Yohei Inaba

Radiation Dose of Interventional Radiology System Using a Flat-Panel Detector

OBJECTIVE Currently, cardiac interventional radiology equipment has tended toward using flat-panel detectors (FPDs) instead of image intensifiers (IIs) because FPDs offer better imaging performance. However, the radiation dose from an FPD in cardiac interventional radiology is not clear. The purpose of our study was to measure the radiation doses during cineangiography and fluoroscopy of many cardiac radiology systems that use FPDs or IIs, in clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study examined 20 radiology systems in 15 cardiac catheterization laboratories (11 used FPD and nine used II). The entrance surface doses with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared for the 20 systems using acrylic plates (20-cm thick) and a skin dose monitor. RESULTS For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface doses of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plates were identical for FPD (average +/- SD, 16.63 +/- 7.89 mGy/min; range, 5.7-26.4 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 4.63) and II (17.81 +/- 12.52 mGy/min; range, 6.5-42.2 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 6.49) (p = 0.799). For digital cineangiography, the average entrance surface dose of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plate was slightly lower with FPD (29.68 +/- 16.40 mGy/10 s; range, 8.9-58.5 mGy/10 s; maximum/minimum, 6.57) than with II (38.50 +/- 33.71 mGy/10 s; range, 15.2-117.1 mGy/10 s; maximum/minimum, 7.70), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.487). CONCLUSION We found that the average entrance doses of cineangiography and fluoroscopy in FPD systems were not significantly different from those in II systems. Hence, FPDs did not inherently reduce the radiation dose, although FPDs possess good detective quantum efficiency. Therefore, to reduce the radiation dose of cardiac interventional radiology systems, even FPD systems, practical measures are necessary.

USEFULNESS OF NON-LEAD APRONS IN RADIATION PROTECTION FOR PHYSICIANS PERFORMING INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES

At present, interventional radiology (IVR) tends to involve long procedures (long radiation duration), and physicians are near to the source of scattered radiation. Hence, shielding is critical in protecting physicians from radiation. Protective aprons and additional lead-shielding devices, such as tableside lead drapes, are important means of protecting the physician from scattered radiation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether non-lead aprons are effective in protecting physicians from radiation during IVR procedures. In this study, the radiation protection effects of commercially available protective lead and non-lead aprons, when exposed to diagnostic X rays, are compared. The performance of these non-lead and lead aprons was similar for scattered X rays at tube voltages of 60-120 kV. Properly designed non-lead aprons are thus more suitable for physicians because they weigh approximately 20% less than the lead aprons, and are non-toxic.

Comparison of dose at an interventional reference point between the displayed estimated value and measured value

Today, interventional radiology (IR) X-ray units are required for display of doses at an interventional reference point (IRP) for the operator (IR physician). The dose displayed at the IRP (the reference dose) of an X-ray unit has been reported to be helpful for characterizing patient exposure in real time. However, no detailed report has evaluated the accuracy of the reference doses displayed on X-ray equipment. Thus, in this study, we compared the displayed reference dose to the actual measured value in many IR X-ray systems. Although the displayed reference doses of many IR X-ray systems agreed with the measured actual values within approximately 15%, the doses of a few IR units were not close. Furthermore, some X-ray units made in Japan displayed reference doses quite different from the actual measured value, probably because the reference point of these units differs from the International Electrotechnical Commission standard. Thus, IR physicians should pay attention to the location of the IRP of the displayed reference dose in Japan. Furthermore, physicians should be aware of the accuracy of the displayed reference dose of the X-ray system that they use for IR. Thus, regular checks of the displayed reference dose of the X-ray system are important.

A cross‐sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X‐ray equipment used in IVR

There are case reports of injuries caused by the radiation from interventional radiology (IVR) X‐ray systems. Therefore, the management of radiation doses in IVR is important. However, no detailed report has evaluated image quality for a large number of IVR X‐ray systems. As a result, it is unclear whether the image quality of the X‐ray equipment currently used in IVR procedures is optimal. We compared the entrance surface doses and image quality of multiple IVR X‐ray systems. This study was conducted in 2014 at 13 medical facilities using 18 IVR X‐ray systems. We evaluated image quality and simultaneously measured the radiation dose. Entrance surface doses for fluoroscopy (duration, 1 min) and cineradiography (duration, 10 s) are measured using a 20‐cm‐thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The image quality (such as spatial resolution and low‐contrast detectability) of both fluoroscopy and cineradiography was evaluated using a QC phantom. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface dose using the 20‐cm‐thick acrylic plate was 13.9 (range 2.1–28.2) mGy/min. For cineradiography, the average entrance surface dose was 24.6 (range 5.1–49.3) mGy/10 s. We found positive correlations between radiation doses and image quality scores, in general, especially for fluoroscopy. The differences in surface dose among the 18 IVR X‐ray systems were high (max/min, 9.7‐fold for cineradiography; 13.4‐fold for fluoroscopy). The differences in image quality scores (spatial resolution, low‐contrast detectability, and dynamic range) were also very large. In general, there tended to be a correlation between radiation dose and image quality. Periodical measurements of the radiation dose and image quality of the X‐ray equipment used for cineradiography and fluoroscopy in IVR are necessary. The need to minimize patient exposure requires that the dose be reduced to the minimum level that will generate an image with an acceptable degree of noise. PACS number(s): 87.57.C, 87.57.uq, 87.59.B, 87.59.bf, 87.59.C, 87.59.cf, 87.59.DjThere are case reports of injuries caused by the radiation from interventional radiology (IVR) X-ray systems. Therefore, the management of radiation doses in IVR is important. However, no detailed report has evaluated image quality for a large number of IVR X-ray systems. As a result, it is unclear whether the image quality of the X-ray equipment currently used in IVR procedures is optimal. We compared the entrance surface doses and image quality of multiple IVR X-ray systems. This study was conducted in 2014 at 13 medical facilities using 18 IVR X-ray systems. We evaluated image quality and simultaneously measured the radiation dose. Entrance surface doses for fluoroscopy (duration, 1 min) and cineradiography (duration, 10 s) are measured using a 20-cm-thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The image quality (such as spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability) of both fluoroscopy and cineradiography was evaluated using a QC phantom. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface dose using the 20-cm-thick acrylic plate was 13.9 (range 2.1-28.2) mGy/min. For cineradiography, the average entrance surface dose was 24.6 (range 5.1-49.3) mGy/10 s. We found positive correlations between radiation doses and image quality scores, in general, especially for fluoroscopy. The differences in surface dose among the 18 IVR X-ray systems were high (max/min, 9.7-fold for cineradiography; 13.4-fold for fluoroscopy). The differences in image quality scores (spatial resolution, low-contrast detectability, and dynamic range) were also very large. In general, there tended to be a correlation between radiation dose and image quality. Periodical measurements of the radiation dose and image quality of the X-ray equipment used for cineradiography and fluoroscopy in IVR are necessary. The need to minimize patient exposure requires that the dose be reduced to the minimum level that will generate an image with an acceptable degree of noise. PACS number(s): 87.57.C, 87.57.uq, 87.59.B, 87.59.bf, 87.59.C, 87.59.cf, 87.59.Dj.

A Rotatable Quality Control Phantom for Evaluating the Performance of Flat Panel Detectors in Imaging Moving Objects

As the use of diagnostic X-ray equipment with flat panel detectors (FPDs) has increased, so has the importance of proper management of FPD systems. To ensure quality control (QC) of FPD system, an easy method for evaluating FPD imaging performance for both stationary and moving objects is required. Until now, simple rotatable QC phantoms have not been available for the easy evaluation of the performance (spatial resolution and dynamic range) of FPD in imaging moving objects. We developed a QC phantom for this purpose. It consists of three thicknesses of copper and a rotatable test pattern of piano wires of various diameters. Initial tests confirmed its stable performance. Our moving phantom is very useful for QC of FPD images of moving objects because it enables visual evaluation of image performance (spatial resolution and dynamic range) easily.

Real-time patient radiation dosimeter for use in interventional radiology

There is currently no effective real-time patient dosimeter available for use in interventional radiology (IR). We conducted a feasibility study in a clinical setting to investigate the use of the new dosimeter using photoluminescence sensors during procedures. Reference dosimeters were set at almost the same position of the prototype dosimeter sensors. We found excellent correlations between the reference measurements and those of the prototype dosimeter (r2=0.950). The sensor of the new dosimeter does not interfere with the IR procedure. The new dosimeter will be an effective tool for the real-time measurement of patient skin doses during IR.

Dose-dependent decrease in anti-oxidant capacity of whole blood after irradiation: A novel potential marker for biodosimetry

Many reports have demonstrated that radiation stimulates reactive oxygen species (ROS) production by mitochondria for a few hours to a few days after irradiation. However, these studies were performed using cell lines, and there is a lack of information about redox homeostasis in irradiated animals and humans. Blood redox homeostasis reflects the body condition well and can be used as a diagnostic marker. However, most redox homeostasis studies have focused on plasma or serum, and the anti-oxidant capacity of whole blood has scarcely been investigated. Here, we report changes in the anti-oxidant capacity of whole blood after X-ray irradiation using C57BL/6 J mice. Whole-blood anti-oxidant capacity was measured by electron spin resonance (ESR) spin trapping using a novel spin-trapping agent, 2-diphenylphosphinoyl-2-methyl-3,4-dihydro-2H-pyrrole N-oxide (DPhPMPO). We found that whole-blood anti-oxidant capacity decreased in a dose-dependent manner (correlation factor, r > 0.9; P < 0.05) from 2 to 24 days after irradiation with 0.5–3 Gy. We further found that the red blood cell (RBC) glutathione level decreased and lipid peroxidation level increased in a dose-dependent manner from 2 to 6 days after irradiation. These findings suggest that blood redox state may be a useful biomarker for estimating exposure doses during nuclear and/or radiation accidents.

Effectiveness of a novel real-time dosimeter in interventional radiology: a comparison of new and old radiation sensors

Radiation dose management is important in interventional radiology (IR) procedures, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, to prevent radiation-induced injuries. Therefore, radiation dose should be monitored in real time during IR. This study evaluated the fundamental characteristics of a novel real-time skin dosimeter (RTSD) developed at our institution. In addition, we compared the performance of our new and old radiation sensors and that of a skin dose monitor (SDM), with ion chamber reference values. We evaluated the fundamental characteristics (e.g., energy dependence, dose dependence, and angular dependence) of the RTSD developed by us in the diagnostic X-ray energy range. The performance of our RTSD was similar to that of the SDM. In particular, the new radiation sensor of our RTSD demonstrated better dose rate dependence compared to the old sensor. In addition, the new sensor had the advantage of being small in size and thus minimally affecting the X-ray images compared to the old sensor. Therefore, the developed skin dosimeter and radiation sensor may be useful in real-time measurement of patients’ exposure to and multi-channel monitoring of radiation in IR procedures. The new dosimeter system can be recommended for visualization and management of the radiation dose to which the patients’ skin is exposed.

Red-emission phosphor’s brightness deterioration by x-ray and brightness recovery phenomenon by heating

There are no feasible real-time and direct skin dosimeters for interventional radiology. One would be available if there were x-ray phosphors that had no brightness change caused by x-ray irradiation, but the emission of the Y2O3:Eu, (Y, Gd, Eu)BO3, and YVO4:Eu phosphors investigated in our previous study was reduced by x-ray irradiation. We found that the brightness of those phosphors recovered, and the purpose of this study is to investigate their recovery phenomena. It is expected that more kinds of phosphors could be used in x-ray dosimeters if the brightness changes caused by x-rays are elucidated and prevented. Three kinds of phosphors-Y2O3:Eu, (Y, Gd, Eu)BO3, and YVO4:Eu-were irradiated by x-rays (2 Gy) to reduce their brightness. After the irradiation, brightness changes occurring at room temperature and at 80 °C were investigated. The irradiation reduced the brightness of all the phosphors by 5%-10%, but the brightness of each recovered immediately both at room temperature and at 80 °C. The recovery at 80 °C was faster than that at room temperature, and at both temperatures the recovered brightness remained at 95%-98% of the brightness before the x-ray irradiation. The brightness recovery phenomena of Y2O3:Eu, (Y, Gd, Eu)BO3, and YVO4:Eu phosphors occurring after brightness deterioration due to x-ray irradiation were found to be more significant at 80 °C than at room temperature. More kinds of phosphors could be used in x-ray scintillation dosimeters if the reasons for the brightness changes caused by x-rays were elucidated.