Literature DB >> 29916399

Photon energy readings in OSL dosimeter filters: an application to retrospective dose estimation for nuclear medicine workers.

Daphnée Villoing1, Cari M Kitahara, Christopher Passmore, Steven L Simon, R Craig Yoder.   

Abstract

This work investigates the applicability of using data from personal monitoring dosimeters to assess photon energies to which medical workers were exposed. Such determinations would be important for retrospective assessments of organ doses to be used in occupational radiation epidemiology studies, particularly in the absence of work history or other information regarding the energy of the radiation source. Monthly personal dose equivalents and filter ratios under two different metallic filters contained in the Luxel+® dosimeter were collected from Landauer, Inc. from 19 nuclear medicine (NM) technologists employed by three medical institutions, the institution A only performing traditional NM imaging (primarily using 99m Tc) and institutions B and C also performing positron emission tomography (PET, using 18F). Calibration data of the Luxel+® dosimeter for various xray spectra were used to establish ranges of filter ratios from 1.1 to 1.6 for 99m Tc and below 1.1 for 18F. Median filter ratios were 1.33 (Interquartile range (IQR), 0.15) for institution A, 1.08 (IQR, 0.16) for institution B, and 1.08 (IQR, 0.14) for institution C. The distributions of these filter ratios were statistically-significantly different between the institution A only performing traditional NM imaging and institutions B and C also performing PET imaging. In this proof-of-concept study, filter ratios from personal monitoring dosimeters were used to assess differences in photon energies to which NM technologists were exposed. Dosimeters from technologists only performing traditional NM procedures mostly showed Al/Cu filter ratios above 1.2, those likely performing only PET in a particular month had filter ratios below 1.1, and those which showed filter ratios between 1.1 and 1.2 likely came from technologists rotating between traditional NM and PET imaging in the same month. These results suggest that it is possible to distinguish technologists who only worked with higher-energy procedures versus those who only worked with other types of NM procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29916399      PMCID: PMC6169304          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aacd64

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Radiol Prot        ISSN: 0952-4746            Impact factor:   1.394


  21 in total

1.  Radiation organ doses received in a nationwide cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists: methods and findings.

Authors:  Steven L Simon; Dale L Preston; Martha S Linet; Jeremy S Miller; Alice J Sigurdson; Bruce H Alexander; Deukwoo Kwon; R Craig Yoder; Parveen Bhatti; Mark P Little; Preetha Rajaraman; Dunstana Melo; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Robert M Weinstock; Michele M Doody
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 2.  Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures.

Authors:  Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Estimating historical radiation doses to a cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists.

Authors:  Steven L Simon; Robert M Weinstock; Michele Morin Doody; James Neton; Thurman Wenzl; Patricia Stewart; Aparna K Mohan; R Craig Yoder; Michael Hauptmann; D Michal Freedman; John Cardarelli; H Amy Feng; André Bouville; Martha Linet
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

4.  Experimental analysis of scattered photons in Tc-99m imaging with a gamma camera.

Authors:  A Kojima; M Matsumoto; M Takahashi
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.668

5.  A U.S. Multicenter Study of Recorded Occupational Radiation Badge Doses in Nuclear Medicine.

Authors:  Daphnée Villoing; R Craig Yoder; Christopher Passmore; Marie-Odile Bernier; Cari M Kitahara
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Cancer Mortality through 2005 among a Pooled Cohort of U.S. Nuclear Workers Exposed to External Ionizing Radiation.

Authors:  Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Robert D Daniels; Stephen J Bertke; Chih-Yu Tseng; David B Richardson
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  Dose Estimation for a Study of Nuclear Workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America: Methods for the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS).

Authors:  I Thierry-Chef; D B Richardson; R D Daniels; M Gillies; G B Hamra; R Haylock; A Kesminiene; D Laurier; K Leuraud; M Moissonnier; J O'Hagan; M K Schubauer-Berigan; E Cardis
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Organ-specific external dose coefficients and protective apron transmission factors for historical dose reconstruction for medical personnel.

Authors:  Steven L Simon
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.922

10.  Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study.

Authors:  Klervi Leuraud; David B Richardson; Elisabeth Cardis; Robert D Daniels; Michael Gillies; Jacqueline A O'Hagan; Ghassan B Hamra; Richard Haylock; Dominique Laurier; Monika Moissonnier; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Ausrele Kesminiene
Journal:  Lancet Haematol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 18.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.