Review

Authors: Andrzej Wojcik, Mats Harms-Ringdahl

Radiation biology is a branch of the radiation research field which focuses on studying radiation effects in cells and organisms. Radiation can be used in biological investigations for two, mutually non-exclusive reasons: (1) to study biological processes by perturbing their functioning (qualitative approach) and (2) to assess consequences of radiation-induced damage (quantitative approach). While the former approach has a basic research character, the latter has an applied character that is driven by needs of medical applications and radiological protection. Radiation protection biology is defined in the sense of the second approach. The aim of the article is to provide a historical review of how radiation protection biology developed and how it influences radiological protection. While radiobiological investigations started immediately after the discovery of X-rays, the qualitative approach dominated until the end of World War II. After 1945, the nuclear weapons race and nuclear energy programs initiated quantitative radiobiological research. Radiation protection biology does not provide results from which radiation risks can be directly derived. Rather, it provides data that is necessary for understanding the nature of risks. Most recent years have seen, especially in Europe, a growing interest in coordinated studies on the effects of low radiation doses.

Topics: Animals; Europe; History, 19th Century; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Nuclear Weapons; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Injuries; Radiation Protection; Radiobiology; Radiotherapy; Skin

PubMed: 30831044
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1589027

Authors: Madan M Rehani, Zoe Brady

Topics: History, 19th Century; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Occupational Exposure; Patient-Centered Care; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Monitoring; Radiation Protection

PubMed: 34545765
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20219004

Review

Authors: Stephen Gr Barnard, Elizabeth A Ainsbury, Roy A Quinlan...

The aim of this article was to explore the evidence for the revised European Union basic safety standard (BSS) radiation dose limits to the lens of the eye, in the context of medical occupational radiation exposures. Publications in the open literature have been reviewed in order to draw conclusions on the exposure profiles and doses received by medical radiation workers and to bring together the limited evidence for cataract development in medical occupationally exposed populations. The current status of relevant radiation-protection and monitoring practices and procedures is also considered. In conclusion, medical radiation workers do receive high doses in some circumstances, and thus working practices will be impacted by the new BSS. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that compliance with the new lower dose limits will be possible, although education and training of staff alongside effective use of personal protective equipment will be paramount. A number of suggested actions are given with the aim of assisting medical and associated radiation-protection professionals in understanding the requirements.

Topics: Health Personnel; Humans; Lens, Crystalline; Occupational Diseases; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Injuries; Radiation Monitoring; Radiation Protection

PubMed: 26828972
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20151034

Review

Authors: Razieh Behzadmehr, Mahboobe Doostkami, Zohreh Sarchahi...

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of health care workers (HCWs) towards radiation protection.

METHODS

In this systematic review study, three international databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus) were searched for related published articles in the English language from 1 January 2000 to 1 February 2020. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Hoy et al. tool.

RESULTS

Out of the 1,848 studies examined, 41 studies that were performed on 11,050 HCWs were included in the final stage. The results indicated that in most studies, more than half (50%) of the participants had average knowledge. Furthermore, 60% of the participants had a positive attitude, but in most studies, they had average practice regarding radiation protection. The most important recommendation for improving KAP among the participants was incorporating radiation protection standards in the student curriculum.

CONCLUSION

Considering the results of the study, further attention should be paid to proper education regarding radiation protection standards and improvement of HCW performance.

Topics: Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Radiation Protection

PubMed: 32894727
DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0063

Review

Authors: Koichi Chida, Mamoru Kato, Yutaka Kagaya...

Although the wide acceptance of interventional radiology (IVR) procedures has led to increasing numbers of interventions being performed, the radiation doses from IVR are higher. Increasing numbers of case reports of patient radiation injury resulting from IVR are being published. Therefore, radiation protection during IVR poses a very important problem. To protect against radiation injury, the evaluation of radiation dose is essential. The radiation dose must be evaluated for each IVR x-ray machine and each laboratory, because it varies greatly. To obtain this information easily, and to ensure practical use of the radiation information, good relationships between interventionists and medical physicists are essential.

Topics: Algorithms; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; Catheter Ablation; Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; Humans; Patients; Physicians; Protective Clothing; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Injuries; Radiation Protection; Radiodermatitis; Radiology, Interventional; Radiometry; Scattering, Radiation

PubMed: 20339253
DOI: 10.1269/jrr.09112

Review

Authors: Francesco Giammarile, Peter Knoll, Jolanta Kunikowska...

BACKGROUND

In the rapidly evolving field of nuclear medicine, the paramount importance of radiation protection, safety, and quality systems cannot be overstated. This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the intricate regulatory frameworks and guidelines, meticulously crafted and updated by national and international regulatory bodies to ensure the utmost safety and efficiency in the practice of nuclear medicine.

METHODS

We explore the dynamic nature of these regulations, emphasizing their adaptability in accommodating technological advancements and the integration of nuclear medicine with other medical and scientific disciplines.

RESULTS

Audits, both internal and external, are spotlighted for their pivotal role in assessing and ensuring compliance with established standards, promoting a culture of continuous improvement and excellence. We delve into the significant contributions of entities like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and relevant professional societies in offering universally applicable guidelines that amalgamate the latest in scientific research, ethical considerations, and practical applicability.

CONCLUSIONS

The document underscores the essence of international collaborations in pooling expertise, resources, and insights, fostering a global community of practice where knowledge and innovations are shared. Readers will gain an in-depth understanding of the practical applications, challenges, and opportunities presented by these regulatory frameworks and audit processes. The ultimate goal is to inspire and inform ongoing efforts to enhance safety, quality, and effectiveness in nuclear medicine globally.

Topics: Nuclear Medicine; Radiation Protection; Humans; Quality Control; Safety

PubMed: 38319322
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06633-w

Authors:

Topics: Radiation Protection; Humans; Germany; Curriculum; Radiology

PubMed: 39293456
DOI: 10.1055/a-2374-4005

Review

Authors: Robert D Daniels, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan

Exposure to naturally occurring radon is unavoidable and is second only to smoking as a direct cause of lung cancer in the USA. The literature for existing information on US occupations that are prone to increased radon exposures was reviewed. Current recommendations and applicable protective standards against occupational radon exposure that are applicable to US workers are discussed. Exposure varied widely among several working populations, most of whom were employed in industries that were unrelated to the uranium fuel cycle. Radon protection standards differed among agencies and have not changed since the height of domestic uranium production in the 1970s. In contrast, European countries are adopting recommendations by the International Commission on Radiation Protection to set a reference level near a derived annual exposure of about one working level month, which is 25% of the level currently established for US miners.

Topics: Humans; Occupational Exposure; Radiation Protection; Radon; United States

PubMed: 28204795
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncx007

Authors: A Brun, R Alcaraz Mor, M Bourrelly...

The use of radiological activity in the operating room (OR) and a regulatory decrease of the eye lens dose warrant an assessment of how medical staff are protected from radiation. This study aims to evaluate practices and knowledge in radiation protection (RP) for OR doctors before and after training. A descriptive study of surgeons and anesthetists in a French public hospital center was conducted in 2016. An ad hoc questionnaire concerning occupational practices and knowledge about RP was distributed before and one month after RP training. Among 103 doctors attending the training, 90 answered the questionnaire before the training. Results showed a lack of knowledge and good practice in RP. Most of the participants (86.7%) had never been trained in RP and recognized insufficient knowledge. Most of them (92.2%) wore a lead apron, 50.0% a thyroid-shield, 5.6% lead glasses, 53.3% a passive dosimeter and 17.8% an electronic dosimeter. None of them benefitted from collective protective equipment such as a ceiling suspended screen. The questionnaire following the training was completed by only 35 doctors. A comparison before and after training results showed an improvement in knowledge (scores of correct responses: 5.5/16 before and 9.5/16 after training) but not in RP good practices (scores of correct responses: 3.2/7 before and 3.3/7 after training). One training session appears to be insufficient to improve the application of the safety rules when x-rays are used. Communication needs to be improved regarding RP among anesthetists and surgeons, such as training renewal, workstation analysis in OR related to x-ray use and occupational medical follow-up. Otherwise, radiological risks in OR need to be given better consideration, such as radio-induced cataract risk. It is necessary to encourage the use of dosimeters and protective equipment and to strengthen access to lead glasses and collective protective equipment, such as ceiling suspended screens. All these recommendations ensure the received dose is reduced to as low as is reasonably achievable.

Topics: Adult; Anesthetists; Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Operating Rooms; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Dosimeters; Radiation Protection; Surgeons; Surveys and Questionnaires

PubMed: 29182150
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aa9dbd

Authors: M Dehairs, N W Marshall, H Bosmans...

This work investigates the patient eye lens dose and x-ray scatter to the operator expected for a proposed hybrid Angio-MR concept. Two geometries were simulated for comparative assessment: a standard C-arm device for neuro-angiography applications and an innovative hybrid Angio-MR system concept, proposed by Siemens Healthineers. The latter concept is based on an over-couch x-ray tube and a detector inside an MRI system, with the aim of allowing combined, simultaneous MRI and x-ray imaging for procedures such as neurovascular interventions (including x-ray fluoroscopy and angiography imaging, 3D imaging, diffusion, and perfusion). To calculate the scattered radiation dose to the physician, Monte Carlo simulations were performed. Dose estimates of simplified models of the brain and eyes of both the patient and the physician and of the physician's torso and legs have been calculated. A number of parameters were varied in the simulation including x-ray spectrum, field of view (FOV), x-ray tube angulation, presence of shielding material and position of the physician. Additionally, 3D dose distributions were calculated in the vertical and horizontal planes in both setups. The patient eye lens dose was also calculated using a detailed voxel phantom and measured by means of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to obtain a more accurate estimate. Assuming the same number of x-rays and the same size of the irradiated area on the patient's head, the results show a significant decrease in the scattered radiation to the physician for the Angio-MR system, while large increases, depending on setup, are expected to patient eye lens dose.

Topics: Angiography; Health Personnel; Humans; Lens, Crystalline; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Occupational Exposure; Radiation Protection

PubMed: 32473413
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.04.028