Search

The diagnostic image must be carried out with the minimum necessary exposure of the patient that allows the objective of the diagnosis to be satisfactorily achieved. For this reason, diagnostic reference levels emerge and are established as dynamic tools to help optimize radiation protection, contribute to the standardization of practices and strengthen culture of safety, without compromising the clinical purpose of each examination or process. The objective of this work is to provide an updated overview of the establishment and use of these levels for nuclear medicine and hybrid imaging. It is identified that to establish and use them properly, trained personnel and coordination and collaboration activities are required among multiple actors, including medical services, health authorities, professional organizations and regulatory bodies. The accelerated development of technology generally exceeds the change in regulations, so these levels must be updated periodically, in order to fulfil their role as a guide and spur for optimization. The worldwide expansion of hybrid technologies and their growing use are a phenomenon of the last decade, so the establishment of these levels for such technologies has not been consolidated, although countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia show solid steps in this address. Research has been carried out with phantoms and directly with patients, the latter with a more useful contribution of information. The installation of hybrid equipment in Cuba demands this study, hence its importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are an optimisation tool for medical imaging procedures using ionising radiation. They give an indication of the expected radiation dose received by an average-sized patient undergoing a given imaging procedure. Comparison of typical (median) exposure levels for common imaging procedures with DRLs helps imaging facilities identify procedures that may be amenable to further optimisation. Undertaking comparisons with published DRLs is a requirement for medical imaging facilities under the Code for Radiation Protection in Medical Exposure and for their access to Medicare rebates under the Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation Scheme (DIAS). The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has created the National Diagnostic Reference Level Service to facilitate the collection of data for the establishment of national DRLs in Australia and to assist imaging facilities in comparing their typical doses with the national DRLs. National DRLs have been established in computed tomography, nuclear medicine, and for image-guided and interventional procedures. DRLs must be subject to ongoing review and revision by the national authority to ensure they reflect current practice. This ongoing cycle of assessment and review helps to ensure that the ratio of benefit to risk for patients is maximised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical Relevance: This study was carried out to provide advice to eye care practitioners on those soft disposable contact lenses that comply with the Class 1 or Class 2 requirements of the international standard ISO 18369 for ultraviolet radiation protection.Background: This study was carried out to provide advice to eye care practitioners on those soft disposable contact lenses that comply with the Class 1 or Class 2 requirements of the international standard ISO 18369 for ultraviolet radiation (UVR) protection and to validate any claims made. It is intended to be used when a patient needs or requests UVR protection. A revised ISO 18369-3 was published in 2017. There is no Australian adoption nor equivalent.Methods: The direct spectral transmittance of three specimens of each of the twenty soft disposable contact lens types available in Australia in 2018 was measured in saline in a quartz cuvette with a dual beam spectrophotometer from 200-780 nm. Transmittance values for each material were averaged and scaled according to a single measurement of its transmittance in the visible spectrum (380-780 nm). Based on the ISO 18369-3:2017 criteria, lens materials were denoted as Class 1, Class 2 or non-UVR protectors. This classification was compared with any claim made by the manufacturer.Results: All claims of the manufacturers for Class 1 or Class 2 were valid. There were no examples of any missed opportunity to make a claim. Some claims were so general as to be untestable. Some numerical claims appeared to hide that only a Class 2 claim could be made.Conclusions: Claims of Class 1 or Class 2 were found to be appropriate. There were no missed opportunities to claim. UV protection claims that were not in the ISO 18369-3 format may be taken as Class 2 compliance but not Class 1 compliance. A two-class system of UV protectors and non-UV protectors may serve practitioners and their patients better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the low contribution of heavy ions to the total fluence in the space radiation environment, their radiobiological effect on the human body is extremely high. In this article, we investigated the radiation field which resulted from the interaction of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), specifically some heavy ions and energies, typically encountered in space with a realistic multilayer sample of the International Space Station (ISS) Columbus module’s shielding wall. The quality factor, Q, and the normalized dose equivalent, H, derived from microdosimetric measurements for C, Ne, and Si ions behind different spacecraft wall configurations and materials are presented in this article. Particularly, carbon fiber, polyoxymethylene, and perspex with same areal density compared to currently used aluminum were investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In 2018, ARPANSA published updated national DRLs for adult CT, which were first published in 2012, and augmented the national DRL categories. This paper presents the updated national DRLs and describes the process by which they were produced. Methods: Examine patient survey data submitted to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) National Diagnostic Reference Level Service (NDRLS). Determine the quartiles of the distributions of median survey dose metrics with categorisation by procedure type. Engage a liaison panel representing the radiology professions to review procedure categories and recommend revised national DRLs. The revised NDRL procedure categories are: head (non‐contrast brain (trauma/headache)), cervical spine (Non‐contrast (trauma)), soft‐tissue neck (post‐contrast (oncology)), chest (post‐contrast (oncology)), abdomen–pelvis (post‐contrast (oncology)), kidney–ureter–bladder (non‐contrast (suspected renal colic)), chest–abdomen–pelvis (post‐contrast (oncology)) and lumbar spine (non‐contrast (degenerative pain)). Results: The existing six procedure categories were revised and refined. Updated Australian national diagnostic reference levels for adult CT were recommended and endorsed for eight procedure categories: head (52 mGy/880 mGycm), cervical spine (23 mGy/470 mGycm),soft‐tissue neck (17 mGy/450 mGycm), chest (10 mGy/390 mGycm), abdomen–pelvis (13 mGy/600 mGycm), kidney–ureter–bladder (13 mGy/600 mGycm), chest–abdomen–pelvis (11 mGy/940 mGycm) and lumbar spine (26 mGy/670 mGycm). The updated national DRLs are between 12 and 26% lower than the previous DRLs for dose‐length product and between 13 and 63% lower for volume computed tomography dose index. Conclusions: Australian national DRLs for adult CT have been reviewed and revised. The revised national DRLs are lower, better reflecting current practice among imaging facilities in Australia. The revised Australian national DRLs are similar to those in other developed countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's regulatory framework has evolved over the past decade from the assumption that protection of humans implies protection of the environment to the situation now where radiological impacts on non-human species (wildlife) are considered in their own right. In an Australian context, there was a recognised need for specific national guidance on protection of non-human species, for which the uranium mining industry provides the major backdrop. National guidance supported by publications of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Radiation Protection Series) provides clear and consistent advice to operators and regulators on protection of non-human species, including advice on specific assessment methods and models, and how these might be applied in an Australian context. These approaches and the supporting assessment tools provide a mechanism for industry to assess and demonstrate compliance with the environmental protection objectives of relevant legislation, and to meet stakeholder expectations that radiological protection of the environment is taken into consideration in accordance with international best practice. Experiences from the past 5-10 years, and examples of where the approach to radiation protection of the environment has been well integrated or presented some challenges will be discussed. Future challenges in addressing protection of the environment in existing exposure situations will also be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the influence and significance of the use of iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms on patient dose in CT in Australia. Methods: We examined survey data submitted to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) National Diagnostic Reference Level Service (NDRLS) during 2013 and 2014. We compared median survey dose metrics with categorization by scan region and use of IR. Results: The use of IR results in a reduction in volume CT dose index of between 17% and 44% and a reduction in dose-length product of between 14% and 34% depending on the specific scan region. The reduction was highly significant (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) for all six scan regions included in the NDRLS. Overall, 69% (806/1167) of surveys included in the analysis used IR. Conclusion: The use of IR in CT is achieving dose savings of 20-30% in routine practice in Australia. IR appears to be widely used by participants in the ARPANSA NDRLS with approximately 70% of surveys submitted employing this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Australia has a statutory incident reporting system for radiopharmaceutical maladministrations, but additional research into registry data is required for the purpose of quality improvement in nuclear medicine. Aims We (i) used control charts to identify factors contributing to special cause variation (indicating higher than expected rates) in maladministrations and (ii) evaluated the impact of heterogeneous notification criteria and extent of underreporting among jurisdictions and individual facilities, respectively. Methods Anonymised summaries of Australian Radiation Incident Register reports permitted calculation of national monthly maladministration notification rates for 2007-2012 and preparation of control charts. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the association of population, insurance and regulatory characteristics with maladministration notifications in each Australian State and Territory. Maladministration notification rates from two facilities with familiarity of notification processes and commitment to radiation protection were compared with those elsewhere. Results Special cause variation occurred in only 3 months, but contributed to 21% of all incidents (42 of 197 patients), mainly because of 'clusters' of maladministrations ( n = 24) arising from errors in bulk radiopharmaceutical dispensing. Maladministration notification rates varied significantly between jurisdictions (0 to 12.2 maladministrations per 100 000 procedures ( P < 0.05)) and individual facilities (31.7 vs 5.8 per 100 000; χ2 = 40; 1 degree of freedom, P < 0.001). Conclusions Unexpected increases in maladministration notifications predominantly relate to incident 'clusters' affecting multiple patients. The bulk preparation of radiopharmaceuticals is a vulnerable process and merits additional safeguards. Maladministration notification rates in Australia are heterogeneous. Adopting uniform maladministration notification criteria among States and Territories and methods to overcome underreporting are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assist in the development of the 2008 Australian/New Zealand standard on solaria and related regulations, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency scientists visited a number of tanning establishments during 2008 to measure the intensity and spectral distribution of the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) emissions from a range of solaria. The 2002 Australian/New Zealand Standard 'Solaria for cosmetic purposes' (AS/NZS 2635) allowed a maximum UVR output from solaria of UV Index 60, a compromise between the solarium industry who wanted no upper limit and the health agencies who wanted to limit intensity. Of the 20 solaria examined in detail, only one had emissions of intensity less than UV Index 12, typical of mid-latitude summer sunlight, 15 units emitted more than UV Index 20, while three units emitted at intensities above UV Index 36, the maximum allowed by the new standard, AS/NZS 2635 (2008) and would thus not comply. UVA emissions ranged from 98 W · m up to a maximum of 438 W · m, more than six times the UVA content of mid-latitude summer sunshine. The results indicate that solaria users in Australia have access to solaria that are high intensity units with both significantly higher UVB and UVA emissions than sunlight, with implications for resultant adverse health effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers veterinary news from Australia. The Unusual and Exotic Pets (UEP) conference was held in Sydney, New South Wales, in October 2009. The new Code of Practice for Radiation Protection in Veterinary Medicine 2009 and associated Safety Guide has been released by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. In 2010, the University of Sydney's Faculty of Veterinary Science will celebrate 100 years of continuous veterinary teaching and research.

Abstract: This paper describes the approach of Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in the regulatory management of Radioisotope Production facilities in Australia. ARPANSA is the regulatory authority for commonwealth entities operating nuclear installations including Radioisotope Production facilities. In assessing the application for operating nuclear installations the ARPANSA assessors prepare a Safety Evaluation Report, which is a recommendation to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ARPANSA whether to issue a licence to site, construct, operate and decommission facilities. In particular, the CEO must take into account international best practice in radiation protection and nuclear safety when making licence decisions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article offers the author's insights on the Royal Australian and New Zealand College for Radiologists (RANZCR) fellowship organisation. Topics discussed by the author include the development of the organisation's training programmes, the lack of member services and benefits, and his frustration on the lack of leadership in radiation safety. Also mentioned by the author is the dedication of its volunteer members.