Radiographs are taken in the neonatal period most commonly to assist in the diagnosis and management of respiratory difficulties. Frequent accurate radiographic assessment is required and a knowledge of the radiation dose is necessary to justify such exposures. A survey of radiation doses to neonates from diagnostic radiography (chest and abdomen) has been carried out in the special care baby unit of the Royal Free Hospital. Entrance surface dose (ESD) was calculated from quality control measurements on the X-ray unit itself. Direct measurement of radiation doses was also performed using highly sensitive thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) (LiF:Mg,Cu,P), calibrated and tested for consistency in sensitivity. ESD, as calculated from exposure parameters, was found to range from 28 microGy to 58 microGy, with a mean ESD per radiograph of 36+/-6 microGy averaged over 95 examinations. ESDs as derived from TLD crystals ranged from 18 microGy to 58 microGy for 30 radiographic examinations. The mean energy imparted, the mean whole body dose per radiograph and the mean effective dose were estimated to be 14+/-8 microJ, 10+/-4 microGy and 8+/-2 microSv, respectively. Assuming that neonates and fetuses are equally susceptible to carcinogenic effects of radiation, which involve an overestimation of risk, the radiation risk of childhood cancer from a single radiograph was estimated to be of the order (0.3-1.3) x 10(-6). Radiation doses compared favourably with the reference values of 80 microGy ESD published by the Commission of the European Communities in 1996, and 50 microGy published by the National Radiological Protection Board in 2000.

Disseminated neuroendocrine tumours are difficult to treat and are generally not responsive to radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Nuclear medicine techniques using a radiolabelled somatostatin analogue, 111In-Octreotide, have been used for the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumours. It has been suggested that high activities of such an agent may have a therapeutic effect. The aims of this study were to assess toxicity and to determine if there had been evidence of efficacy. Eight patients with known disseminated neuroendocrine tumours were enrolled in the study; six had carcinoid tumours, one had a medullary cell carcinoma of the thyroid and one patient had a malignant gastrinoma. Between 1.3 and 4.6 GBq of 111In-Octreotide were administered to each patient for up to five administrations over 12 months. A total of 23 administrations were given. Tests of vital signs, renal, liver and endocrine function as well as haematological markers were taken before and after treatment. The treatment was well tolerated with only one patient suffering from a sensation of flushing during the infusion but no changes in vital sings. There was a transient (up to 48 h) drop in circulating lymphocytes in four patients and platelets in two patients; no supportive therapy was needed. One patient with severe renal impairment had a slight reduction in glomerular filtration rate. We conclude that high-activity 111In-Octreotide is well tolerated with low toxicity and can be considered for use in patients with disseminated neuroendocrine tumours. Further work is now being performed to assess efficacy.

Objectives: Healthcare professionals’ occupational exposure to ionising radiation may be increasing due to increasing use of imaging and image-guided intervention. This study aims to assess the occupational exposure of doctors over a 25-year period at an NHS teaching hospital. Methods: Dosemeter measurements were collected prospectively from 1995 to 2019. Two retrospective analyses were performed over time (first including all measurements, second excluding “zero-dose” measurements), and by speciality. Group comparisons were undertaken using multilevel linear regression; a p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. Results: 8,892 measurements (3,983 body, 1,514 collar, 649 eye, 2,846 hand), of which 3,350 were non-zero measurements (1,541 body, 883 collar, 155 eye, 771 hand), were included. Whole dataset analysis found a significant decrease in exposure for radiologists and cardiologists, as measured by body, hand and collar dosemeters over the last 25 years (p < 0.01 for all). The non-zero readings reflect the whole cohort analysis except in the case of eye dosemeters, which showed a significant decrease in exposure for cardiologists (p < 0.01), but a significant increase for radiologists and surgeons/anaesthetists (p < 0.01 for both). Conclusions: Whilst ionising radiation remains an occupational risk for doctors, the overall decreasing trend in occupational exposure is reassuring. However, a significant rise in eye dose for radiologists, surgeons and anaesthetists is concerning, and close monitoring is required to prevent future issues. Advances in knowledge: This paper is one of few evaluating the occupational radiation exposure to doctors over a 25-year period, showing that although most dosemeter measurements reflect decreasing exposure, the increase in eye exposure warrants caution.

No abstract

No abstract