Evaluation of occupational radiation dose due to 99mTc and 131I based examinations

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 168 - 173, 25.03.2024

Turan Şahmaran

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1418974

Öz

Aims: This study investigates the individual organ doses and the impact on effective dose of radiation emitted from radioactive sources.
Methods: In the conducted research, the standing ICRP adult male phantom defined as the phantom material in the Monte Carlo VMC dose calculation program was used. Subsequently, doses incurred were calculated by defining different doses, distances, and durations for 99mTc and 131I radioactive sources.
Results: Simulation durations (exposure durations) were set at 1 minute and 5 minutes for comparison. The results indicated that both in 1-minute and 5-minute exposures, the doses remained below the ICRP's recommended annual dose limit of 50 mSv/year for occupational exposure.
Conclusion: It was observed that the organ dose and effective dose vary with the source strength and exposure duration. Regardless of how low the doses may be, individuals working in radiation fields must make greater efforts to reduce radiation doses by adhering to the ALARA principles.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Effective dose, Monte Carlo, VMC program

Etik Beyan

Ethics Committee Approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.

Kaynakça

• 1. Khalil, M. Basic Sciences of Nuclear Medicine. Springer: 2011.
• 2. Salama KF, AlObireed A, AlBagawi M, AlSufayan Y, AlSerheed M. Assessment of occupational radiation exposure among medical staff in health-care facilities in the Eastern Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2016;20(1):21-25.
• 3. Fathy M, Khalil MM, Elshemey WM, Mohamed HS. Occupational radiation dose to nuclear medicine staff due to 99mTc, 18F PET and therapeutic 131I based examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2019;186(4):443-451.
• 4. Dönmez S, Ayan A, Parlak Y, et al. Acceptance and quality control tests for the single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) gamma cameras and SPECT/CT systems. Nükleer Tıp Semin. 2020;6(2):38-51.
• 5. Teksöz S, Müftüler FZ. Radioisotopes and biomedical applications in nuclear medicine. Nükleer Tıp Semin. 2019;5(1):10-14.
• 6. Kadhim AA, Sheikhzadeh P, Farzanefar S, Yavari S, Ay MR. Radiation dose assessment to family members taking care of non-cancerous thyroid patients treated with I-131 therapy in nuclear medicine department. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2020;190(2):208-216.
• 7. Ravichandran R, Binukumar J, Al Saadi A. Estimation of effective half-life of clearance of radioactive iodine (131I) in patients treated for hyperthyroidism and carcinoma thyroid. Indian J Nucl Med. 2010;25(2):49-52.
• 8. Wakeford R. Radiation in the workplace-a review of studies of the risks of occupational exposure to ionising radiation. J Radiol Prot. 2009;29(2A): A61.
• 9. Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M, et al. Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):620-631.
• 10. Bouchareb Y, Al-Mabsali J, Al-Zeheimi H, Al-Jabri A, Tag N, Al-Dhuhli H. Evaluation of institutional whole-body and extremity occupational radiation doses in nuclear medicine. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2023;199(19):2318-2327.
• 11. Nassef MH, Kinsara AA. Occupational radiation dose for medical workers at a university hospital. J Taibah Univ Sci. 2017;11(6):1259-1266.
• 12. Soliman KM, Alenezi A, Alruwaili T, Altimyat S, Alrushoud A, Alkhorayef M. Five years review of occupational dosimetry program at a tertiary care hospital and comparison with UNSCEAR 2008 report. Int J Radiol. 2008;5(1):157-160.
• 13. Sahmaran T, Atılgan HI, Nur S, Sahutoglu G, Yalcın H. An evaluation of the occupational external radiation exposure of personnel in nuclear medicine practices (2010-2020). Radiat Prot Dosim. 2022;198(5):274-280.
• 14. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiol. 2009;251(1):6-12.
• 15. VMC. Available: http://www.vmcsoftware.com/dose%20calculation.html. (Accessed: 23-Dec-2023).
• 16. Gültekin SS, Sahmaran T. The efficacy of patient-dependent practices on exposure rate in patients undergoing iodine-131 ablation. Health Physics. 2013;104(5):454-458.
• 17. Kara U. Cs-137, Co-60 ve Na-24 için Monte Carlo simülasyonu kullanılarak farklı vücut organlarının doz değerlendirilmesi. AKÜ Fen Müh Bil Derg. 2018;18(2):710-726.
• 18. Won KS, Song BI. Recent trends in nuclear cardiology practice. Chonnam Med J. 2013;49(2):55-64.
• 19. Caobelli F, Pizzocaro C, Paghera B, Guerra UP. Evaluation of patients with coronary artery disease. IQ-SPECT protocol in myocardial perfusion imaging: preliminary results. Nuklearmedizin. 2013;52(05):178-185.
• 20. Ede H, Karaçavuş S, Erbay AR. Application of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and its use in cardiology. Bozok Med J. 2015;5(1):59-65.
• 21. Matttsson S. Radiation Protection In Medicine: Setting The Scene For The Next Decade. International Atomic Energy Agency: 2015.
• 22. Işıkcı Nİ, Demir M, Sönmezoğlu K. Evaluation of annual occupational doses of technologists in diagnostic nuclear medicine. Cerrahpaşa Med J. 2022;46(3):226-229.
• 23. Albersberg EA, Verwoerd D, Mylvaganan-Young C, et al. Occupational radiation exposure of radiopharmacy, nuclear medicine, and surgical personnel during use of [99mTc] Tc-PSMA-I&S for prostate cancer surgery. J Nucl Med Technol. 2021;49(4):334-338.
• 24. Elshami W, Erdemir RU, Abuzaid MM, Cavli B, Issa B, Tekin HO. Occupational radiation dose assessment for nuclear medicine workers in Turkiye: a comprehensive investigation. J King Saud Uni-Sci. 2022;34(4):102005.
• 25. Abuzaid MM, Elshami W, Hasan H. Knowledge and adherence to radiation protection among healthcare workers at operation theater. Asian J Scientif Res. 2018;12(1):54-59.
• 26. Kortesniemi M, Siiskonen T, Kelaranta A, Lappalainen K. Actual and potential radiation exposures in digital radiology: analysis of cumulative data, implications to worker classification and occupational exposure monitoring. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2017;174(1):141-146.