http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09090330/-/DC1.

BackgroundRadiation overexposure accidents are rare but can have severe long-term health consequences. Although underreporting can be an issue, some extensive literature reviews of reported radiation overexposures have been performed and constitute a sound basis for conclusions on general trends. Building further on this work, we performed a systematic review that completes previous reviews and provides new information on characteristics and trends of reported radiation accidents.MethodsWe searched publications and reports from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Radiation Protection Association, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site radiation accident registry over 1980-2013. We retrieved the reported overexposure cases, systematically extracted selected information, and performed a descriptive analysis.Results297 out of 5189 publications and reports and 194 records from the REAC/TS registry met our eligibility criteria. From these, 634 reported radiation accidents were retrieved, involving 2390 overexposed people, of whom 190 died from their overexposure. The number of reported cases has decreased for all types of radiation use, but the medical one. 64% of retrieved overexposure cases occurred with the use of radiation therapy and fluoroscopy. Additionally, the types of reported accidents differed significantly across regions.ConclusionsThis review provides an updated and broader view of reported radiation overexposures. It suggests an overall decline in reported radiation overexposures over 1980-2013. The greatest share of reported overexposures occurred in the medical fields using radiation therapy and fluoroscopy; this larger number of reported overexposures accidents indicates the potential need for enhanced quality assurance programs. Our data also highlights variations in characteristics of reported accidents by region. The main limitation of this study is the likely underreporting of radiation overexposures. Ensuring a comprehensive monitoring and reporting of radiation overexposures is paramount to inform and tailor prevention interventions to local needs.

The current approach to medical management of irradiated patients begins with early diagnosis of radiation injury. Medical assessment of radiation dose is based on event history, symptomatology and laboratory results, with emphasis on time to emesis and lymphocyte depletion kinetics. Dose assessment provides a basis for early use of haematopoietic growth factors that can shorten the period of neutropaenia for patients with acute radiation syndrome. Assessments of haematopoietic, gastrointestinal and cutaneous syndromes have improved in recent years, but treatment options remain limited. Selected examples of current developments are presented.

No abstract

In this paper, we report results of radiation dose measurements in fingernails of a worker who sustained a radiation injury to his right thumb while using 130 kVp X-ray for nondestructive testing. Clinically estimated absorbed dose was about 20-25 Gy. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) dose assessment was independently carried out by two laboratories, the Naval Dosimetry Center (NDC) and French Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN). The laboratories used different equipments and protocols to estimate doses in the same fingernail samples. NDC used an X-band transportable EPR spectrometer, e-scan produced by Bruker BioSpin, and a universal dose calibration curve. In contrast, IRSN used a more sensitive Q-band stationary spectrometer (EMXplus) with a new approach for the dose assessment (dose saturation method), derived by additional dose irradiation to known doses. The protocol used by NDC is significantly faster than that used by IRSN, nondestructive, and could be done in field conditions, but it is probably less accurate and requires more sample for the measurements. The IRSN protocol, on the other hand, potentially is more accurate and requires very small amount of sample but requires more time and labor. In both EPR laboratories, the intense radiation-induced signal was measured in the accidentally irradiated fingernails and the resulting dose assessments were different. The dose on the fingernails from the right thumb was estimated as 14 ± 3 Gy at NDC and as 19 ± 6 Gy at IRSN. Both EPR dose assessments are given in terms of tissue kerma. This paper discusses the experience gained by using EPR for dose assessment in fingernails with a stationary spectrometer versus a portable one, the reasons for the observed discrepancies in dose, and potential advantages and disadvantages of each approach for EPR measurements in fingernails.