Search

Positron emission tomography (PET–CT) is an essential imaging modality for the management of various diseases. Increasing numbers of PET–CT examinations are carried out across the world and deliver benefits to patients; however, there are concerns about the cumulative radiation doses from these examinations in patients. Compared to the radiation exposure delivered by CT, there have been few reports on the frequency of patients with a cumulative effective radiation dose of ≥100 mSv from repeated PET–CT examinations. The emerging dose tracking system facilitates surveys on patient cumulative doses by PET–CT because it can easily wrap up exposure doses of PET radiopharmaceuticals and CT. Regardless of the use of a dose tracking system, implementation of justification for PET–CT examinations and utilisation of dose reduction measures are key issues in coping with the cumulative dose in patients. Despite all the advantages of PET/MRI such as eliminating radiation exposure from CT and providing good tissue contrast in MRI, it is expensive and cannot be introduced at every facility; thus, it is still necessary to utilise PET–CT with radiation reduction measures in most clinical situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although many interventions involving radiation exposure have been replaced to endoscopic procedure in the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary fields, there remains no alternative for enteroscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which requires the use of radiation. In this review, we discuss the radiation doses and protective measures of endoscopic procedures, especially for ERCP. For the patient radiation dose, the average dose area product for diagnostic ERCP was 14–26 Gy.cm², while it increased to as high as 67–89 Gy.cm² for therapeutic ERCP. The corresponding entrance skin doses for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP were 90 and 250 mGy, respectively. The mean effective doses were 3– 6 mSv for diagnostic ERCP and 12–20 mSv for therapeutic ERCP. For the occupational radiation dose, the typical doses were 94 μGy and 75 μGy for the eye and neck, respectively. However, with an over-couch-type X-ray unit, the eye and neck doses reached as high as 550 and 450 μGy, with maximal doses of up to 2.8 and 2.4 mGy/procedure, respectively. A protective lead shield was effective for an over couch X-ray tube unit. It lowered scattered radiation by up to 89.1% in a phantom study. In actual measurements, the radiation exposure of the endoscopist closest to the unit was reduced to approximately 12%. In conclusion, there is a clear need for raising awareness among medical personnel involved endoscopic procedures to minimise radiation risks to both the patients and staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to examine the factors contributing to radiation exposure exceeding the DRL of the transnasal ileus tube placement in this post hoc analysis from the cohort of the REX-GI study., Methods: Patients with transnasal ileus tubes were enrolled in the rex-gi study from may 2019 to december 2020. We investigated the endoscope insertion time (min), procedure time (min), tube insertion length (cm), fluoroscopy time (FT: min), air kerma at the patient entrance reference point (K a.r : mGy), and air kerma-area product (P KA : Gycm 2 ). The third quartile value of the P KA value was calculated as the diagnostic reference level (DRL) value. We explored the factors associated with radiation exposure exceeding the DRL., Results: In the REX-GI study, 496 patients who underwent transnasal ileus tube placement were enrolled. The median age of the patients was 71 years. The median endoscopy insertion time, procedure time, and tube insertion length were 6 min, 20 min, and 170 cm, respectively. The third quartile/median FT, K a.r , and P KA were 18/11.9 min, 99.2/54.4 mGy, and 46.9/28 Gycm 2 , respectively. The third quartile value of P KA (47 Gycm 2 ) was set as the DRL value. There were differences in distribution by the hospital. Compared with procedures under the DRL, the FT (19 vs 10 min), procedure time (25 vs 18 min), and tube insertion length (185 vs 165 cm) were significantly longer for procedures above the DRL., Conclusion: We report the DRL for transnasal ileus tube placement in Japan. A longer procedure time and tube insertion length may be associated with DRL exceedance., Advances in Knowledge: Transnasal ileus tube placement under fluoroscopy guidance is a standard clinical procedure for bowel obstruction. However, the appropriate radiation dose level has not yet been established.We report the (DRL) for transnasal ileus tube placement in Japan. A longer procedure time and tube insertion length may be associated with DRL exceedance.