Statistical analysis of the occupational radiation doses in three different positron emission tomography–computed tomography centers in Egypt

Ibrahim Elsayed Saad Ahmed; Abdulrahman M.M. Zamzam; Hossam Mahmoud Yassin

doi:10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_42_18

World Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2019; 18(03): 287-292
DOI: 10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_42_18

Original Article

Statistical analysis of the occupational radiation doses in three different positron emission tomography–computed tomography centers in Egypt

Ibrahim Elsayed Saad Ahmed

¹Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

²Department of Nuclear Medicine Technology, Inaya Medical Colleges, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

Abdulrahman M.M. Zamzam

²Department of Nuclear Medicine Technology, Inaya Medical Colleges, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

Hossam Mahmoud Yassin

¹Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated the radiation doses received by the positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) staff in three different diagnostic centers in Egypt. The whole-body effective dose measured by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for staff working in PET and the effective dose per study received by physicist, technician, and nurse were measured by an electronic pocket dosimeter (EPD) during a period of 6 months. Statistical analysis was held between the measurements of the TLDs as well as for the EPD for the three studied PET-CT centers. After combining TLD and EPD prospective annual scores for the three studied categories in the three centers, the one-way ANOVA test results have shown that there were statistically significant differences between group means with respect to their TLD mean score (P = 0.041). The mean nurse group TLD score, across the three centers, appeared to be the lowest scoring 3.83 (standard deviation [SD] 0.012) compared to the physicist and technician who measured 4.62 (SD 0.231) and 6.92 (SD 0.018), respectively. Scheffe's test for complex comparisons revealed a significant difference between nurse group and technologist group (P = 0.001). Regarding the annual combined EPD scores, the post hoc test, namely Scheffe's test for complex comparisons, revealed a significant difference between nurse group and technologist group (P = 0.001). This was measured after the one-way ANOVA test results have shown that there were statistically significant differences between annual group EPD means (P = 0.032). Finally, there was no recorded significance for the studied categories across the three centers between their annual TLD and EPD dose scores (P = 0.072). Technicians group received the highest mean effective whole-body doses when compared with the International Commission on Radiological Protection dose limit, each individual worker can work with many more 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT studies for a (period time) without exceeding the occupational dose limits if the average received effective dose continues with the same rate. The study also confirmed that low levels of radiation dose are received by medical personnel involved in 18F-FDG PET/CT procedures in those centers due to implementing radiation protection measures and procedures.

Keywords

Analysis - occupational doses - positron emission tomography-computed tomography

Full Text

References

References
1 Kim KP, Miller DL, Balter S, Kleinerman RA, Linet MS, Kwon D, et al. Occupational radiation doses to operators performing cardiac catheterization procedures. Health Phys 2008;94:211-27.
2 Kuipers G, Velders XL. Effective dose to staff from interventional procedures: Estimations from single and double dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009;136:95-100.
3 Persliden J. Patient and staff doses in interventional X-ray procedures in Sweden. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:150-7.
4 Vañó E, González L, Guibelalde E, Fernández JM, Ten JI. Radiation exposure to medical staff in interventional and cardiac radiology. Br J Radiol 1998;71:954-60.
5 Amaral A, Itié C, Bok B. Dose absorbed by technologists in positron emission tomography procedures with FDG. Braz Arch Biol Technol 2007;50:129-34.
6 Foti C, Padovani R, Trianni A, Bokou C, Christofides S, Corbett RH, et al. Staff dosimetry in interventional cardiology: Survey on methods and level of exposure. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;129:100-3.
7 Donmoon T, Chamroonrat W, Tuntawiroon M. Radiation exposure to nuclear medicine staffs during 18F-FDG PET/CT procedures at Ramathibodi hospital. J Phys 2016;694, conference 1.
8 Biran T, Weininger J, Malchi S, Marciano R, Chisin R. Measurements of occupational exposure for a technologist performing 18F FDG PET scans. Health Phys 2004;87:539-44.
9 Benatar NA, Cronin BF, O'Doherty MJ. Radiation dose rates from patients undergoing PET: Implications for technologists and waiting areas. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:583-9.
10 Dalianis K, Kollias G, Malamitsi J, Euthimiadou R, Andreou J, Georgiou E, et al. Doses to medical workers operating in a PET/CT department after the use of new dynamic techniques. J Phys 2015;637, conference 1.
11 Chiesa C, De Sanctis V, Crippa F, Schiavini M, Fraigola CE, Bogni A, et al. Radiation dose to technicians per nuclear medicine procedure: Comparison between technetium-99m, gallium-67, and iodine-131 radiotracers and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:1380-9.
12 Zeff BW, Yester MV. Patient self-attenuation and technologist dose in positron emission tomography. Med Phys 2005;32:861-5.
13 International Commission on Radiological Protection. 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. International Commission on Radiological Protection; 2007.