Cancer incidence risks to patients due to hysterosalpingography

Abstract

Cancer incidence estimates and dosimetry of 120 patients undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG) without screening at five rural hospitals and with screening using image intensifier-TV at an urban hospital have been studied. Free in air kerma measurements were taken for patient dosimetry. Using PCXMC version 1.5, organ and effective doses to patients were estimated. Incidence of cancer of the ovary, colon, bladder and uterus due to radiation exposure were estimated using biological effects of ionising radiation committee VII excess relative risk models. The effective dose to patients was estimated to be 0.20 ± 0.03 mSv and 0.06 ± 0.01 mSv for procedures with and without screening, respectively. The average number of exposures for both procedures, 2.5, and screening time of 48.1 s were recorded. Screening time contributed majority of the patient doses due to HSG; therefore, it should be optimised as much as possible. Of all the cancers considered, the incidence of cancer of the bladder for patients undergoing HSG procedures is more probable.

Assessment of Patient Absorbed Radiation Dose during Hysterosalpingography: A Pilot Study in Southwest Nigeria

“…In all the centers, urinary bladder doses were higher than ovary and uterus doses. Similar results have been noted by other authors [5,28]. This is due to the position of the bladder with respect to the irradiated organ.…”

“…Above all, parameters influencing the ESD value reported in this study are also contributing factors responsible for the variation in effective and organ doses. Previous authors did not report doses to the urinary bladder, except for [5,28]. This explains why the value was not in Figure 6c.…”

Estimation of effective dose during hystrosalpingography procedures in certain hospitals in Sudan

“…The partial exposure of patients result in a heterogeneous dose distribution; therefore the organ dose and effective dose values are more appropriate descriptors of patient dose and related risks. In the literature few studies were published regarding the radiation doses received by the patients (Sulieman et al, 2008;Phillips et al, 2010;Plećaš et al, 2010;Gyekye et al, 2012;Canevaro et al, 2008;Abdullah and Rassiah 2001;Gregan et al, 1998;Yousef et al, 2015;Okeji et al, 2011). These studies show broad differences in terms of dose, fluoroscopic time, number of radiographic images, equipment and inter-examiners variability.…”