No abstract

A thorough literature review about the current situation on the implementation of eye lens monitoring has been performed in order to provide recommendations regarding dosemeter types, calibration procedures and practical aspects of eye lens monitoring for interventional radiology personnel. Most relevant data and recommendations from about 100 papers have been analysed and classified in the following topics: challenges of today in eye lens monitoring; conversion coefficients, phantoms and calibration procedures for eye lens dose evaluation; correction factors and dosemeters for eye lens dose measurements; dosemeter position and influence of protective devices. The major findings of the review can be summarised as follows: the recommended operational quantity for the eye lens monitoring is H p (3). At present, several dosemeters are available for eye lens monitoring and calibration procedures are being developed. However, in practice, very often, alternative methods are used to assess the dose to the eye lens. A summary of correction factors found in the literature for the assessment of the eye lens dose is provided. These factors can give an estimation of the eye lens dose when alternative methods, such as the use of a whole body dosemeter, are used. A wide range of values is found, thus indicating the large uncertainty associated with these simplified methods. Reduction factors from most common protective devices obtained experimentally and using Monte Carlo calculations are presented. The paper concludes that the use of a dosemeter placed at collar level outside the lead apron can provide a useful first estimate of the eye lens exposure. However, for workplaces with estimated annual equivalent dose to the eye lens close to the dose limit, specific eye lens monitoring should be performed. Finally, training of the involved medical staff on the risks of ionising radiation for the eye lens and on the correct use of protective systems is strongly recommended.

Some activities of EURADOS Working Group 9 (WG9) are presently funded by the European Commission (CONRAD project). The objective of WG9 is to promote and co-ordinate research activities for the assessment of occupational exposures to staff at workplaces in interventional radiology (IR) and nuclear medicine. For some of these applications, the skin of the fingers is the limiting organ for individual monitoring of external radiation. Therefore, sub-group 1 of WG9 deals with the use of extremity dosemeters in medical radiation fields. The wide variety of radiation field characteristics present in a medical environment together with the difficulties in measuring a local dose that is representative for the maximum skin dose, usually with one single detector, makes it difficult to perform accurate extremity dosimetry. Sub-group 1 worked out a thorough literature review on extremity dosimetry issues in diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine and positron emission tomography, interventional radiology and interventional cardiology and brachytherapy. Some studies showed that the annual dose limits could be exceeded if the required protection measures are not taken, especially in nuclear medicine. The continuous progress in new applications and techniques requires an important effort in radiation protection and training.

In interventional cardiology, patients may be exposed to high doses to the skin resulting in skin burns following single or multiple procedures. Reviewing and analysing available software (online or offline) may help medical physicists assessing the maximum skin dose to the patient together with the dose distribution during (or after) these procedures. Method and results: Capabilities and accuracy of available software were analysed through an extensive bibliography search and contacts with both vendor and authors. Their markedly differed among developers. In total, 22 software were identified and reviewed according to their algorithms and their capabilities. Special attention was dedicated to their main features and limitations of interest for the intended clinical use. While the accuracy of the 12 software products validated with measurements on phantoms was acceptable (within ± 25%), the agreement was poor for the two products validated on patients (within ± 43% and ± 76%, respectively). In addition, no software has been validated on angiographic units from all manufacturers, though several software developers claimed vendor-independent transportability. Only one software allows for multiple procedures dose calculation. Conclusion: Large differences among vendors made it clear that work remains to be done before an accurate and reliable skin dose mapping is available for all patients.

No abstract