was inversely correlated to skin dose (Rspearman = -0.748, p < 0.0001) with a mean CV of 10.45% (SD: 24.53 %). Skin dose in the thyroid region of the simulated patient was relatively high and not influenced by the lead apron, which did not shield this region. Dose reduction by means of a commercial lead apron was significant in all other regions, particularly in the region of the female breast.

Skin entrance dose with and without lead apron in digital panoramic radiography for selected sensitive body regions.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the dose at skin level at five significant anatomical regions for panoramic radiography devices with and without lead apron by means of a highly sensitive dosimeter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A female RANDO-phantom was exposed in five different digital panoramic radiography systems, and the dose at skin level was assessed tenfold for each measurement region by means of a highly sensitive solid-state-dosimeter. The five measurement regions selected were the thyroid, both female breasts, the gonads, and a central region in the back of the phantom. For each panoramic machine, the measurements were performed in two modes: with and without a commercial lead apron specifically designed for panoramic radiography. Reproducibility of the measurements was expressed by absolute differences and the coefficient of variation. Values between shielded and unshielded doses were pooled for each region and compared by means of the paired Wilcoxon tests (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Reproducibility as represented by the mean CV was 22 ± 52 % (median 2.3 %) with larger variations for small dose values. Doses at skin level ranged between 0.00 µGy at the gonads and 85.39 µGy at the unshielded thyroid (mean ± SD 15 ± 24 µGy). Except for the gonads, the dose in all the other regions was significantly lower (p < 0.001) when a lead apron was applied. Unshielded doses were between 1.02-fold (thyroid) and 112-fold (at the right breast) higher than those with lead apron shielding (mean: 14-fold ± 18-fold). CONCLUSION: Although the doses were entirely very low, we observed a significant increase in dose in the radiation-sensitive female breast region when no lead apron was used. Future discussions on shielding requirements for panoramic radiography should focus on these differences in the light of the linear non-threshold (LNT) theory which is generally adopted in medical imaging.