Search

Featured Application: Importance of the evaluation of the physician's eye exposure to radiation during 198Au grain brachytherapy, given that the eye dose limit has been reduced drastically from 150 to 20 mSv/year. Brachytherapy is a practical, effective procedure for the local treatment of cancer; it delivers a high radiation dose to a limited tissue volume while sparing the surrounding normal tissues. Although the clinical benefit of brachytherapy is clear, there have been very few studies on the radiation dose received by physicians during the procedure. Furthermore, no study has investigated the eye radiation dose received by physicians performing 198Au grain (seed) brachytherapy, using an eye dosimeter. Recently, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended significantly reducing the occupational lens dose limit, from 150 to 20 mSv/yr (100 mSv/5 years). Therefore, it has become essential to evaluate the eye radiation doses of medical workers. We evaluated the eye radiation dose of a brachytherapy physician performing 198Au permanent grain implantation for tongue cancer; this is the first study on this topic. The maximum eye dose was ~0.1 mSv/procedure, suggesting that it is unlikely to exceed the ICRP limit (20 mSv/yr) for the lens, unless many procedures are performed with inappropriate radiation protection. To reduce the dose of radiation received by 198Au grain brachytherapy physicians, it is necessary to use additional lead shielding equipment when preparing the treatment needles, i.e., when loading the grains. This study provides useful information on radiation exposure of physicians conducting 198Au permanent grain brachytherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011, many types of survey meters were used, including Geiger–Müller (GM) survey meters, which have long been used to measure β-rays. Recently, however, a novel radiation survey meter that uses a plastic-scintillation sensor has been developed. Although manufacturers' catalog data are available for these survey meters, there have been no user reports on performance. In addition, the performance of commercial plastic-scintillation survey meters has not been evaluated. In this study, we experimentally compared the performance of a plastic-scintillation survey meter with that of a GM survey meter. The results show that the two instruments performed very similarly in most respects. The GM survey meter exhibited count losses when the radiation count rate was high, whereas the plastic-scintillation survey meter remained accurate under such circumstances, with almost no count loss at high radiation rates. For measurements at background rates (i.e., low counting rates), the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation and GM survey meters were similar. Therefore, an advantage of plastic-scintillation survey meters is that they are less affected by count loss than GM survey meters. We conclude that the plastic-scintillation survey meter is a useful β-ray measuring/monitoring instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been an increase in the use of interventional neuroradiology procedures because of their non-invasiveness compared to surgeries and the improved image quality of fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and rotational angiography. Although cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are inferior to multi-detector CT images in terms of low-contrast detectability and lower radiation doses, CBCT scans are frequently performed because of their accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of two different high-resolution CBCTs (HR CBCT): conventional (C-HR CBCT) and wide-field HR CBCT (W-HR CBCT). The modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used to evaluate the image quality. On comparing the MTF of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and that of W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix, the MTF of W-HR CBCT with the 384 × 384 matrix was larger. A comparison of the NPS and CNR of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix showed that both values were comparable. The reference air kerma values were equal for C-HR CBCT and W-HR CBCT; however, the value of the kerma area product was 1.44 times higher for W-HR CBCT compared to C-HR CBCT. The W-HR CBCT allowed for improved spatial resolution while maintaining the image noise and low-contrast detectability by changing the number of image matrices from 256 × 256 to 384 × 384. Our study revealed the image characteristics and radiation dose of W-HR CBCT. Given its advantages of low-contrast detectability and wide-area imaging with high spatial resolution, W-HR CBCT may be useful in interventional neuroradiology for acute ischemic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has lowered the annual equivalent eye-lens dose to 20 mSv. Although occupational exposure can be high in nuclear medicine (NM) departments, few studies have been conducted regarding eye-lens exposure among NM staff. This study aimed to estimate the annual lens doses of staff in an NM department and identify factors contributing to lens exposure. Four nurses and six radiographers performing positron emission tomography (PET) examinations and four radiographers performing radioisotope (RI) examinations (excluding PET) were recruited for this study. A lens dosimeter was attached near the left eye to measure the 3-mm-dose equivalent; a personal dosimeter was attached to the left side of the neck to measure the 1-cm- and 70-µm-dose equivalents. Measurements were acquired over six months, and the cumulative lens dose was doubled to derive the annual dose. Correlations between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses, between the lens dose and the numbers of procedures, and between the lens dose and the amounts of PET drugs (radiopharmaceuticals) injected were examined. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test was used to compare lens and personal-dosimeter doses. The estimated annual doses were 0.93 ± 0.13 mSv for PET nurses, 0.71 ± 0.41 mSv for PET radiographers, and 1.10 ± 0.53 mSv for RI radiographers. For PET nurses, but not for PET or RI radiographers, there was a positive correlation between the numbers of procedures and lens doses and between amounts injected and lens doses. There was a significant difference between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses of PET nurses. The use of protective measures, such as shielding, should prevent NM staff from receiving lens doses > 20 mSv/year. However, depending on the height of the protective shield, PET nurses may be unable to assess the lens dose accurately using personal dosimeters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mobile radiography allows for the diagnostic imaging of patients who cannot move to the X-ray examination room. Therefore, mobile X-ray equipment is useful for patients who have difficulty with movement. However, staff are exposed to scattered radiation from the patient, and they can receive potentially harmful radiation doses during radiography. We estimated occupational exposure during mobile radiography using phantom measurements. Scattered radiation distribution during mobile radiography was investigated using a radiation survey meter. The efficacy of radiation-reducing methods for mobile radiography was also evaluated. The dose decreased as the distance from the X-ray center increased. When the distance was more than 150 cm, the dose decreased to less than 1 μSv. It is extremely important for radiological technologists (RTs) to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient to reduce radiation exposure. The spatial dose at eye-lens height increases when the bed height is high, and when the RT is short in stature and abdominal imaging is performed. Maintaining sufficient distance from the patient is also particularly effective in limiting radiation exposure of the eye lens. Our results suggest that the doses of radiation received by staff during mobile radiography are not significant when appropriate radiation protection is used. To reduce exposure, it is important to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient. Therefore, RTs should bear this is mind during mobile radiography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafeTM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R2 = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk. Furthermore, radiation eye injury (i.e., cataract) in IVR staff have also been reported. It is crucial to protect the eyes of IVR physicians from X-ray radiation exposure. Many IVR physicians use protective Pb eyeglasses to reduce occupational eye exposure. However, the shielding effects of Pb eyeglasses are inadequate. We developed a novel shield for the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians. The novel shield consists of a neck and face guard (0.25 mm Pb-equivalent rubber sheet, nonlead protective sheet). The face shield is positioned on the left side of the IVR physician. We assessed the shielding effects of the novel shield using a phantom in the IVR X-ray system; a radiophotoluminescence dosimeter was used to measure the radiation exposure. In this phantom study, the effectiveness of the novel device for protecting against radiation was greater than 80% in almost all measurement situations, including in terms of eye lens exposure. A large amount of scattered radiation reaches the left side of IVR physicians. The novel radiation shield effectively protects the left side of the physician from this scattered radiation. Thus, the device can be used to protect the face and eyes of IVR physicians from occupational radiation exposure. The novel device will be useful for protecting the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians from radiation, and thus could reduce the rate of radiation injury. Based on the positive results of this phantom study, we plan to perform a clinical experiment to further test the utility of this novel radiation shield for IVR physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is important to evaluate the radiation eye dose (3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3)) received by physicians during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy, as physicians are close to the source of scattered radiation. In this study, we measured the radiation eye dose in Hp (3) received by one physician during CTF in a timeframe of 18 months using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRISTM. The physician placed eye dosimeters above and under their lead (Pb) eyeglasses. We recorded the occupational radiation dose received using a neck dosimeter, gathered CT dose-related parameters (e.g., CT-fluoroscopic acquisition number, CT-fluoroscopic time, and CT-fluoroscopic mAs), and performed a total of 95 procedures during CTF-guided biopsies. We also estimated the eye dose (Hp (3)) received using neck personal dosimeters and CT dose-related parameters. The physician eye doses (right and left side) received in terms of Hp (3) without the use of Pb eyeglasses for 18 months were 2.25 and 2.06 mSv, respectively. The protective effect of the Pb eyeglasses (0.5 mm Pb) on the right and left sides during CTF procedures was 27.8 and 37.5%, respectively. This study proved the existence of significant correlations between the eye and neck dose measurement (right and left sides, R2 = 0.82 and R2 = 0.55, respectively) in physicians. In addition, we found significant correlations between CT-related parameters, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs, and radiation eye doses (right and left sides, R2 = 0.50 and R2 = 0.52, respectively). The eye dose of Hp (3) received in CTF was underestimated when evaluated using neck dosimeters. Therefore, we suggest that the physician involved in CTF use a direct eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS for the accurate evaluation of their eye lens dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions (CTIs), physicians are close to a source of scattered radiation. The physician and staff are at high risk of radiation-induced injury (cataracts). Thus, dose-reducing measures for physicians are important. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians in CTIs. This study evaluated the radiation dose to the physician and medical staff using multi detector (MD)CT-fluoroscopy, and attempted to understand radiation-protection and -reduction methods. The procedures were performed using an interventional radiology (IVR)-CT system. We measured the occupational radiation dose (physician and nurse) using a personal dosimeter in real-time, gathered CT-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, mAs, CT dose index (CTDI), and dose length product (DLP)), and performed consecutive 232 procedures in CT-guided biopsy. Physician doses (eye lens, neck, and hand; μSv, average ± SD) in our CTIs were 39.1 ± 36.3, 23.1 ± 23.7, and 28.6 ± 31.0, respectively. Nurse doses (neck and chest) were lower (2.3 ± 5.0 and 2.4 ± 4.4, respectively) than the physician doses. There were significant correlations between the physician doses (eye and neck) and related factors, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs (eye dose: r = 0.90 and neck dose: r = 0.83). We need to understand the importance of reducing/optimizing the dose to the physician and medical staff in CTIs. Our study suggests that physician and staff doses were not significant when the procedures were performed with the appropriate radiation protection and low-dose techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms has attracted considerable attention as a promising alternative to traditional surgery. Hybrid operating room systems (HORSs) are increasingly being used to perform endovascular procedures. The clinical benefits of endovascular treatments using HORSs are very clear, and these procedures are increasing in number. In procedures such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), wires and catheters are used to deliver and deploy the stent graft in the thoracic/abdominal aorta under fluoroscopic control, including DSA. Thus, the radiation dose to the patient is an important issue. We determined radiation dose indicators (the dose–area product (DAP) and air karma (AK) parameters) associated with endovascular treatments (EVAR and TEVAR) using a HORS. As a result, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) DAPs of TEVAR and EVAR were 323.7 ± 161.0 and 371.3 ± 186.0 Gy × cm2, respectively. The mean ± SD AKs of TEVAR and EVAR were 0.92 ± 0.44 and 1.11 ± 0.54 Gy, respectively. The mean ± SD fluoroscopy times of TEVAR and EVAR were 13.4 ± 7.1 and 23.2 ± 11.7 min, respectively. Patient radiation dose results in this study of endovascular treatments using HORSs showed no deterministic radiation effects, such as skin injuries. However, radiation exposure during TEVAR and EVAR cannot be ignored. The radiation dose should be evaluated in HORSs during endovascular treatments. Reducing/optimizing the radiation dose to the patient in HORSs is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Full-spinal radiographs (FRs) are often the first choice of imaging modality in the investigation of scoliosis. However, FRs are strongly related to breast cancer occurrence due to multiple large-field radiographic examinations taken during childhood and adolescence, which may increase the risk for breast cancer in adulthood among women with scoliosis. The purpose of this study was to consider various technical parameters to reduce the patient radiation dose of FRs for scoliosis. To evaluate breast surface doses (BSDs) in FRs, radio photoluminescence dosimeters were placed in contact with a child phantom. Using the PC-based Monte Carlo (PMC) program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations, the breast organ dose (BOD) and the effective dose were calculated by performing Monte Carlo simulations using mathematical phantom models. The BSDs in the posteroanterior (PA) view were 0.15–0.34-fold those in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The effective dose in the PA view was 0.4–0.61-fold that in the AP view. BSD measurements were almost equivalent to the BODs obtained using PMC at all exposure settings. During FRs, the PA view without an anti-scatter grid significantly reduced the breast dose compared to the AP view with an anti-scatter grid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiation-related tissue injuries after medical radiation procedures, such as fluoroscopically guided intervention (FGI), have been reported in patients. Real-time monitoring of medical radiation exposure administered to patients during FGI is important to avoid such tissue injuries. In our previous study, we reported a novel (prototype) real-time radiation system for FGI. However, the prototype sensor indicated low sensitivity to radiation exposure from the side and back, although it had high-quality fundamental characteristics. Therefore, we developed a novel 4-channel sensor with modified shape and size than the previous sensor, and evaluated the basic performance (i.e., measured the energy, dose linearity, dose rate, and angular dependence) of the novel and previous sensors. Both sensors of our real-time dosimeter system demonstrated the low energy dependence, excellent dose linearity (R2 = 1.0000), and good dose rate dependence (i.e., within 5% statistical difference). Besides, the sensitivity of 0° ± 180° in the horizontal and vertical directions was almost 100% sensitivity for the new sensor, which significantly improved the angular dependence. Moreover, the novel dosimeter exerted less influence on X-ray images (fluoroscopy) than other sensors because of modifying a small shape and size. Therefore, the developed dosimeter system is expected to be useful for measuring the exposure of patients to radiation doses during FGI procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodosimetry is a useful method for estimating personal exposure doses to ionizing radiation. Studies have identified metabolites in non-cellular biofluids that can be used as markers in biodosimetry. Levels of metabolites in blood cells may reflect health status or environmental stresses differentially. Here, we report changes in the levels of murine blood cell metabolites following exposure to X-rays in vivo. Levels of blood cell metabolites were measured by capillary electrophoresis time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The levels of 100 metabolites were altered substantially following exposure. We identified 2-aminobutyric acid, 2′-deoxycytidine, and choline as potentially useful markers of radiation exposure and established a potential prediction panel of the exposure dose using stepwise regression. Levels of blood cell metabolites may be useful biomarkers in estimating exposure doses during unexpected radiation incidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been an increase in the use of interventional neuroradiology procedures because of their non-invasiveness compared to surgeries and the improved image quality of fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and rotational angiography. Although cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are inferior to multi-detector CT images in terms of low-contrast detectability and lower radiation doses, CBCT scans are frequently performed because of their accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of two different high-resolution CBCTs (HR CBCT): conventional (C-HR CBCT) and wide-field HR CBCT (W-HR CBCT). The modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used to evaluate the image quality. On comparing the MTF of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and that of W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix, the MTF of W-HR CBCT with the 384 × 384 matrix was larger. A comparison of the NPS and CNR of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix showed that both values were comparable. The reference air kerma values were equal for C-HR CBCT and W-HR CBCT; however, the value of the kerma area product was 1.44 times higher for W-HR CBCT compared to C-HR CBCT. The W-HR CBCT allowed for improved spatial resolution while maintaining the image noise and low-contrast detectability by changing the number of image matrices from 256 × 256 to 384 × 384. Our study revealed the image characteristics and radiation dose of W-HR CBCT. Given its advantages of low-contrast detectability and wide-area imaging with high spatial resolution, W-HR CBCT may be useful in interventional neuroradiology for acute ischemic stroke.

Japanese people experienced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. criticality accident, it was found that many human resources are needed to respond to residents' concerns about disaster exposure in the event of a radiation disaster. Medical radiologic technologists learn about radiation from the time of their training, and are engaged in routine radiographic work, examination explanations, medical exposure counseling, and radiation protection of staff. By learning about nuclear disasters and counseling, we believe they can address residents' concerns. In order to identify items needed for training, we examined the perceptions of medical radiologic technologists in the case of different specialties, modalities and radiation doses. In 2016, 5 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, we conducted a survey of 57 medical radiologic technologists at two medical facilities with different specialties and work contents to investigate their attitudes toward radiation. 42 participants answered questions regarding sex, age group, presence of children, health effects of radiation exposure, radiation control, generation of X rays by diagnostic X ray equipment, and radiation related units. In a comparison of 38 items other than demographic data, 14 showed no significant differences and 24 showed significant differences. This study found that perceptions of radiation were different among radiology technologists at facilities with different specialties. The survey suggested the possibility of identifying needed training items and providing effective training.

It is important to evaluate the radiation eye dose (3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3)) received by physicians during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy, as physicians are close to the source of scattered radiation. In this study, we measured the radiation eye dose in Hp (3) received by one physician during CTF in a timeframe of 18 months using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS TM . The physician placed eye dosimeters above and under their lead (Pb) eyeglasses. We recorded the occupational radiation dose received using a neck dosimeter, gathered CT dose-related parameters (e.g., CT-fluoroscopic acquisition number, CT-fluoroscopic time, and CT-fluoroscopic mAs), and performed a total of 95 procedures during CTF-guided biopsies. We also estimated the eye dose (Hp (3)) received using neck personal dosimeters and CT dose-related parameters. The physician eye doses (right and left side) received in terms of Hp (3) without the use of Pb eyeglasses for 18 months were 2.25 and 2.06 mSv, respectively. The protective effect of the Pb eyeglasses (0.5 mm Pb) on the right and left sides during CTF procedures was 27.8 and 37.5%, respectively. This study proved the existence of significant correlations between the eye and neck dose measurement (right and left sides, R 2 = 0.82 and R 2 = 0.55, respectively) in physicians. In addition, we found significant correlations between CT-related parameters, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs, and radiation eye doses (right and left sides, R 2 = 0.50 and R 2 = 0.52, respectively). The eye dose of Hp (3) received in CTF was underestimated when evaluated using neck dosimeters. Therefore, we suggest that the physician involved in CTF use a direct eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS for the accurate evaluation of their eye lens dose.