Occupational Radiation Exposure and Deaths From Malignant Intracranial Neoplasms of the Brain and CNS in U.S. Radiologic Technologists, 1983-2012

Central nervous system tumours and occupational ionising radiation exposure: a nested case-control study among the ORICAMs cohort of healthcare workers in France

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at investigating the relationship between occupational exposure to external ionising radiation and central nervous system (CNS) tumours mortality in healthcare workers working in France.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The Occupational Radiation-Induced Cancer in Medical staff (ORICAMs) nested case-control study was conducted based on the dosimetric records of the national register of occupational dosimetry (Système d'information de la surveillance de l'exposition aux rayonnements ionisants).

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

33 CNS tumour deaths occurred between 2002 and 2012 among the ORICAMs cohort composed of 164 015 healthcare workers. Each case was matched to five controls alive at the time of the corresponding case's death, based on sex, year of birth, date of enrolment in the cohort and duration of follow-up. All participants were badge monitored for external radiation exposure, expressed in Hp(10). Conditional logistic regression was used to analyse the dose-response relationship between radiation dose and CNS mortality.

RESULTS

Cases were exposed to a mean cumulative career radiation dose of 5.8±13.7 (max: 54.3) millisievert (mSv) compared with 4.1±15.2 (142.2) mSv for controls. No statistically significant association was found between CNS tumour mortality and cumulative whole-body career dose (OR=1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03), duration of exposure (OR=1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) or age at first exposure (OR=0.98; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06).

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of an association between external radiation exposure and CNS tumour risk in healthcare workers. Limitations of the study include low statistical power and short duration of follow-up.

Estimating brain and eye lens dose for the cardiologist in interventional cardiology-are the dose levels of concern?

OBJECTIVES

To establish conversion coefficients (CCs), between mean absorbed dose to the brain and eye lens of the cardiologist and the air kerma-area product, PKA, for a set of projections in cardiac interventional procedures. Furthermore, by taking clinical data into account, a method to estimate the doses per procedure, or annual dose, is presented.

METHODS

Thermoluminescence dosimeters were used together with anthropomorphic phantoms, simulating a cardiologist performing an interventional cardiac procedure, to estimate the CCs for the brain and eye lens dose for nine standard projections, and change in patient size and x-ray spectrum. Additionally, a single CC has been estimated, accounting for each projections fraction of use in the clinic and associated PKA using clinical data from the dose monitoring system in our hospital.

RESULTS

The maximum CCs for the eye lens and segment of the brain, is 5.47 μGy/Gycm2 (left eye lens) and 1.71 μGy/Gycm2 (left brain segment). The corresponding weighted CCs: are 3.39 μGy/Gycm2 and 0.89 μGy/Gycm2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion coefficients have been established under actual scatter conditions, showing higher doses on the left side of the operator. Using modern interventional x-ray equipment, interventional cardiac procedures will not cause high radiation dose levels to the operator when a ceiling mounted shield is used, otherwise there is a risk that the threshold dose values for cataract will be reached.

ADVANCE IN KNOWLEDGE

In addition to the CCs for the different projections, methods for deriving a single CC per cardiac interventional procedure and dose per year were introduced.

Musculoskeletal disorders in interventional radiology workers: an integrative review

This integrative review analyzed scientific production on musculoskeletal disorders related to personal protective equipment used by interventional radiology teams. The PubMed, Embase, and SciELO databases were searched using a strategy developed with the help of a librarian. The double-blind selection process involved the Rayyan online tool. A total of 12 articles were included, which were organized according to year of publication, country research subjects, study type, and main outcomes. Five thematic categories emerged from the analysis: "personal protective equipment"; "ergonomics in the interventional radiology environment"; "the composition of personal protective equipment"; "radiation protection for interventional teams" and "the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in interventional teams". Outcomes associated with musculoskeletal disorders among interventional teams predominated in the studies, and advances in radiological protection were reported, especially in shielding technologies, as well as continuing efforts toward more ergonomic protective equipment to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders.

Mortality among medical radiation workers in the United States, 1965-2016

BACKGROUND

Estimates of radiation risks following prolonged exposures at low doses and low-dose rates are uncertain. Medical radiation workers are a major component of the Million Person Study (MPS) of low-dose health effects. Annual personal dose equivalents, H_P(10), for individual workers are available to facilitate dose-response analyses for lung cancer, leukemia, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and other causes of death.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Landauer, Inc. dosimetry database identified 109,019 medical and associated radiation workers first monitored 1965-1994. Vital status and cause of death were determined through 2016. Mean absorbed doses to red bone marrow (RBM), lung, heart, and other organs were estimated by adjusting the recorded H_P(10) for each worker by scaling factors, accounting for exposure geometry, the energy of the incident photon radiation, sex of the worker and whether an apron was worn. There were 4 exposure scenarios: general radiology characterized by low-energy x-ray exposure with no lead apron use, interventional radiologists/cardiologists who wore aprons, nuclear medicine personnel and radiation oncologists exposed to high-energy photon radiation, and other workers. Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) analyses were performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate organ-specific radiation risks.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,433 deaths occurred (SMR 0.60; 95%CI 0.59,0.61), 126 from leukemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 850 from lung cancer, and 1654 from IHD. The mean duration of monitoring was 23.7 y. The excess relative rate (ERR) per 100 mGy was estimated as 0.10 (95% CI -0.34, 0.54) for leukemia other than CLL, 0.15 (0.02, 0.27) for lung cancer, and -0.10 (-0.27, 0.06) for IHD. The ERR for lung cancer was 0.16 (0.01, 0.32) among the 55,218 male workers and 0.09 (-0.19, 0.36) among the 53,801 female workers; a difference that was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical radiation workers were at increased risk for lung cancer that was higher among men than women, although this difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, the study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors exposed briefly to radiation in 1945 found females to be nearly 3 times the radiation risk of lung cancer compared with males on a relative scale. For medical workers, there were no statistically significant radiation associations with leukemia excluding CLL, IHD or other specific causes of death. Combining these data with other cohorts within the MPS, such as nuclear power plant workers and nuclear submariners, will enable more precise estimates of radiation risks at relatively low cumulative doses.

Ionizing radiation exposure during adulthood and risk of developing central nervous system tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Many studies on ionizing radiation (IR) exposure during childhood have shown deleterious effects on the central nervous system (CNS), however results regarding adult exposure are inconsistent, and no systematic reviews have been performed. The objectives are to synthesize the findings and draw evidence-based conclusions from epidemiological studies on the risk of benign and malignant brain and CNS tumors in humans exposed to low-to-moderate doses (< 0.5 Gy) of IR during adulthood/young adulthood. A systematic literature search of four electronic databases, supplemented by a hand search, was performed to retrieve relevant epidemiological studies published from 2000 to 2022. Pooled excess relative risk (ERR_pooled) was estimated using a random effect model. Eighteen publications were included in the systematic review and twelve out of them were included in a meta-analysis. The following IR sources were considered: atomic bombs, occupational, and environmental exposures. No significant dose-risk association was found for brain/CNS tumors (ERR_pooled at 100 mGy = − 0.01; 95% CI: − 0.05, 0.04). Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not show any association between exposure to low-to-moderate doses of IR and risk of CNS tumors. Further studies with histological information and precise dose assessment are needed.

What Is Worth Knowing in Interventional Practices about Medical Staff Radiation Exposure Monitoring: A Review of Recent Outcomes of EURADOS Working Group 12

EURADOS (European Radiation Dosimetry Group) Working Group 12 (WG12) SG1 activities are aimed at occupational radiation protection and individual monitoring in X-ray and nuclear medicine practices. In recent years, many studies have been carried out in these fields, especially for interventional radiology and cardiology workplaces (IC/IR). The complexity of the exposure conditions of the medical staff during interventional practices makes the radiation protection and monitoring of the exposed workers a challenging task. The scope of the present work is to review some of the main results obtained within WG12 activities about scattered field characterization and personal dosimetry that could be very useful in increasing the quality of radiation protection of the personnel, safety, and awareness of radiation risk. Two papers on Monte Carlo modelling of interventional theater and three papers on active personal dosimeters (APDs) for personnel monitoring were considered in the review. More specifically, Monte Carlo simulation was used as the main tool to characterize the levels of exposure of the medical staff, allowing to determine how beam energy and direction can have an impact on the doses received by the operators. Indeed, the simulations provided information about the exposure of the operator’s head, and the study concluded with the determination of an eye-lens protection factor when protection goggles and a ceiling shielding are used. Moreover, the review included the results of studies on active personal dosimeters, their use in IC/IR workplaces, and how they respond to calibration fields, with X-ray standard and pulsed beams. It was shown that APDs are insensitive to backscatter radiation, but some of them could not respond correctly to the very intense pulsed fields (as those next to the patient in interventional practices). The measurements during interventional procedures showed the potential capability of the employment of APDs in hospitals.

Dosimetry for the study of medical radiation workers with a focus on the mean absorbed dose to the lung, brain and other organs

BACKGROUND

The reconstruction of lifetime radiation doses for medical workers presents special challenges not commonly encountered for the other worker cohorts comprising the Million Worker Study.

METHODS

The selection of approximately 175,000 medical radiation workers relies on using estimates of lifetime and annual personal monitoring results collected since 1977. Approaches have been created to adjust the monitoring results so that mean organ absorbed doses can be estimated.

RESULTS

Changes in medical technology and practices have altered the radiation exposure environments to which a worker may have been exposed during their career. Other temporal factors include shifts in regulatory requirements that influenced the conduct of radiation monitoring and the changes in the measured dose quantities.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of leaded aprons during exposure to lower energy X rays encountered in fluoroscopically based radiology adds complexity to account for the shielding of the organs located in the torso when dosimeters were worn over leaded aprons. Estimating doses to unshielded tissues such as the brain and lens of the eye become less challenging when dosimeters are worn at the collar above the apron. The absence of leaded aprons in the higher energy photon settings lead to a more straightforward process of relating dosimeter results to mean organ doses.

Collar badge lens dose equivalent values among U.S. physicians performing fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures

PURPOSE

To describe the range of occupational badge dose readings and annualized dose records among physicians performing fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures using job title information provided by the same three major medical institutions in 2009, 2012, and 2015.

METHODS

The Radiation Safety Office of selected hospitals was contacted to request assistance with identifying physicians in a large commercial dosimetry database. All entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annualized doses were described with univariate statistics and box-and-whisker plots.

RESULTS

The dosimetry dataset of interventional radiology staff contains 169 annual dose records from 77 different physicians and 698 annual dose records from 455 non-physicians. The median annualized lens dose equivalent values among physicians (11.9 mSv; IQR=6.9-20.0) was nearly threefold higher than non-physician medical staff assisting with FGI procedures (4.0 mSv; IQR=1.8-6.7) (P<0.001). During the study period, without eye protection, 25% (23 of 93) of the physician annualized lens dose equivalent values may have exceeded 20 mSv; for non-physician medical staff, this value was may have been exceeded 3.5% (6 of 173) of the time. However, these values do not account for eye protection.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study highlight the importance of mitigating occupational dose to the eyes of medical staff, particularly physicians, performing or assisting with FGI procedures. Training on radiation protection principles, the use of personal protective equipment, and patient radiation dose management can all help ensure occupational radiation dose is adequately controlled.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE IN RADIATION APPLICATIONS IN INDIA: TRENDS AND DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Occupational exposure data in radiation applications provide a good insight on the radiation risks to workers from occupational hazards, the safe practices adopted and in deriving methods to prevent possible radiation exposures. The analysis of occupational exposure may be used to provide regulatory guidance and more focused attention to improve the safety systems, thus improving the personnel and environment safety. In this study, occupational exposure from radiation applications during 2004-18 amounting to a total number of 1951 486 occupational dose data are collected and analysed using the statistical software package, SPSS. As recommended by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, four critical parameters viz., annual collective effective dose, average annual effective dose, individual dose distribution ratio and the annual collective dose distribution ratio for each practice are estimated. Using the trend observed for these parameters, it is predicted that occupational exposure in diagnostic radiology in the year 2023 would increase by 80% in total number of monitored with 76% increase in average collective dose and no significant change in average annual effective dose. In the same manner, nuclear medicine would see 28% of increase in radiation workers with the increase of 24% in collective dose with no significant change in average annual effective dose. Further, the reasons and area of regulatory focus for the different practices are discussed.

Exposure of the eye lens and brain for interventional cardiology staff

INTRODUCTION

Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation for people working with an X-ray treatment unit is one of the highest in medicine. The epidemiological data analyzed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) indicate that the dose threshold for tissues located in the eye lens is or may be lower than previously thought. The new ICRP recommendations reduce the currently used threshold 7.5 times to the limit of 20 mSv per year.

AIM

To carry out measurements of equivalent doses for the lenses and scalps of cardiology interventional staff to determine the actual exposure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Personnel performing interventional cardiology procedures participated in the measurements. The measurements were performed using thermoluminescence dosimetry in two measurement periods. The operational quantities used in individual dosimetry were determined (dose equivalent for the scalp, dose equivalent for the eye lens). In both measurement periods, 69 operators and 12 nurses took part.

RESULTS

The maximum value of eye doses for cardiologists was 18.80 mSv per year, with a mean of 9.83 ±6.47 mSv/year (for all cases), 5.70 ±4.26 mSv/year (with safety glasses/headgear), 13.14 ±6.28 mSv/year (without safety glasses/headgear), and 6.28 ±1.76 mSv per year for the nurses. The values of brain doses fluctuate around 1 mSv per quarter.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose equivalents for the lenses of the eyes obtained by cardiologists may be close to or exceed the current dose limits.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Mortality among workers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1943-2017

BACKGROUND

During World War II (WWII), the Manhattan Engineering District established a secret laboratory in the mountains of northern New Mexico. The mission was to design, construct and test the first atomic weapon, nicknamed 'The Gadget' that was detonated at the TRINITY site in Alamogordo, NM. After WWII, nuclear weapons research continued, and the laboratory became the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The mortality experience of 26,328 workers first employed between 1943 and 1980 at LANL was determined through 2017. Included were 6157 contract workers employed by the ZIA Company. Organ dose estimates for each worker considered all sources of exposure, notably photons, neutrons, tritium, ²³⁸Pu and ²³⁹Pu. Vital status determination included searches within the National Death Index, Social Security Administration and New Mexico State Mortality Files. Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR) and Cox regression models were used in the analyses.

RESULTS

Most workers (55%) were hired before 1960, 38% had a college degree, 25% were female, 81% white, 13% Hispanic and 60% had died. Vital status was complete, with only 0.1% lost to follow-up. The mean dose to the lung for the 17,053 workers monitored for radiation was 28.6 weighted-mGy (maximum 16.8 weighted-Gy) assuming a Dose Weighting Factor of 20 for alpha particle dose to lung. The Excess Relative Risk (ERR) at 100 weighted-mGy was 0.01 (95%CI -0.02, 0.03; n = 839) for lung cancer. The ERR at 100 mGy was -0.43 (95%CI -1.11, 0.24; n = 160) for leukemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), -0.06 (95%CI -0.16, 0.04; n = 3043) for ischemic heart disease (IHD), and 0.29 (95%CI 0.02, 0.55; n = 106) for esophageal cancer. Among the 6499 workers with measurable intakes of plutonium, an increase in bone cancer (SMR 2.44; 95%CI 0.98, 5.03; n = 7) was related to dose. The SMR for berylliosis was significantly high, based on 4 deaths. SMRs for Hispanic workers were significantly high for cancers of the stomach and liver, cirrhosis of the liver, nonmalignant kidney disease and diabetes, but the excesses were not related to radiation dose.

CONCLUSIONS

There was little evidence that radiation increased the risk of lung cancer or leukemia. Esophageal cancer was associated with radiation, and plutonium intakes were linked to an increase of bone cancer. IHD was not associated with radiation dose. More precise evaluations will await the pooled analysis of workers with similar exposures such as at Rocky Flats, Savannah River and Hanford.

Catheter strategy to ease the procedure and reduce radiation exposure when requiring neck access

Objectives

To assess the potential occupational radiation reduction and technical feasibility in patients rotated 180° (upside-down) when requiring neck access for transcervical or trans-subclavian catheterisation.

Methods

Upside-down positioning is defined as rotating patients in supine position by 180°, so that the feet come to rest where the head would otherwise be. We retrospectively evaluated all these procedures performed between March 2016 and May 2019. Furthermore, two different phantoms (paediatric and adult) were used prospectively to quantify the occupational dose between conventional or upside-down positioning. In this context, ambient dose equivalents were measured using real-time dosimeters. Three different projection angles were applied.

Results

44 patients with median age and body weight of 1.0 year (range 0–56) and 9.5 kg (range 1.3–74.3) underwent 63 procedures positioned upside-down. This position proved advantageous for practical reasons, since the length of the examination table could be optimally used. Additionally, it resulted in a significantly lower overall ambient dose equivalent for the primary operator (PO) of 94.8% (mean: 2569±807 vs 135±23 nSv; p<0.01) in the adult, and of 65.5% (mean: 351±104 vs 121±56 nSv; p<0.01) in the paediatric phantom, respectively.

Conclusion

Upside-down positioning facilitates handling in a straightforward manner when access from the neck is required. Moreover, it significantly reduces local radiation exposure for the PO in the paediatric and, most impressively, in the adult phantom.

The Risk of Cancer from CT Scans and Other Sources of Low-Dose Radiation: A Critical Appraisal of Methodologic Quality

INTRODUCTION

Concern exists that radiation exposure from computerized tomography (CT) will cause thousands of malignancies. Other experts share the same perspective regarding the risk from additional sources of low-dose ionizing radiation, such as the releases from Three Mile Island (1979; Pennsylvania USA) and Fukushima (2011; Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan) nuclear power plant disasters. If this premise is false, the fear of cancer leading patients and physicians to avoid CT scans and disaster responders to initiate forced evacuations is unfounded.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This investigation provides a quantitative evaluation of the methodologic quality of studies to determine the evidentiary strength supporting or refuting a causal relationship between low-dose radiation and cancer. It will assess the number of higher quality studies that support or question the role of low-dose radiation in oncogenesis.

METHODS

This investigation is a systematic, methodologic review of articles published from 1975-2017 examining cancer risk from external low-dose x-ray and gamma radiation, defined as less than 200 millisievert (mSv). Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors performed a search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Methodologies of selected articles were scored using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and a tool identifying 11 lower quality indicators. Manuscript methodologies were ranked as higher quality if they scored no lower than seven out of nine on the NOS and contained no more than two lower quality indicators. Investigators then characterized articles as supporting or not supporting a causal relationship between low-dose radiation and cancer.

RESULTS

Investigators identified 4,382 articles for initial review. A total of 62 articles met all inclusion/exclusion criteria and were evaluated in this study. Quantitative evaluation of the manuscripts' methodologic strengths found 25 studies met higher quality criteria while 37 studies met lower quality criteria. Of the 25 studies with higher quality methods, 21 out of 25 did not support cancer induction by low-dose radiation (P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

A clear preponderance of articles with higher quality methods found no increased risk of cancer from low-dose radiation. The evidence suggests that exposure to multiple CT scans and other sources of low-dose radiation with a cumulative dose up to 100 mSv (approximately 10 scans), and possibly as high as 200 mSv (approximately 20 scans), does not increase cancer risk.

Occupational radiation and haematopoietic malignancy mortality in the retrospective cohort study of US radiologic technologists, 1983-2012

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cumulative occupational radiation dose response and haematopoietic malignancy mortality risks in the US radiologic technologist cohort.

METHODS

Among 110 297 radiologic technologists (83 655 women, 26 642 men) who completed a baseline questionnaire sometime during 1983-1998, a retrospective cohort study was undertaken to assess cumulative, low-to-moderate occupational radiation dose and haematopoietic malignancy mortality risks during 1983-2012. Cumulative bone marrow dose (mean 8.5 mGy, range 0-430 mGy) was estimated based on 921 134 badge monitoring measurements during 1960-1997, work histories and historical data; 35.4% of estimated doses were based on badge measurements. Poisson regression was used to estimate excess relative risk of haematopoietic cancers per 100 milligray (ERR/100 mGy) bone-marrow absorbed dose, adjusting for attained age, sex and birth year.

RESULTS

Deaths from baseline questionnaire completion through 2012 included 133 myeloid neoplasms, 381 lymphoid neoplasms and 155 leukaemias excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Based on a linear dose-response, no significant ERR/100 mGy occurred for acute myeloid leukaemia (ERR=0.0002, 95% CI <-0.02 to 0.24, p-trend>0.5, 85 cases) or leukaemia excluding CLL (ERR=0.05, 95% CI <-0.09 to 0.24, p-trend=0.21, 155 cases). No significant dose-response trends were observed overall for CLL (ERR<-0.023, 95% CI <-0.025 to 0.18, p-trend=0.45, 32 cases), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ERR=0.03, 95% CI <-0.2 to 0.18, p-trend=0.4, 201 cases) or multiple myeloma (ERR=0.003, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.16, p-trend>0.5, 112 cases). Findings did not differ significantly by demographic factors, smoking or specific radiological procedures performed.

CONCLUSION

After follow-up averaging 22 years, there was little evidence of a relationship between occupational radiation exposure and myeloid or lymphoid haematopoietic neoplasms.

Occupational low-dose irradiation and cancer risk among medical radiation workers

Background

Medical workers are the largest group of workers occupationally exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation (IR) worldwide.

Aims

This review presents all the cohorts of medical workers exposed in the world and summarizes cancer risks associated with radiation exposure in this population.

Methods

Epidemiological studies on health professionals exposed to IR published from 1975 to 2019 were reviewed. Strength of evidence was assessed according to the modified Royal College of General Practitioners three-star system.

Results

Among the 16 epidemiological studies focusing on cancers from 11 cohorts among medical staff exposed to radiation, higher risks of cancer were observed for pre-1950 exposure and for medical workers who performed fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures or radionuclides procedures compared to those who did not. However, strength of evidence supporting the associations remains moderate as several methodological limits including the lack of dosimetry data, lifestyle factors and recent updates may obscure the link between medical occupational exposure and cancer occurrence.

Conclusions

Excess risk of cancer is suspected for high and former exposures. The more highly exposed professions, i.e. interventional physicians and nuclear medicine workers, should be monitored carefully. Collaborative projects aiming to increase the quantity and quality of information of the studied populations would be a key point

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A VR-BASED RADIATION SAFETY TRAINING SYSTEM FOR INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS

To help minimise occupational radiation exposure in interventional radiology, we conceptualised a virtual reality-based radiation safety training system to help operators understand complex radiation fields and to avoid high radiation areas through game-like interactive simulations. The preliminary development of the system has yielded results suggesting that the training system can calculate and report the radiation exposure after each training session based on a database precalculated from computational phantoms and Monte Carlo simulations and the position information provided by the Microsoft HoloLens headset. In addition, real-time dose rate and cumulative dose will be displayed to the trainee to help them adjust their practice. This paper presents the conceptual design of the overall hardware and software design, as well as preliminary results to combine HoloLens headset and complex 3D X-ray field spatial distribution data to create a mixed reality environment for safety training purpose in interventional radiology.

Absorbed dose in the operator's brain in interventional radiology practices: evaluation through KAP value conversion factors

In order to address the recent concerns over a possible increasing in brain tumour mortality among interventional radiologists and cardiologist, this work evaluated the exposure conditions of the operator's brain during interventional procedures using Monte Carlo simulations with anthropomorphic phantoms. The absorbed doses in several predefined segments of the operator's brain were estimated in a typical interventional radiology irradiation scenario. The doses were normalized to the KAP values simulated for ten X-ray beam qualities and four projections (PA, RAO 25°, LAO 25° and CRA 25°). For the interventional radiology scenario, because of the position of the operator, no difference was found in the exposure between the left and right regions of the brain for the first operator. However, for the second operator standing at a farer distance from the tube, the exposure of the left part of the brain is up to two times higher than that of the right part. The results are in agreement with dose measurements reported in the literature. The conversion factors, obtained as the absorbed dose per KAP, can be used to obtain a first estimate of the exposure of the brain of the operators during interventional procedures.

Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Summary Bias Assessment and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ionizing radiation is an established carcinogen, but risks from low-dose exposures are controversial. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII review of the epidemiological data in 2006, many subsequent publications have reported excess cancer risks from low-dose exposures. Our aim was to systematically review these studies to assess the magnitude of the risk and whether the positive findings could be explained by biases.

METHODS

Eligible studies had mean cumulative doses of less than 100 mGy, individualized dose estimates, risk estimates, and confidence intervals (CI) for the dose-response and were published in 2006-2017. We summarized the evidence for bias (dose error, confounding, outcome ascertainment) and its likely direction for each study. We tested whether the median excess relative risk (ERR) per unit dose equals zero and assessed the impact of excluding positive studies with potential bias away from the null. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the ERR and assess consistency across studies for all solid cancers and leukemia.

RESULTS

Of the 26 eligible studies, 8 concerned environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational exposure. For solid cancers, 16 of 22 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR equals zero (P = .03). After exclusion of 4 positive studies with potential positive bias, 12 of 18 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose (P  = .12). For leukemia, 17 of 20 studies were positive, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR per unit dose equals zero (P  = .001), also after exclusion of 5 positive studies with potential positive bias (P  = .02). For adulthood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy was 0.029 (95% CI = 0.011 to 0.047) for solid cancers and 0.16 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.25) for leukemia. For childhood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy for leukemia was 2.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 5.32); there were only two eligible studies of all solid cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic assessments in this monograph showed that these new epidemiological studies are characterized by several limitations, but only a few positive studies were potentially biased away from the null. After exclusion of these studies, the majority of studies still reported positive risk estimates. We therefore conclude that these new epidemiological studies directly support excess cancer risks from low-dose ionizing radiation. Furthermore, the magnitude of the cancer risks from these low-dose radiation exposures was statistically compatible with the radiation dose-related cancer risks of the atomic bomb survivors.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Dosimetry Used in Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer

BACKGROUND

A monograph systematically evaluating recent evidence on the dose-response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk required a critical appraisal of dosimetry methods in 26 potentially informative studies.

METHODS

The relevant literature included studies published in 2006-2017. Studies comprised case-control and cohort designs examining populations predominantly exposed to sparsely ionizing radiation, mostly from external sources, resulting in average doses of no more than 100 mGy. At least two dosimetrists reviewed each study and appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the dosimetry systems used, including assessment of sources and effects of dose estimation error. An overarching concern was whether dose error might cause the spurious appearance of a dose-response where none was present.

RESULTS

The review included 8 environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational studies that varied in properties relative to evaluation criteria. Treatment of dose estimation error also varied among studies, although few conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Six studies appeared to have known or suspected biases in dose estimates. The potential for these biases to cause a spurious dose-response association was constrained to three case-control studies that relied extensively on information gathered in interviews conducted after case ascertainment.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for spurious dose-response associations from dose information appeared limited to case-control studies vulnerable to recall errors that may be differential by case status. Otherwise, risk estimates appeared reasonably free of a substantial bias from dose estimation error. Future studies would benefit from a comprehensive evaluation of dose estimation errors, including methods accounting for their potential effects on dose-response associations.

Outcome Assessment in Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks: Sources, Level of Ascertainment, and Misclassification

BACKGROUND

Outcome assessment problems and errors that could lead to biased risk estimates in low-dose radiation epidemiological studies of cancer risks have not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

Incidence or mortality risks for all cancers or all solid cancers combined and for leukemia were examined in 26 studies published in 2006-2017 involving low-dose (mean dose ≤100 mGy) radiation from environmental, medical, or occupational sources. We evaluated the impact of loss to follow-up, under- or overascertainment, outcome misclassification, and changing classifications occurring similarly or differentially across radiation dose levels.

RESULTS

Loss to follow-up was not reported in 62% of studies, but when reported it was generally small. Only one study critically evaluated the completeness of the sources of vital status. Underascertainment of cancers ("false negatives") was a potential shortcoming for cohorts that could not be linked with high-quality population-based registries, particularly during early years of exposure in five studies, in two lacking complete residential history, and in one with substantial emigration. False positives may have occurred as a result of cancer ascertainment from self- or next-of-kin report in three studies or from enhanced medical surveillance of exposed patients that could lead to detection bias (eg, reporting precancer lesions as physician-diagnosed cancer) in one study. Most pediatric but few adult leukemia studies used expert hematopathology review or current classifications. Only a few studies recoded solid cancers to the latest International Classification of Diseases or International Classification of Diseases for Oncology codes. These outcome assessment shortcomings were generally nondifferential in relation to radiation exposure level except possibly in four studies.

CONCLUSION

The majority of studies lacked information to enable comprehensive evaluation of all major sources of outcome assessment errors, although reported data suggested that the outcome assessment limitations generally had little effect on risk or biased estimates towards the null except possibly in four studies.

Evaluation of Confounding and Selection Bias in Epidemiological Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation

BACKGROUND

Low-dose, penetrating photon radiation exposure is ubiquitous, yet our understanding of cancer risk at low doses and dose rates derives mainly from high-dose studies. Although a large number of low-dose cancer studies have been recently published, concern exists about the potential for confounding to distort findings. The aim of this study was to describe and assess the likely impact of confounding and selection bias within the context of a systematic review.

METHODS

We summarized confounding control methods for 26 studies published from 2006 to 2017 by exposure setting (environmental, medical, or occupational) and identified confounders of potential concern. We used information from these and related studies to assess evidence for confounding and selection bias. For factors in which direct or indirect evidence of confounding was lacking for certain studies, we used a theoretical adjustment to determine whether uncontrolled confounding was likely to have affected the results.

RESULTS

For medical studies of childhood cancers, confounding by indication (CBI) was the main concern. Lifestyle-related factors were of primary concern for environmental and medical studies of adult cancers and for occupational studies. For occupational studies, other workplace exposures and healthy worker survivor bias were additionally of interest. For most of these factors, however, review of the direct and indirect evidence suggested that confounding was minimal. One study showed evidence of selection bias, and three occupational studies did not adjust for lifestyle or healthy worker survivor bias correlates. Theoretical adjustment for three factors (smoking and asbestos in occupational studies and CBI in childhood cancer studies) demonstrated that these were unlikely to explain positive study findings due to the rarity of exposure (eg, CBI) or the relatively weak association with the outcome (eg, smoking or asbestos and all cancers).

CONCLUSION

Confounding and selection bias are unlikely to explain the findings from most low-dose radiation epidemiology studies.

Issues in Interpreting Epidemiologic Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation

This article addresses issues relevant to interpreting findings from 26 epidemiologic studies of persons exposed to low-dose radiation. We review the extensive data from both epidemiologic studies of persons exposed at moderate or high doses and from radiobiology that together have firmly established radiation as carcinogenic. We then discuss the use of the linear relative risk model that has been used to describe data from both low- and moderate- or high-dose studies. We consider the effects of dose measurement errors; these can reduce statistical power and lead to underestimation of risks but are very unlikely to bring about a spurious dose response. We estimate statistical power for the low-dose studies under the assumption that true risks of radiation-related cancers are those expected from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Finally, we discuss the interpretation of confidence intervals and statistical tests and the applicability of the Bradford Hill principles for a causal relationship.

Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Rationale and Framework for the Monograph and Overview of Eligible Studies

Whether low-dose ionizing radiation can cause cancer is a critical and long-debated question in radiation protection. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report by the National Academies in 2006, new publications from large, well-powered epidemiological studies of low doses have reported positive dose-response relationships. It has been suggested, however, that biases could explain these findings. We conducted a systematic review of epidemiological studies with mean doses less than 100 mGy published 2006-2017. We required individualized doses and dose-response estimates with confidence intervals. We identified 26 eligible studies (eight environmental, four medical, and 14 occupational), including 91 000 solid cancers and 13 000 leukemias. Mean doses ranged from 0.1 to 82 mGy. The excess relative risk at 100 mGy was positive for 16 of 22 solid cancer studies and 17 of 20 leukemia studies. The aim of this monograph was to systematically review the potential biases in these studies (including dose uncertainty, confounding, and outcome misclassification) and to assess whether the subset of minimally biased studies provides evidence for cancer risks from low-dose radiation. Here, we describe the framework for the systematic bias review and provide an overview of the eligible studies.

Estimating brain radiation dose to the main operator in interventional radiology

The aim of this study was to estimate brain radiation dose to the main operator during interventional radiology procedures. Occupational brain doses from 19 interventional procedures were measured using thermoluminiscent dosimeters and an anthropomorphic RANDO woman phantom simulating a main operator. Results show that, interventional radiologists may receive minimum and maximum brain doses per procedure of 0.01 mGy (left temporal cortex) and 0.08 mGy (temporal lobe cortex), respectively. A radiologist who works without movable shielding devices during procedures and has a typical workload (for example 500 procedures per year), might exceed the new dose threshold of 0.5 Gy for circulatory disease in the brain working 12.6 years of his career.

Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P = .96) or those who wore two badges (P = .23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquartile range, 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P = .18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Karellas in this issue.

IMPACT OF THE TABLE HEIGHT AND THE OPERATOR'S HEIGHT ON THE LEVEL OF RADIATION DELIVERED TO INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGISTS

Interventional cardiologists count among the health professionals that are most exposed to ionising radiation. To minimise exposure, it is recommended that the patient be placed at the maximum distance possible from the X-ray source, but this recommendation has not been clinically validated. We aimed to investigate the impact of the average table height on the level of radiation delivered to cardiologists performing coronary interventions. The population for analysis included all invasive coronary procedures performed in our centre from March to June 2017. The primary endpoint was operator radiation exposure, as assessed using personal electronic dosimeters located on the operator's left arm. In total, 225 invasive coronary procedures were analysed. When the average table height was 1126 mm or more, the operators received a radiation dose that was, on average, 53% lower than when the table was lower than 1126 mm. This reduction remained significant by multivariate analysis adjusted for the operator.

Development of Simple Methods to Reduce the Exposure of the Public to Radiation from Patients Who Have Undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT

At a time when reducing the radiation dose to patients and the public has become a major focus, we assessed the radiation exposure rate from patients after an ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan and evaluated different interventions to reduce it. Methods: We enrolled 100 patients, divided into 2 groups. For both groups, the radiation dose rate was measured with an ionization survey meter immediately after the scan. For group 1, the patients then voided and their dose rate was measured again. For group 2, the patients waited 30 min before voiding, and we measured the dose rate before (group 2A) and after (group 2B) they voided. Results: In total, 74 of the 100 patients exceeded the 20 μSv/h (2 mR/h) threshold immediately after the scan. In group 1, the mean dose rate decreased by 20.0% from the postscan measurement, with 12 of 36 remaining at or above 20 μSv/h. In group 2A, the mean dose rate decreased by 23% from the postscan measurement, with 9 of 38 remaining at or above 20 μSv/h. In group 2B, the mean dose rate decreased by 35% from the postscan measurement, with 1 of 38 remaining at 20 μSv/h. Conclusion: Nearly 75% of patients undergoing an ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan exceed 20 μSv/h when leaving the imaging facility. The most effective method to reduce radiation exposure was to have the patient void 30 min after the examination.

Photon energy readings in OSL dosimeter filters: an application to retrospective dose estimation for nuclear medicine workers

This work investigates the applicability of using data from personal monitoring dosimeters to assess photon energies to which medical workers were exposed. Such determinations would be important for retrospective assessments of organ doses to be used in occupational radiation epidemiology studies, particularly in the absence of work history or other information regarding the energy of the radiation source. Monthly personal dose equivalents and filter ratios under two different metallic filters contained in the Luxel+® dosimeter were collected from Landauer, Inc. from 19 nuclear medicine (NM) technologists employed by three medical institutions, the institution A only performing traditional NM imaging (primarily using 99m Tc) and institutions B and C also performing positron emission tomography (PET, using 18F). Calibration data of the Luxel+® dosimeter for various xray spectra were used to establish ranges of filter ratios from 1.1 to 1.6 for 99m Tc and below 1.1 for 18F. Median filter ratios were 1.33 (Interquartile range (IQR), 0.15) for institution A, 1.08 (IQR, 0.16) for institution B, and 1.08 (IQR, 0.14) for institution C. The distributions of these filter ratios were statistically-significantly different between the institution A only performing traditional NM imaging and institutions B and C also performing PET imaging. In this proof-of-concept study, filter ratios from personal monitoring dosimeters were used to assess differences in photon energies to which NM technologists were exposed. Dosimeters from technologists only performing traditional NM procedures mostly showed Al/Cu filter ratios above 1.2, those likely performing only PET in a particular month had filter ratios below 1.1, and those which showed filter ratios between 1.1 and 1.2 likely came from technologists rotating between traditional NM and PET imaging in the same month. These results suggest that it is possible to distinguish technologists who only worked with higher-energy procedures versus those who only worked with other types of NM procedures.

Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues

Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.

Always on My Mind

This article is focused on occupational radiogenic brain tumors and some radioprotective techniques used to manage this risk. Published case reports have stimulated concern among operators. The anatomical pattern of tumor locations is not consistent with measured radiation dose distributions at operators' heads. In addition, the lack of statistically positive findings in these reports, and a recently published survey on radiologist's mortality both indicate that the current level of fluoroscopists' radiation safety practices is likely to be adequate. This presumes that the rules of dose-management, time, distance, and shielding continue to be followed. These are briefly reviewed in this article. The use of radioprotective surgical caps is a current fashion. In clinical practice, these caps provide minimal reductions in brain dose and might induce operators to neglect applying the practical rules mentioned above. Appropriate management of personal, staff, and patient risk should always be on the radiologists' mind.