Nuclear medicine staff exposure to ionising radiation in ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT practice: a preliminary retrospective study

Abstract

This retrospective study provides an insight into the levels of radiation exposure of six nuclear medicine (NM) staff (four technologists and two nurses) performing routine diagnostic 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) at the University Clinical Centre of the Republic of Srpska, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Thyroid Disorders, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Data analysis included monthly staff exposure measured with personal thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) between June and December 2018, quantified in terms of normalised dose for the whole body [Hp(10)] and dominant hand [Hp(0.07)] and their comparison between each staff member and between the two groups (technologists and nurses). The study goal was to establish how our Department compared with reports from other PET/CT centres worldwide in terms of annual number of procedures and exposure limits and whether there could be room for further improvements in radiation protection. The number of procedures rose considerably from 208 in 2016 to 876 in 2019 and was 423 in the observed seven-month period. Mean individual whole-body exposure dose per GBq of injected 18F-FDG activity, [Hp(10)/A] was 18.55 μSv/GBq for the four technologists and 15.61 μSv/GBq for the two nurses. Mean dominant-hand exposure dose per GBq of injected 18F-FDG activity [Hp(0.07)/A] was 16.99 μSv/GBq and 25.44 μSv/GBq for the two groups, respectively. The average annual cumulative dose for all staff was (1.06±0.29) mSv for Hp(10) and (1.15±0.32) mSv for Hp(0.07). These results are comparable with those of similar studies. Staff doses were well below the annual limits. Nurses received slightly higher extremity doses than technologists. In view of the increasing trends in the number of PET/CT procedures, dose monitoring should be continued to identify exposure hotspots and maintain doses as low as possible.

Assessment of extremity dose for medical staff involved in positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging: Retrospective study

“…In the current study, the overall extremity occupational radiation exposure was well below the annual dose limit of 500 mSv. [5] Nevertheless, the Extremity occupational exposure was higher than previously published results by Pavičar et al [3] and Adliene et al [12] but it is lower than the results shown by Kaljevic et al [13] and other studies (Table 5). However, there was no statistically significant difference in workers' average annual effective dose.…”

“…Therefore, each hospital can assess the occupational radiation dose for radiology workers in their department. [3] -4.37 μSv 6.55 μSv -Saad et al [14] -38.77 μSv 59.6 μSv 203 μSv Khouqeer [15] 223 mSv ---Kaljevic et al [13] 266 mSv ---Wrzesien et al [16] >500 mSv ---mSv = millisievert.…”

“…[2] The PET/CT involves performing many tasks that can contribute considerably to increasing the occupational radiation dose absorbed by the extremity of medical staff, including the preparation, dispensing and patient administration of radiopharmaceuticals. [3] Many studies document that the annual occupational radiation dose for medical workers in PET/CT is within the accepted dose limit, below 20 millisievert (mSv). In addition, studies have found that handling radioactive materials contributes to 60% of the occupational dose.…”

“…However, the increase in PET/CT examinations combined with the developments in radiopharmaceuticals raised concerns about future radiation exposure for medical workers. [3] The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.…”

Thermoluminescence dosimetry (TLD) in a 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment: implications for personnel exposure monitoring

“…The chosen TLD material is TLD-100 (LiF: Mg Ti), consistent with the standard dosimetry material employed in our hospital. Moreover, the dose level used in this study, i.e., 1 mSv, is relevant to occupational dosimetry for staff working with PET cameras [14]. Notably, there is no prior publication known to us that explores similar conditions.…”