Search

Abstract: Workers performing preparation and administration of radiopharmaceuticals in NM departments are likely to receive high local skin doses to the hands which may even surpass the dose limit of 500 mSv whenever radiation protection standards are insufficient. A large measurement campaign was organised within the framework of the ORAMED project to determine the dose distribution across the hands received during preparation and administration of 18F- and 99mTc-labelled radiopharmaceuticals. The final data, collected over almost 3 years, include 641 measurements from 96 workers in 30 NM departments from 6 European countries. Results have provided levels of reference doses for the considered standard NM diagnostic procedures (mean maximum normalised skin dose of 230 μSv/GBq, 430 μSv/GBq, 930 μSv/GBq and 1200 μSv/GBq for the administration of 99mTc, preparation of 99mTc, administration of 18F and preparation of 18F, respectively). Finger dose was analysed as a function of the potential parameters of influence showing that shielding is the most efficient means of radiation protection to reduce skin dose. An appropriate method for routine monitoring of the extremities is also proposed: the base of the index finger of the non-dominant hand is a suitable position to place the ring dosemeter, with its sensitive part oriented towards the palm side; its reading may be multiplied by a factor of 6 to estimate the maximum local skin dose. Finally, results were compared to earlier published data, which correspond mostly to individual works with a reduced number of workers and measurements. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: 90Y-labelled radiopharmaceuticals offer promising prospects for radionuclide therapies of tumours, e.g. radioimmunotherapies (RIT), (), peptide receptor radiotherapies (PRRT), (), and selective internal radiotherapies (SIRT), (). 90Y, an almost pure high-energy beta radiation emitter (Eβ,max = 2.28 MeV), is a favourable radionuclide for therapeutic purposes. However, when preparing and performing these therapies, high activities of 90Y (>1 GBq) are to be manipulated and technicians, physicians and nurses may receive high skin exposures to the hands. If radiation protection standards are low, the exposure of staff can exceed the annual skin dose limit of 500 mSv. Within a particular work package (WP4) of the ORAMED project, comprehensive measurements in nuclear medicine departments of several hospitals in 6 European countries were carried out. The study focussed on 90Y-labelled substances such as Zevalin® and DOTATOC to achieve a representative database on staff exposure. This paper summarises the most important results and conclusions for individual monitoring of skin exposure of staff. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The aim of this study is to propose diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) values for mammography in Switzerland. For the data collection, a survey was conducted among a sufficient number of centres, including five University hospitals, several cantonal hospitals, and large private clinics, covering all linguistic regions of Switzerland to be representative of the clinical practice. The data gathered contained the mean glandular dose (MGD), the compressed breast thickness (CBT), the mammography model and the examination parameters for each acquisition. The data collected was sorted into the following categories: 2D or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examination, craniocaudal (CC) or mediolateral oblique (MLO) projection, and eight categories of CBT ranging from 20 mm to 100 mm in 10 mm intervals. A total of 24 762 acquisitions were gathered in 31 centres on 36 mammography units from six manufacturers. The analysis showed that the data reflects the practice in Switzerland. The results revealed that the MGD is larger for DBT than for 2D acquisitions for the same CBT. From 20-30 mm to 90-100 mm of CBT, the 75th percentile of the MGD values obtained increased from 0.81 mGy to 2.55 mGy for 2D CC acquisitions, from 0.83 mGy to 2.96 mGy for 2D MLO acquisitions, from 1.22 mGy to 3.66 mGy for DBT CC acquisitions and from 1.33 mGy to 4.04 mGy for DBT MLO acquisitions. The results of the survey allow us to propose Swiss DRLs for mammography according to the examination type (2D/DBT), projection (CC/MLO) and CBT. The proposed values are very satisfactory in comparison with other studies., (Creative Commons Attribution license.)

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent disease and the leading cause of pain, disability, and quality of life deterioration. Our study sought to evaluate the image quality and dose of cone-beam computed tomography arthrography (CBCT-A) and compare them to digital radiography (DR) for OA diagnoses. Overall, 32 cases of CBCT-A and DR with OA met the inclusion criteria and were prospectively analyzed. The Kellgren and Lawrence classification (KLC) stage, sclerosis, osteophytes, erosions, and mean joint width (MJW) were compared between CBCT-A and DR. Image quality was excellent in all CBCT-A cases, with excellent inter-observer agreement. OA under-classification was noticed with DR for MJW ( p = 0.02), osteophyte detection (<0.0001), and KLC ( p < 0.0001). The Hounsfield Unit (HU) values obtained for the cone-beam computed tomography CBCT did not correspond to the values for multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), with a greater mean deviation obtained with the MDCT HU for Modeled Based Iterative Reconstruction 1st (MBIR1) than for the 2nd generation (MBIR2). CBCT-A has been found to be more reliable for OA diagnosis than DR as revealed by our results using a three-point rating scale for the qualitative image analysis, with higher quality and an acceptable dose. Moreover, the use of this imaging technique permits the preoperative assessment of extremities in an OA diagnosis, with the upright position and bone microarchitecture analysis being two other advantages of CBCT-A.

It is well known that foetuses are highly sensitive to ionising radiation and special attention to justification and optimisation of radiological procedures involving a pregnant patient is required. A task to review, validate and compare different approaches to managing the pregnant patient and to estimating the associated foetal doses arising from a diagnostic or interventional radiology (DIR) procedure was designed in the framework of EURADOS working group 12. As a first step, a survey of radiation protection practice including dosimetry considerations among EURADOS members was performed using online questionnaire. Then, to evaluate the possible differences in the estimated foetal doses, a comparison of assessed dose values was made for three cases of pregnant patients that underwent different CT procedures. More than 120 professionals from 108 institutions and 17 countries that are involved in managing pregnant patients undergoing DIR procedures answered the questionnaire. Most of the respondents use national or hospital guidelines on the management of pregnant patients undergoing DIR procedures. However, the guidelines differ considerably among respondents. Comparison of foetal dose assessments performed by dosimetry experts showed the variety of methods used as well as large variability of estimated foetal doses in all three cases. Although European and International commission on radiation protection guidelines already exist, they are more than 20 years old and, in some aspects, they are obsolete. This paper shows that there is a need to revise and update these guidelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica e Sanitaria. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Contact shielding (CS) of patients during X-ray studies has been used for decades to protect radiosensitive organs. This practice has not changed much despite increasing evidence that CS is not useful in many cases. The Gonad And Patient Shielding (GAPS) group-founded by representatives of the main European bodies involved in radiology-promoted this survey to assess the current practice of CS among European radiology departments and the attitude towards a non-shielding policy., Methods: Over a four-month period (15 May-15th September 2021) European Society of Radiology and European Society of Paediatric Radiology radiologist members were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire consisting of 59 questions., Results: 225 centres from 35 countries responded to this survey. CS was routinely applied in at least one radiological modality in 49.2% of centres performing studies in adults, 57.5% of centres performing studies in children, and 47.8% of centres performing studies on pregnant women. CS was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. 83.6% respondents would follow European recommendations on the use of CS when provided by the main European bodies involved in radiology., Conclusions: This review shows that CS is still largely used across Europe. However, a non-shielding policy could be adopted in most departments if European professional societies provided recommendations. In this regard, a strong commitment by European and national professional societies to educate and inform practitioners, patients and carers is paramount., Clinical Relevance Statement: According to this survey expectations of patients and carers, and skepticism among professionals about the limited benefits of CS are the most important obstacles to the application of a no-shielding policy. A strong commitment from European and national professional societies to inform practitioners, patients and carers is fundamental., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Clinical audit is an important quality improvement activity and has significant benefits for patients in terms of enhanced care, safety, experience and outcomes. Clinical audit in support of radiation protection is mandated within the European Council Basic Safety Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom. The European Society of Radiology (ESR) has recognised clinical audit as an area of particular importance in the delivery of safe and effective health care. The ESR, alongside other European organisations and professional bodies, has developed a range of clinical audit-related initiatives to support European radiology departments in developing a clinical audit infrastructure and fulfilling their legal obligations. However, work by the European Commission, the ESR and other agencies has demonstrated a persisting variability in clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe and a lack of awareness of the BSSD clinical audit requirements. In recognition of these findings, the European Commission supported the QuADRANT project, led by the ESR and in partnership with ESTRO (European Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology) and EANM (European Association of Nuclear Medicine). QuADRANT was a 30-month project which completed in Summer 2022, aiming to provide an overview of the status of European clinical audit and identifying barriers and challenges to clinical audit uptake and implementation. This paper summarises the current position of European radiological clinical audit and considers the barriers and challenges that exist. Reference is made to the QuADRANT project, and a range of potential solutions are suggested to enhance radiological clinical audit across Europe., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients can be exposed to high skin doses during complex interventional cardiology (IC) procedures., Purpose: To identify which clinical and technical parameters affect patient exposure and peak skin dose (PSD) and to establish dose reference levels (DRL) per clinical complexity level in IC procedures., Material and Methods: Validation and Estimation of Radiation skin Dose in Interventional Cardiology (VERIDIC) project analyzed prospectively collected patient data from eight European countries and 12 hospitals where percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), chronic total occlusion PCI (CTO), and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures were performed. A total of 62 clinical complexity parameters and 31 technical parameters were collected, univariate regressions were performed to identify those parameters affecting patient exposure and define DRL accordingly., Results: Patient exposure as well as clinical and technical parameters were collected for a total of 534 PCI, 219 CTO, and 209 TAVI. For PCI procedures, body mass index (BMI), number of stents ≥2, and total stent length >28 mm were the most prominent clinical parameters, which increased the PSD value. For CTO, these were total stent length >57 mm, BMI, and previous anterograde or retrograde technique that failed in the same session. For TAVI, these were male sex, BMI, and number of diseased vessels. DRL values for Kerma-area product ( P KA ), air kerma at patient entrance reference point ( K a,r ), fluoroscopy time (FT), and PSD were stratified, respectively, for 14 clinical parameters in PCI, 10 in CTO, and four in TAVI., Conclusion: Prior knowledge of the key factors influencing the PSD will help optimize patient radiation protection in IC.

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff., (Copyright © 2021 Peter Hiles, Patrick Gilligan, John Damilakis, Eric Briers, Cristian Candela-Juan, Dario Faj, Shane Foley, Guy Frija, Claudio Granata, Hugo de las Heras Gala, Ruben Pauwels, Marta Sans Merce, Georgios Simantirakis, Eliseo Vano. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patient shielding during medical X-ray imaging has been increasingly criticized in the last years due to growing evidence that it often provides minimal benefit and may even compromise image quality. In Europe, and as also shown in a short assessment in Switzerland, the use of patient shielding is inhomogeneous. The aim of this study was to systematically review recent literature in order to assess benefits and appraise disadvantages related to the routine use of patient shielding., Methods: To evaluate benefits and disadvantages related to the application of patient shielding in radiological procedures, a systematic literature review was performed for CT, radiography, mammography and fluoroscopy-guided medical X-ray imaging. In addition, reports from medical physics societies and authorities of different countries were considered in the evaluation., Results: The literature review revealed 479 papers and reports on the topic, from which 87 qualified for closer analysis. The review considered in- and out-of-plane patient shielding as well as shielding for pregnant and pediatric patients. Dose savings and other dose and non-dose related effects of patient shielding were considered in the evaluation., Conclusions: Although patient shielding has been used in radiological practice for many years, its use is no longer undisputed. The evaluation of the systematic literature review of recent studies and reports shows that dose savings are rather minimal while significant dose- and non-dose-related detrimental effects are present. Consequently, the routine usage of patient protection shielding in medical X-ray imaging can be safely discontinued for all modalities and patient groups., (Copyright © 2022 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica e Sanitaria. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been available since the late 1990s for use in dentistry. European legislation requires optimisation of protection and the use of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) as well as regular quality control (QC) of the imaging devices, which is well outlined in existing international recommendations. Nevertheless, the level of application is not known. Earlier studies have indicated that few European countries have established DRLs and that patient doses (exposure parameters) have not been properly optimised. The EURADOS Working Group 12-Dosimetry in Medical Imaging undertook a survey to identify existing practices in Member States. Questionnaires were developed to identify equipment types, clinical procedures performed, and exposure settings used. The surveys were circulated to 22 countries resulting in 28 responses from 13 countries. Variations were identified in the exposure factors and in the doses delivered to patients for similar clinical indicators. Results confirm that patient doses are still not properly optimised and DRLs are largely not established. There is a need to promote the importance of performing QC testing of dental CBCT equipment and to further optimise patient exposure by establishment and use of DRLs as a part of a continuous optimisation process., (© 2021 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.)

The use of patient contact-shielding has become a topic of intensive scientific debate. While it has been common practice during the last decades, some studies have questioned the efficiency of using such shielding while others have highlighted the inconsistencies in its application. The objective of this work is to review current recommendations and legislative documents on the use of out-of-field shielding in X-ray imaging, including those from national authorities and from international and national organisations and professional bodies. The review, performed within the framework of the activities of EURADOS Working Group 12, covers available recommendations on use of contact shielding in adult, pregnant and paediatric patients in general radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, mammography and dental radiology. It includes a comprehensive search of 83 documents from 32 countries and 6 international organisations over the last 39 years. In general, using shielding is recommended only under two conditions: if it does not compromise the diagnostic task and the performance of the procedure and/or if it reassures the patient and comforters that they are appropriately protected against potentially harmful effects of radiation. There are very few specific regulatory requirements to use shielding in a particular imaging modality, although they may consider use of shielding either as part of good radiological practice or as requirements for availability of protective or ancillary tools, without further specification of their use. There is a wide variety of positions among documents that recommend out-of-field shielding, those that do not recommend it and those that are not specific. Therefore, evidence-based consensus is still needed to ensure best and consistent practice., (Copyright © 2021 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)