National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute, and US National Institutes for Health.

The skin dose mapping program developed in this work represents a new tool that, as the RDSR becomes available through automated export or real-time streaming, can provide the interventional physician information needed to modify behavior when clinically appropriate. The program is nonproprietary and transferable, and also functions independent to the software systems already installed on the control room workstation. The next step will be clinical implementation where the workflow will be optimized along with further analysis of real-time capabilities.

It has long been known that relatively high-dose ionising radiation exposure (> 1 Gy) can induce cataract, but there has been no evidence that this occurs at low doses (< 100 mGy). To assess low-dose risk, participants from the US Radiologic Technologists Study, a large, prospective cohort, were followed from date of mailed questionnaire survey completed during 1994-1998 to the earliest of self-reported diagnosis of cataract/cataract surgery, cancer other than non-melanoma skin, or date of last survey (up to end 2014). Cox proportional hazards models with age as timescale were used, adjusted for a priori selected cataract risk factors (diabetes, body mass index, smoking history, race, sex, birth year, cumulative UVB radiant exposure). 12,336 out of 67,246 eligible technologists reported a history of diagnosis of cataract during 832,479 person years of follow-up, and 5509 from 67,709 eligible technologists reported undergoing cataract surgery with 888,420 person years of follow-up. The mean cumulative estimated 5-year lagged eye-lens absorbed dose from occupational radiation exposures was 55.7 mGy (interquartile range 23.6-69.0 mGy). Five-year lagged occupational radiation exposure was strongly associated with self-reported cataract, with an excess hazard ratio/mGy of 0.69 × 10 (95% CI 0.27 × 10 to 1.16 × 10, p < 0.001). Cataract risk remained statistically significant (p = 0.030) when analysis was restricted to < 100 mGy cumulative occupational radiation exposure to the eye lens. A non-significantly increased excess hazard ratio/mGy of 0.34 × 10 (95% CI - 0.19 × 10 to 0.97 × 10, p = 0.221) was observed for cataract surgery. Our results suggest that there is excess risk for cataract associated with radiation exposure from low-dose and low dose-rate occupational exposures.

Purpose: To investigate the benefits and limitations of patient-phantom matching for determining organ dose during fluoroscopy guided interventions. Methods: In this study, 27 CT datasets representing patients of different sizes and genders were contoured and converted into patient-specific computational models. Each model was matched, based on height and weight, to computational phantoms selected from the UF hybrid patientdependent series. In order to investigate the influence of phantom type on patient organ dose, Monte Carlo methods were used to simulate two cardiac projections ͑PA/left lateral͒ and two abdominal projections ͑RAO/LPO͒. Organ dose conversion coefficients were then calculated for each patientspecific and patient-dependent phantom and also for a reference stylized and reference hybrid phantom. The coefficients were subsequently analyzed for any correlation between patientspecificity and the accuracy of the dose estimate. Accuracy was quantified by calculating an absolute percent difference using the patient-specific dose conversion coefficients as the reference. Results: Patient-phantom matching was shown most beneficial for estimating the dose to heavy patients. In these cases, the improvement over using a reference stylized phantom ranged from approximately 50% to 120% for abdominal projections and for a reference hybrid phantom from 20% to 60% for all projections. For lighter individuals, patient-phantom matching was clearly superior to using a reference stylized phantom, but not significantly better than using a reference hybrid phantom for certain fields and projections. Conclusions:The results indicate two sources of error when patients are matched with phantoms: Anatomical error, which is inherent due to differences in organ size and location, and error attributed to differences in the total soft tissue attenuation. For small patients, differences in soft tissue attenuation are minimal and are exceeded by inherent anatomical differences. For large patients, difference in soft tissue attenuation can be large. In these cases, patient-phantom matching proves most effective as differences in soft tissue attenuation are mitigated. With increasing obesity rates, overweight patients will continue to make up a growing fraction of all patients undergoing medical imaging. Thus, having phantoms that better represent this population represents a considerable improvement over previous methods. In response to this study, additional phantoms representing heavier weight percentiles will be added to the UFHADM and UFHADF patient-dependent series.