Search

The Work Package 4 of the ORAMED project, a collaborative project (2008–11) supported by the European Commission within its seventh Framework Programme, is concerned with the optimisation of the extremity dosimetry of medical staff in nuclear medicine. To evaluate the extremity doses and dose distributions across the hands of medical staff working in nuclear medicine departments, an extensive measurement programme has been started in 32 nuclear medicine departments in Europe. This was done using a standard protocol recording all relevant information for radiation exposure, i.e. radiation protection devices and tools. This study shows the preliminary results obtained for this measurement campaign. For diagnostic purposes, the two most-used radionuclides were considered: 99mTc and 18F. For therapeutic treatments, Zevalin® and DOTATOC (both labelled with 90Y) were chosen. Large variations of doses were observed across the hands depending on different parameters. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of the positioning of the extremity dosemeter for a correct estimate of the maximum skin doses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study aims at testing the INTE ring dosemeter based on MCP-Ns and TLD-100 detectors on users from the field of medical applications, namely radiopharmacists, personnel at a cyclotron facility with corresponding FDG synthesis cells, interventional radiology technologists and radiologists. These users were chosen due to the fact that they have a significantly high risk of exposure to their hands. Following previous results, MCP-Ns TL thin material was used for radiology measurements, whereas TLD-100 was preferred for other applications. The dosemeters were tested to make sure that they were waterproof and that they could be sterilised properly prior to use. Results confirm the need to implement finger dosimetry, mainly for interventional radiologists as finger dose can be >50 times higher than whole-body dose and 3 times higher than wrist dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An intercomparison exercise for passive integrating radon detectors has been carried out with the participation of 12 detection systems from 10 laboratories. The detection systems comprise three commonly used in radon integrating measurements, tracks, activated charcoal canisters and electrets. The exposures were carried out in the radon and thoron chambers at the Institute of Energy Techniques (INTE) of the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), which is considered to be the Spanish reference chamber. The detectors were exposed to three different temperatures (10, 20 and 30°C) and relative humidities (30, 45 and 80%). Furthermore, in three exposures radon concentration was drastically changed during the exposure period in order to study the efficiency of canister collection. The results indicated that only the charcoal canister response was found to be significantly influenced by external climatic conditions and radon fluctuations. Those track detectors, which are unable to measure thoron concentrations show thoron sensitivity and thus interfere with precise measurement of radon. Detectors for measuring thoron concentration show quite a different response, which could be related to their traceability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In high-energy photon external radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) are used to calculate the dose to the target volume and the dose distribution around it. Commonly used TPSs include algorithms based on measurements in water and often fail in the estimate of dose in the presence of heterogeneities. In this study TL detectors were used to study the reliability of the Cadplan (Varian) TPS in the presence of low-density heterogeneities such as the lung for 6 and 18 MV photon beams at different field sizes. TL measurements were compared with TPS calculations and Monte Carlo simulations performed with the PENELOPE MC code. In a phantom with lung heterogeneity, TL measurements and MC simulations agreed, with an average deviation inside the lung of 2%. In contrast, TPS results overestimated the dose inside the lung, with a maximum deviation of 39% for the 18 MV photon beam and a field size of 2 × 2 cm². [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A parameter uncertainty analysis has been performed to derive the probability distribution of the weighted equivalent dose to lung for an adult (w(lung) H(lung)) per unit exposure to radon progeny in the home. The analysis was performed using the ICRP Publication 66 human respiratory tract model (HRTM) with tissue weighting factor for the lung, w(lung) = 0.12 and the radiation weighting factor for alpha particles, wR = 20. It is assumed that the HRTM is a realistic representation of the physical and biological processes, and that the parameter values are uncertain. The parameter probability distributions used in the analysis were based on a combination of experimental results and expert judgement from several prominent European scientists. The assignment of the probability distributions describing the uncertainty in the values of the assigned fractions (ABB, Abb, AAI) of the tissue weighting factor proved difficult in practice due to lack of quantitative data. Because of this several distributions were considered. The results of the analysis give a mean value of w(lung) H(lung) per unit exposure to radon progeny in the home of 15 mSv per working level month (WLM) for a population. For a given radon gas concentration, the mean value of w(lung) H(lung) per unit exposure is 13 mSv per 200 Bq.m(-3).y of 222Rn. Parameters characterising the distributions of w(lung) H(lung) per unit exposure are given. If the ICRP weighting factors are fixed at their default values (ABB, Abb, AAI = 0.333, 0.333, 0.333; w(lung) = 0.12; and wr = 20) then on the basis of this uncertainty analysis it is extremely unlikely (P approximately 0.0007) that a value of Hw/Pp for exposure in the home is as low as 4 mSv per WLM, the value determined with the epidemiological approach. Even when the uncertainties in the ABB, Abb, AAI, values are included then this probability is predicted to be between 0.01 to 0.08 depending upon the distribution assumed for describing the uncertainties in the ABB, Abb, AAI, values. Thus, it is concluded that the uncertainties in the HRTM parameters considered in this study cannot totally account for the discrepancy between the dosimetric and epidemiological approaches.