IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to quantify the reduction in patient radiation dose by X-ray imaging technology using image noise reduction and system settings for neuroangiography and to assess its impact on the working habits of the physician.MethodsRadiation dose data from 190 neuroangiographies and 112 interventional neuroprocedures performed with state-of-the-art image processing and reference system settings were collected for the period January–June 2010. The system was then configured with extra image noise reduction algorithms and system settings, which enabled radiation dose reduction without loss of image quality. Radiation dose data from 174 neuroangiographies and 138 interventional neuroprocedures were collected for the period January–June 2012. Procedures were classified as diagnostic or interventional. Patient radiation exposure was quantified using cumulative dose area product and cumulative air kerma. Impact on working habits of the physician was quantified using fluoroscopy time and number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) images.ResultsThe optimized system settings provided significant reduction in dose indicators versus reference system settings (p<0.001): from 124 to 47 Gy cm2 and from 0.78 to 0.27 Gy for neuroangiography, and from 328 to 109 Gy cm2 and from 2.71 to 0.89 Gy for interventional neuroradiology. Differences were not significant between the two systems with regard to fluoroscopy time or number of DSA images.ConclusionX-ray imaging technology using an image noise reduction algorithm and system settings provided approximately 60% radiation dose reduction in neuroangiography and interventional neuroradiology, without affecting the working habits of the physician.

Monte Carlo (MC) calculated detector-specific output correction factors for small photon beam dosimetry are commonly used in clinical practice. The technique, with a geometry description based on manufacturer blueprints, offers certain advantages over experimentally determined values but is not free of weaknesses. Independent MC calculations of output correction factors for a PTW-60019 micro-diamond detector were made using the EGSnrc and PENELOPE systems. Compared with published experimental data the MC results showed substantial disagreement for the smallest field size simulated ([Formula: see text] mm). To explain the difference between the two datasets, a detector was imaged with x rays searching for possible anomalies in the detector construction or details not included in the blueprints. A discrepancy between the dimension stated in the blueprints for the active detector area and that estimated from the electrical contact seen in the x-ray image was observed. Calculations were repeated using the estimate of a smaller volume, leading to results in excellent agreement with the experimental data. MC users should become aware of the potential differences between the design blueprints of a detector and its manufacturer production, as they may differ substantially. The constraint is applicable to the simulation of any detector type. Comparison with experimental data should be used to reveal geometrical inconsistencies and details not included in technical drawings, in addition to the well-known QA procedure of detector x-ray imaging.

In accordance with recommendations by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the current European Basic Safety Standards has adopted a reduced occupational eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv yr. The radiation safety implications of this dose limit is of concern for clinical staff that work with relatively high dose x-ray angiography and interventional radiology. Presented in this work is a thorough assessment of the occupational eye lens dose based on clinical measurements with active personal dosimeters worn by staff during various types of procedures in interventional radiology, cardiology and neuroradiology. Results are presented in terms of the estimated equivalent eye lens dose for various medical professions. In order to compare the risk of exceeding the regulatory annual eye lens dose limit for the widely different clinical situations investigated in this work, the different medical professions were separated into categories based on their distinct work pattern: staff that work (a) regularly beside the patient, (b) in proximity to the patient and (c) typically at a distance from the patient. The results demonstrate that the risk of exceeding the annual eye lens dose limit is of concern for staff category (a), i.e. mainly the primary radiologist/cardiologist. However, the results also demonstrate that the risk can be greatly mitigated if radiation protection shields are used in the clinical routine. The results presented in this work cover a wide range of clinical situations, and can be used as a first indication of the risk of exceeding the annual eye lens dose limit for staff at other medical centres.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recommended that the occupational dose limit to the eye lens be substantially reduced. To ensure compliance with these recommendations, monitoring of the occupational eye lens dose is essential in certain hospital work environments. For assessment of the eye lens dose it is recommended to use a supplementary dosimeter placed at a position adjacent to the eye(s). Wearing a dosimeter at eye level can, however, be impractical and distributing and managing additional dosimeters over long periods of time is cumbersome and costly for large clinical sites. An attractive alternative is to utilize active personal dosimeters (APDs), which are routinely used by clinical staff for real-time monitoring of the personal dose equivalent rate (H(p)(10)). In this work, a formalism for the determination of eye lens dose from the response of such APD's worn on the chest is proposed and evaluated. The evaluation is based on both phantom and clinical measurements performed in an x-ray angiography suite for interventional cardiology. The main results show that the eye lens dose to the primary operator and to the assisting clinical staff can be conservatively estimated from the APD response as D(eye)(conductor) = 2.0 APD chest and D(eye)(assisting) = 1.0 APD chest, respectively. However, care should be exercised for particularly short assisting staff and if radiation protection shields are misused. These concerns can be greatly mitigated if the clinical staff are provided with adequate radiation protection training.

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the clinical impact of biological uncertainties in small field proton therapy due to the assumption of using a constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) value of 1.1 (RBE-fixed) compared to a variable RBE (RBE-weighted). In this context the impact of the applied range margin was investigated. Eight patients with arteriovenous malformation (AVM) treated with proton radiosurgery were selected due to the small target volume. Dose distributions were compared for RBE-weighted and RBE-fixed. The impact of RBE was assessed using Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations for stereotactic doses and doses of 2 Gy(RBE). Four different α/β ratios were investigated. Additionally, dose distributions were recalculated with reduced range margins. Applying variable RBE values for stereotactic doses resulted in an increase in the mean dose of 1.6% for a low α/β of 2 Gy, but a decrease of 2.6% for an α/β of 10 Gy. However, the mean dose increased to 17.1% and 2.1% for doses of 2 Gy(RBE) and α/β of 2 Gy and 10 Gy, respectively. Reducing range margins from 3.5%  +  1 mm to 2.5%  +  1 mm resulted in negligible difference in the mean RBE within the target, or 0.1% for stereotactic doses and 0.3% for doses of 2 Gy(RBE). Larger differences were seen for a range reduction to 0%  +  1 mm, i.e. 1.1% and 3.0% for stereotactic doses and doses of 2 Gy(RBE), respectively. Because potential RBE effects are typically more pronounced in the distal part of a field, a bigger clinical impact of RBE uncertainties in small fields is expected. Our study shows that this could be significant for tissues with low α/β and a small dose per fraction. The uncertainty in RBE due to the uncertainty associated with the α/β ratio seems larger than the impact of the applied range uncertainty margin on RBE.