2005
DOI: 10.1118/1.2135911
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

AAPM Task Group 108: PET and PET/CT Shielding Requirements

Abstract: The shielding of positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT (computed tomography) facilities presents special challenges. The 0.511 MeV annihilation photons associated with positron decay are much higher energy than other diagnostic radiations. As a result, barrier shielding may be required in floors and ceilings as well as adjacent walls. Since the patient becomes the radioactive source after the radiopharmaceutical has been administered, one has to consider the entire time that the subject remains in the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
104
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
7
104
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…At 1.35 m from the phantom, the 89 Zr dose rate was estimated to be 6.04310 22 Since the injected activity of a radionuclide depends on its application, this amount varies from radionuclide to radionuclide and from examination to examination. A typical injected activity of 18 F-FDG ranges from 250 MBq [20] to 500 MBq [11], whereas the typical injected activity of 89 Zr is around 75 MBq [13]. Figure 3 shows the effective dose per scan under those conditions.…”
Section: Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At 1.35 m from the phantom, the 89 Zr dose rate was estimated to be 6.04310 22 Since the injected activity of a radionuclide depends on its application, this amount varies from radionuclide to radionuclide and from examination to examination. A typical injected activity of 18 F-FDG ranges from 250 MBq [20] to 500 MBq [11], whereas the typical injected activity of 89 Zr is around 75 MBq [13]. Figure 3 shows the effective dose per scan under those conditions.…”
Section: Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Elschot et al [8] studied the shielding requirement of a PET/CT facility using Monte Carlo methods with the MCNPX code [9] and the Medical Internal Radiation Dose full body phantom [10]. They found that the self-absorption of 18 F-FDG emission by the patient's body reduced the dose to the clinical staff by a factor of 0.36-similar to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) recommendation [11], but the recommendation also overestimated the shielding requirements.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…O pósitron segue até colidir com um elétron e, como elétron e pósitron são antipartículas, a colisão entre eles resulta em aniquilação mútua, produzindo dois fótons em sentidos opostos e com 511 keV cada, como esquematizado na figura 1. Radioisótopos emissores de pósitrons utilizados em imagens médicas geralmente têm meias-vidas curtas, como mostra tabela 1, a seguir, e consequentemente, muitos deles, como O-15, N-13, e C-11, têm de ser produzidos com um cíclotron no local do exame, a fim de dispor de quantidades clinicamente úteis 3 Atualmente, o radionuclídeo mais utilizado na técnica de PET/CT é o 18F, marcando a fluordeoxiglicose (FDG), um análogo da glicose que é consumido por células ativas, de tal maneira que sua presença indica função metabólica tecidual. Os quase 110 minutos de meia-vida do 18F permitem que a FDG marcada seja transportada a locais de exame razoavelmente afastados do centro de produção (em torno de 100 km por transporte terrestre), de modo que a PET realizada com FDG é dominante, com aplicações principalmente em oncologia e, em menor extensão, em neurologia, psiquiatria e cardiologia 4 .…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…The published study by Brinkley et al (2009) evaluated the influence of the scatter in the patient and had identified that the fraction of lower energies is significant compared to 511 keV photons and can influence the effective attenuation of lead in clinical PET facilities. In order to find optimized shielding barriers, different authors have published information regarding the transmission curves (Demir and Keles, 2006;Elschot et al, 2010;Madsen et al, 2006). Many published papers have been used Monte Carlo toolkits to generate those data and to explore different possibilities for transmission curves (Brinkley et al, 2009;Cruzate and Discacciatti, 2008;Hoff et al, 2010;Madsen et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%