Young-Chul Kim1, Yun-Hwan Kim2, Soon-Ho Uhm3, Yeon Seok Seo3, Eun-Kyung Park1, Sun-Young Oh1, Eugene Jeong1, Sinae Lee1, Jae-Gol Choe1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, 126-1 Anam-dong 5-Ga, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-705 Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, 126-1 Anam-dong 5-Ga, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-705 Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine (Gastroenterology), Korea University Anam Hospital, 126-1 Anam-dong 5-Ga, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-705 Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the possible external radiation dose to other individuals from patients treated with Y-90 resin microspheres for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We designed the study prospectively to estimate the possible radiation dose to other individuals from patients who had been treated with Y-90 microspheres for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. We estimated the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) using two methods: 'theoretical' TEDEs according to the administered activity and 'measured' TEDE based on the 'measured' ambient radiation exposure rate. We compared the results from each method to determine when we can release patients from confinement at the earliest time complying with the patient release criteria. RESULTS: A total of 20 administrations of Y-90 resin microspheres were done in 18 patients. The average administered activity was 1.2 ± 0.77 (0.28-2.97) GBq. The 'theoretical' TEDEs were in the range of 0.8-10 μSv. The 'measured' TEDEs were in the range of 2.31-185 μSv. The measured TEDEs tend to be higher than the theoretical TEDEs. The values of theoretical and measured TEDE were both far less than 1 mSv, the upper limit at which the licensee can release a patient without any written documents. CONCLUSION: The effective dose equivalent caused by the Y-90 microsphere administered patient is very low. It is safe in terms of radiation safety to the other individuals when Y-90 microsphere radioembolization therapy is done with dose less than 3 GBq. Because the measured TEDE tends to be higher than the theoretical TEDE, it is recommended to use 'measured' TEDE for determining patient release.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the possible external radiation dose to other individuals from patients treated with Y-90 resin microspheres for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We designed the study prospectively to estimate the possible radiation dose to other individuals from patients who had been treated with Y-90 microspheres for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. We estimated the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) using two methods: 'theoretical' TEDEs according to the administered activity and 'measured' TEDE based on the 'measured' ambient radiation exposure rate. We compared the results from each method to determine when we can release patients from confinement at the earliest time complying with the patient release criteria. RESULTS: A total of 20 administrations of Y-90 resin microspheres were done in 18 patients. The average administered activity was 1.2 ± 0.77 (0.28-2.97) GBq. The 'theoretical' TEDEs were in the range of 0.8-10 μSv. The 'measured' TEDEs were in the range of 2.31-185 μSv. The measured TEDEs tend to be higher than the theoretical TEDEs. The values of theoretical and measured TEDE were both far less than 1 mSv, the upper limit at which the licensee can release a patient without any written documents. CONCLUSION: The effective dose equivalent caused by the Y-90 microsphere administered patient is very low. It is safe in terms of radiation safety to the other individuals when Y-90 microsphere radioembolization therapy is done with dose less than 3 GBq. Because the measured TEDE tends to be higher than the theoretical TEDE, it is recommended to use 'measured' TEDE for determining patient release.
Authors: J Willegaignon; Maria I C Guimarães; Marcelo T Sapienza; Michael G Stabin; Luiz F Malvestiti; Marília Marone; Gian-Maria A A Sordi Journal: Health Phys Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Henry N Wagner; Gregory A Wiseman; Carol S Marcus; Hani A Nabi; Conrad E Nagle; Darlene M Fink-Bennett; Dominick M Lamonica; Peter S Conti Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Riad Salem; Kenneth G Thurston; Brian I Carr; James E Goin; Jean-Francois H Geschwind Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Beom-Su Jang; Sang-Myung Lee; Hyung Sub Kim; In Soo Shin; Faezeh Razjouyan; Shutao Wang; Zhengsheng Yao; Ira Pastan; Matthew R Dreher; Chang H Paik Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Nicolas Voizard; Milena Cerny; Anis Assad; Jean-Sébastien Billiard; Damien Olivié; Pierre Perreault; Ania Kielar; Richard K G Do; Takeshi Yokoo; Claude B Sirlin; An Tang Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2019-12-18