Literature DB >> 28658055

Appropriate Use of Effective Dose in Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment.

Darrell R Fisher1, Frederic H Fahey.   

Abstract

Effective dose was introduced by the ICRP for the single, over-arching purpose of setting limits for radiation protection. Effective dose is a derived quantity or mathematical construct and not a physical, measurable quantity. The formula for calculating effective dose to a reference model incorporates terms to account for all radiation types, organ and tissue radiosensitivities, population groups, and multiple biological endpoints. The properties and appropriate applications of effective dose are not well understood by many within and outside the health physics profession; no other quantity in radiation protection has been more confusing or misunderstood. According to ICRP Publication 103, effective dose is to be used for "prospective dose assessment for planning and optimization in radiological protection, and retrospective demonstration of compliance for regulatory purposes." In practice, effective dose has been applied incorrectly to predict cancer risk among exposed persons. The concept of effective dose applies generally to reference models only and not to individual subjects. While conceived to represent a measure of cancer risk or heritable detrimental effects, effective dose is not predictive of future cancer risk. The formula for calculating effective dose incorporates committee-selected weighting factors for radiation quality and organ sensitivity; however, the organ weighting factors are averaged across all ages and both genders and thus do not apply to any specific individual or radiosensitive subpopulations such as children and young women. Further, it is not appropriate to apply effective dose to individual medical patients because patient-specific parameters may vary substantially from the assumptions used in generalized models. Also, effective dose is not applicable to therapeutic uses of radiation, as its mathematical underpinnings pertain only to observed late (stochastic) effects of radiation exposure and do not account for short-term adverse tissue reactions. The weighting factors incorporate substantial uncertainties, and linearity of the dose-response function at low dose is uncertain and highly disputed. Since effective dose is not predictive of future cancer incidence, it follows that effective dose should never be used to estimate future cancer risk from specific sources of radiation exposure. Instead, individual assessments of potential detriment should only be based on organ or tissue radiation absorbed dose, together with best scientific understanding of the corresponding dose-response relationships.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28658055      PMCID: PMC5878049          DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   1.316


  19 in total

Review 1.  Radiation risk from medical imaging.

Authors:  Eugene C Lin
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  The application of effective dose to medical exposures.

Authors:  Colin J Martin
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2007-10-20       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  MIRD commentary: proposed name for a dosimetry unit applicable to deterministic biological effects--the barendsen (Bd).

Authors:  George Sgouros; Roger W Howell; Wesley E Bolch; Darrell R Fisher
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced.

Authors:  D J Brenner
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2008-04-28       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Effective dose: practice, purpose and pitfalls for nuclear medicine.

Authors:  C J Martin
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 1.394

6.  Application of the effective dose equivalent to nuclear medicine patients. The MIRD Committee.

Authors:  J W Poston
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Use of the effective dose equivalent.

Authors:  R A Shield; R S Lawson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Limitations of the effective dose equivalent.

Authors:  W H Thomson; S T Chandler; C Griffiths
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Jafi Lipson; Ralph Marcus; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Robert Gould; Amy Berrington de González; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14

10.  Targeted alpha particle immunotherapy for myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Joseph G Jurcic; Steven M Larson; George Sgouros; Michael R McDevitt; Ronald D Finn; Chaitanya R Divgi; Ase M Ballangrud; Klaus A Hamacher; Dangshe Ma; John L Humm; Martin W Brechbiel; Roger Molinet; David A Scheinberg
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 22.113

View more
  11 in total

1.  Neutron Radiobiology and Dosimetry.

Authors:  Daniela L Stricklin; Jama VanHorne-Sealy; Carmen I Rios; Lisa A Scott Carnell; Lanyn P Taliaferro
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Occupational and patient radiation doses in a modern cardiac electrophysiology laboratory.

Authors:  Kevin A Wunderle; Mina K Chung; Sripriya Rayadurgam; Mark A Miller; Nancy A Obuchowski; Bruce D Lindsay
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Comparative dosimetry of radiography device, MSCT device and two CBCT devices in the elbow region.

Authors:  Juha Koivisto; Maureen van Eijnatten; John Ludlow; Timo Kiljunen; Xie-Qi Shi; Jan Wolff
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Patient-adapted organ absorbed dose and effective dose estimates in pediatric 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies.

Authors:  Brian M Quinn; Yiming Gao; Usman Mahmood; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Gerald Behr; Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence T Dauer
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 1.930

5.  Repeated Pelvic Radiographs in Infants, After Harness Treatment for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip, Carry Very Low Radiation Risk.

Authors:  Elizabeth Vogel; Thomas Leaver; Fiona Wall; Ben Johnson; Michael Uglow; Alexander Aarvold
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 1.251

6.  Dose Estimation for Exposure to Radioactive Fallout from Nuclear Detonations.

Authors:  Steven L Simon; André Bouville; Harold L Beck; Lynn R Anspaugh; Kathleen M Thiessen; F Owen Hoffman; Sergey Shinkarev
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 7.  Dosimetric quantities and effective dose in medical imaging: a summary for medical doctors.

Authors:  Eliseo Vano; Guy Frija; Reinhard Loose; Graciano Paulo; Efstathios Efstathopoulos; Claudio Granata; Jonas Andersson
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-07-13

8.  It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.

Authors:  John J Cardarelli; Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  The LNT Issue Is About Politics and Economics, Not Safety.

Authors:  Jerry M Cuttler
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  3D Assessment of Endodontic Lesions with a Low-Dose CBCT Protocol.

Authors:  Marco Portelli; Angela Militi; Antonino Lo Giudice; Roberto Lo Giudice; Lorenzo Rustico; Rosamaria Fastuca; Riccardo Nucera
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.