Olivera Ciraj-Bjelac

Risk for radiation-induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern?†‡

Objectives: To examine the prevalence of radiation‐associated lens opacities among interventional cardiologists and nurses and correlate with occupational radiation exposure. Background: Interventional cardiology personnel are exposed to relatively high levels of X‐rays and based on recent findings of radiation‐associated lens opacities in other cohorts, they may be at risk for cataract without use of ocular radiation protection. Methods: Eyes of interventional cardiologists, nurses, and age‐ and sex‐matched unexposed controls were screened by dilated slit lamp examination and posterior lens changes graded using a modified Merriam‐Focht technique. Individual cumulative lens X‐ray exposure was calculated from responses to a questionnaire and personal interview. Results: The prevalence of radiation‐associated posterior lens opacities was 52% (29/56, 95% CI: 35–73) for interventional cardiologists, 45% (5/11, 95% CI: 15–100) for nurses, and 9% (2/22, 95% CI: 1–33) for controls. Relative risks of lens opacity was 5.7 (95% CI: 1.5–22) for interventional cardiologists and 5.0 (95% CI: 1.2–21) for nurses. Estimated cumulative ocular doses ranged from 0.01 to 43 Gy with mean and median values of 3.4 and 1.0 Gy, respectively. A strong dose–response relationship was found between occupational exposure and the prevalence of radiation‐associated posterior lens changes. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate a dose dependent increased risk of posterior lens opacities for interventional cardiologists and nurses when radiation protection tools are not used. While study of a larger cohort is needed to confirm these findings, the results suggest ocular radio‐protection should be utilized.

Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside the Imaging Department

An increasing number of medical specialists are using fluoroscopy outside imaging departments, but there has been general neglect of radiological protection coverage of fluoroscopy machines used outside imaging departments. Lack of radiological protection training of those working with fluoroscopy outside imaging departments can increase the radiation risk to workers and patients. Procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair, renal angioplasty, iliac angioplasty, ureteric stent placement, therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography,and bile duct stenting and drainage have the potential to impart skin doses exceeding Gy. Although tissue reactions among patients and workers from fluoroscopy procedures have, to date, only been reported in interventional radiology and cardiology,the level of fluoroscopy use outside imaging departments creates potential for such injuries.A brief account of the health effects of ionising radiation and protection principles is presented in Section 2. Section 3 deals with general aspects of the protection of workers and patients that are common to all, whereas specific aspects are covered in Section 4 for vascular surgery, urology, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology,gastroenterology and hepatobiliary system, and anaesthetics and pain management.Although sentinel lymph node biopsy involves the use of radio-isotopic methods rather than fluoroscopy, performance of this procedure in operating theatres is covered in this report as it is unlikely that this topic will be addressed in another ICRP publication in coming years. Information on radiation dose levels to patients and workers, and dose management is presented for each speciality.

Patient Doses in Radiographic Examinations in 12 Countries in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe: Initial Results from IAEA Projects

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to survey image quality and the entrance surface air kerma for patients in radiographic examinations and to perform comparisons with diagnostic reference levels. SUBJECTS AND METHODS In this multinational prospective study, image quality and patient radiation doses were surveyed in 12 countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, covering 45 hospitals. The rate of unsatisfactory images and image quality grade were noted, and causes for poor image quality were investigated. The entrance surface doses for adult patients were determined in terms of the entrance surface air kerma on the basis of X-ray tube output measurements and X-ray exposure parameters. Comparison of dose levels with diagnostic reference levels was performed. RESULTS The fraction of images rated as poor was as high as 53%. The image quality improved up to 16 percentage points in Africa, 13 in Asia, and 22 in Eastern Europe after implementation of a quality control (QC) program. Patient doses varied by a factor of up to 88, although the majority of doses were below diagnostic reference levels. The mean entrance surface air kerma values in mGy were 0.33 (chest, posteroanterior), 4.07 (lumbar spine, anteroposterior), 8.53 (lumbar spine, lateral), 3.64 (abdomen, anteroposterior), 3.68 (pelvis, anteroposterior), and 2.41 (skull, anteroposterior). Patient doses were found to be similar to doses in developed countries and patient dose reductions ranging from 1.4% to 85% were achieved. CONCLUSION Poor image quality constitutes a major source of unnecessary radiation to patients in developing countries. Comparison with other surveys indicates that patient dose levels in these countries are not higher than those in developed countries.

Radiation and cataract

When this paper was about to go to press, the International Commission on Radiological Protection released a statement recommending a change in the threshold dose for the eye lens and dose limits for eye for occupationally exposed persons. It is clear that the earlier published threshold for radiation cataract is no longer valid. Epidemiological studies among Chernobyl clean-up workers, A bomb survivors, astronauts, residents of contaminated buildings, radiological technicians and recent surveys of staff in interventional rooms indicate that there is an increased incidence of lens opacities at doses below 1 Gy. Nevertheless, eye lens dosimetry is at a primitive stage and needs to be developed further. Despite uncertainties concerning dose threshold and dosimetry, it is possible to significantly reduce the risk of radiation cataract through the use of appropriate eye protection. By increasing awareness among those at risk and better adoption and increased usage of protective measures, radiation cataract can become preventable despite lowering of dose limits.

Radiation-Induced Eye Lens Changes and Risk for Cataract in Interventional Cardiology

Background: Recent studies have reported a significant increase in eye lens opacities among staff in the cardiac catheterization laboratory but indicated further studies are needed to confirm the findings. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of opacities in eyes of cardiologists, radiographers and nurses working in interventional cardiology. Methods: The eyes of 52 staff in interventional cardiology facilities and 34 age- and sex-matched unexposed controls were screened in a cardiology conference held in Kuala Lumpur by dilated slit-lamp examination, and posterior lens changes were graded. Individual cumulative lens X-ray exposures were calculated from responses to a questionnaire in terms of workload and working practice. Results: The prevalence of posterior lens opacities among interventional cardiologists was 53%, while in nurses and radiographers it was 45%. Corresponding relative risks were 2.6 (95% CI: 1.2–5.4) and 2.2 (95% CI: 0.98–4.9), for interventional cardiologists and support staff, respectively. Conclusions: This study confirms a statistically significant increase in radiation-associated posterior lens changes in the eyes of interventional cardiology staff.

Eye lens dosimetry in interventional cardiology: results of staff dose measurements and link to patient dose levels.

Workers involved in interventional cardiology procedures receive high eye lens dose if protection is not used. Currently, there is no suitable method for routine use for the measurement of eye dose. Since most angiography machines are equipped with suitable patient dosemeters, deriving factors linking staff eye doses to the patient doses can be helpful. In this study the patient kerma-area product, cumulative dose at an interventional reference point and eye dose in terms of Hp(3) of the cardiologists, nurses and radiographers for interventional cardiology procedures have been measured. Correlations between the patient dose and the staff eye dose were obtained. The mean eye dose was 121 µSv for the first operator, 33 µSv for the second operator/nurse and 12 µSv for radiographer. Normalised eye lens doses per unit kerma-area product were 0.94 µSv Gy⁻¹ cm⁻² for the first operator, 0.33 µSv Gy⁻¹ cm⁻² for the second operator/nurse and 0.16 µSv Gy⁻¹ cm⁻² for radiographers. Statistical analysis indicated that there is a weak but significant (p < 0.01) correlation between the eye dose and the kerma-area product for all three staff categories. These values are based on a local practice and may provide useful reference for other studies for validation and for wider utilisation in assessing the eye dose using patient dose values.

Image quality and dose in mammography in 17 countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe: Results from IAEA projects

PURPOSE The objective is to study mammography practice from an optimisation point of view by assessing the impact of simple and immediately implementable corrective actions on image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective multinational study included 54 mammography units in 17 countries. More than 21,000 mammography images were evaluated using a three-level image quality scoring system. Following initial assessment, appropriate corrective actions were implemented and image quality was re-assessed in 24 units. RESULTS The fraction of images that were considered acceptable without any remark in the first phase (before the implementation of corrective actions) was 70% and 75% for cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique projections, respectively. The main causes for poor image quality before corrective actions were related to film processing, damaged or scratched image receptors, or film-screen combinations that are not spectrally matched, inappropriate radiographic techniques and lack of training. Average glandular dose to a standard breast was 1.5 mGy (mean and range 0.59-3.2 mGy). After optimisation the frequency of poor quality images decreased, but the relative contributions of the various causes remained similar. Image quality improvements following appropriate corrective actions were up to 50 percentage points in some facilities. CONCLUSIONS Poor image quality is a major source of unnecessary radiation dose to the breast. An increased awareness of good quality mammograms is of particular importance for countries that are moving towards introduction of population-based screening programmes. The study demonstrated how simple and low-cost measures can be a valuable tool in improving of image quality in mammography.

Good reasons to implement quality assurance in nationwide breast cancer screening programs in Croatia and Serbia: Results from a pilot study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the need for and the possible achievements of a comprehensive QA programme and to look at effects of simple corrective actions on image quality in Croatia and in Serbia. The paper focuses on activities related to the technical and radiological aspects of QA. The methodology consisted of two phases. The aim of the first phase was the initial assessment of mammography practice in terms of image quality, patient dose and equipment performance in selected number of mammography units in Croatia and Serbia. Subsequently, corrective actions were suggested and implemented. Then the same parameters were re-assessed. Most of the suggested corrective actions were simple, low-cost and possible to implement immediately, as these were related to working habits in mammography units, such as film processing and darkroom conditions. It has been demonstrated how simple quantitative assessment of image quality can be used for optimisation purposes. Analysis of image quality parameters as OD, gradient and contrast demonstrated general similarities between mammography practices in Croatia and Serbia. The applied methodology should be expanded to larger number of hospitals and applied on a regular basis.

Characterization of XR-RV3 GafChromic® films in standard laboratory and in clinical conditions and means to evaluate uncertainties and reduce errors

PURPOSE To investigate the optimal use of XR-RV3 GafChromic(®) films to assess patient skin dose in interventional radiology while addressing the means to reduce uncertainties in dose assessment. METHODS XR-Type R GafChromic films have been shown to represent the most efficient and suitable solution to determine patient skin dose in interventional procedures. As film dosimetry can be associated with high uncertainty, this paper presents the EURADOS WG 12 initiative to carry out a comprehensive study of film characteristics with a multisite approach. The considered sources of uncertainties include scanner, film, and fitting-related errors. The work focused on studying film behavior with clinical high-dose-rate pulsed beams (previously unavailable in the literature) together with reference standard laboratory beams. RESULTS First, the performance analysis of six different scanner models has shown that scan uniformity perpendicular to the lamp motion axis and that long term stability are the main sources of scanner-related uncertainties. These could induce errors of up to 7% on the film readings unless regularly checked and corrected. Typically, scan uniformity correction matrices and reading normalization to the scanner-specific and daily background reading should be done. In addition, the analysis on multiple film batches has shown that XR-RV3 films have generally good uniformity within one batch (<1.5%), require 24 h to stabilize after the irradiation and their response is roughly independent of dose rate (<5%). However, XR-RV3 films showed large variations (up to 15%) with radiation quality both in standard laboratory and in clinical conditions. As such, and prior to conducting patient skin dose measurements, it is mandatory to choose the appropriate calibration beam quality depending on the characteristics of the x-ray systems that will be used clinically. In addition, yellow side film irradiations should be preferentially used since they showed a lower dependence on beam parameters compared to white side film irradiations. Finally, among the six different fit equations tested in this work, typically used third order polynomials and more rational and simplistic equations, of the form dose inversely proportional to pixel value, were both found to provide satisfactory results. Fitting-related uncertainty was clearly identified as a major contributor to the overall film dosimetry uncertainty with up to 40% error on the dose estimate. CONCLUSIONS The overall uncertainty associated with the use of XR-RV3 films to determine skin dose in the interventional environment can realistically be estimated to be around 20% (k = 1). This uncertainty can be reduced to within 5% if carefully monitoring scanner, film, and fitting-related errors or it can easily increase to over 40% if minimal care is not taken. This work demonstrates the importance of appropriate calibration, reading, fitting, and other film-related and scan-related processes, which will help improve the accuracy of skin dose measurements in interventional procedures.

Eye dosimetry in interventional radiology and cardiology: current challenges and practical considerations

Interventional radiology and cardiology are areas with high potential for risk to eye lens. Accurate assessment of eye dose is one of the most important aspects of correlating doses with observed lens opacities among workers in interventional suites and ascertaining compliance with regulatory limits. The purpose of this paper is to review current approaches and opportunities in eye dosimetry and assess challenges in particular in accuracy and practicality. The possible approaches include practical dosimetry using passive dosemeters or active dosemeters with obvious advantage of active dosimetry. When neither of these is available, other approaches are based on either retrospective dose assessment using scatter radiation dose levels or correlations between patient dose indices and eye doses to the operators. In spite of all uncertainties and variations, estimation of eye dose from patient dose can be accepted as a compromise. Future challenges include development of practical methods for regular monitoring of individual eye doses and development of better techniques to estimate eye dose from measurements at some reference points.