BackgroundWhole body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is the standard of care in oncologic diagnosis and staging, and patient radiation dose must be well understood to balance exam benefits with the risk from radiation exposure. Although reference PET/CT patient doses are available, the potential for widely varying total dose prompts evaluation of clinic-specific patient dose. The aims of this study were to use exam-specific information to characterize the radiation dosimetry of PET/CT exams that used two different CT techniques for adult oncology patients and evaluate the practicality of employing an exam-specific approach to dose estimation.MethodsWhole body PET/CT scans from two sets of consecutive adult patients were retrospectively reviewed. One set received a PET scan with a standard registration CT and the other a PET scan with a diagnostic quality CT. PET dose was calculated by modifying the standard reference phantoms in OLINDA/EXM 1.1 with patient-specific organ mass. CT dose was calculated using patient-specific data in ImPACT. International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 tissue weighting coefficients were used for effective dose.ResultsOne hundred eighty three adult scans were evaluated (95 men, 88 women). The mean patient-specific effective dose from a mean injected 18F-FDG activity of 450 ± 32 MBq was 9.0 ± 1.6 mSv. For all standard PET/CT patients, mean effective mAs was 39 ± 11 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 5.0 ± 1.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 14 ± 1.3 mSv. For all diagnostic PET/CT patients, mean effective mAs was 120 ± 51 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 15.4 ± 5.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 24.4 ± 4.3 mSv. The five organs receiving the highest organ equivalent doses in all exams were bladder, heart, brain, liver and lungs.ConclusionsPatient-specific parameters optimize the patient dosimetry utilized in the medical justification of whole body PET/CT referrals and optimization of PET and CT acquisition parameters. Incorporating patient-specific data into dose estimates is a worthwhile effort for characterizing patient dose, and the specific dosimetric information assists in the justification of risk and optimization of PET/CT.

Purpose: To study how eyeglass design features and postures of the interventional radiologist affect the radiation dose to the lens of the eye. Methods: A mesh‐based deformable phantom, consisting of an ultra‐fine eye model, was used to simulate postures of a radiologist in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedure (facing the patient, 45 degree to the left, and 45 degree to the right). Various eyewear design features were studied, including the shape, lead‐equivalent thickness, and separation from the face. The MCNPX Monte Carlo code was used to simulate the X‐ray source used for the transcatheter arterial chemoembolization procedure (The X‐ray tube is located 35 cm from the ground, emitting X‐rays toward to the ceiling; Field size is 40cm X 40cm; X‐ray tube voltage is 90 kVp). Experiments were also performed using dosimeter placed on a physical phantom behind eyeglasses. Results: Without protective eyewear, the radiologist's eye lens can receive an annual dose equivalent of about 80 mSv. When wearing a pair of lead eyeglasses with lead‐equivalent of 0.5‐mm Pb, the annual dose equivalent of the eye lens is reduced to 31.47 mSv, but both exceed the new ICRP limit of 20 mSv. A face shield with a lead‐equivalent of 0.125‐mm Pb in the shape of a semi‐cylinder (13cm in radius and 20‐cm in height) would further reduce the exposure to the lens of the eye. Examination of postures and eyeglass features reveal surprising information, including that the glass‐to‐eye separation also plays an important role in the dose to the eye lens from scattered X‐ray from underneath and the side. Results are in general agreement with measurements. Conclusion: There is an urgent need to further understand the relationship between the radiation environment and the radiologist's eyewear and posture in order to provide necessary protection to the interventional radiologists under newly reduced dose limits.