• Title/Summary/Keyword: risk measurement

Search Result 932, Processing Time 0.02 seconds

Evaluation of Radiation Exposure to Nurse on Nuclear Medicine Examination by Use Radioisotope (방사성 동위원소를 이용한 핵의학과 검사에서 병동 간호사의 방사선 피폭선량 평가)

  • Jeong, Jae Hoon;Lee, Chung Wun;You, Yeon Wook;Seo, Yeong Deok;Choi, Ho Yong;Kim, Yun Cheol;Kim, Yong Geun;Won, Woo Jae
    • The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
    • /
    • v.21 no.1
    • /
    • pp.44-49
    • /
    • 2017
  • Purpose Radiation exposure management has been strictly regulated for the radiation workers, but there are only a few studies on potential risk of radiation exposure to non-radiation workers, especially nurses in a general ward. The present study aimed to estimate the exact total exposure of the nurse in a general ward by close contact with the patient undergoing nuclear medicine examinations. Materials and Methods Radiation exposure rate was determined by using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and optical simulated luminescence (OSL) in 14 nurses in a general ward from October 2015 to June 2016. External radiation rate was measured immediately after injection and examination at skin surface, and 50 cm and 1 m distance from 50 patients (PET/CT 20 pts; Bone scan 20 pts; Myocardial SPECT 10 pts). After measurement, effective half-life, and total radiation exposure expected in nurses were calculated. Then, expected total exposure was compared with total exposures actually measured in nurses by TLD and OSL. Results Mean and maximum amount of radiation exposure of 14 nurses in a general ward were 0.01 and 0.02 mSv, respectively in each measuring period. External radiation rate after injection at skin surface, 0.5 m and 1 m distance from patients was as following; $376.0{\pm}25.2$, $88.1{\pm}8.2$ and $29.0{\pm}5.8{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in PET/CT; $206.7{\pm}56.6$, $23.1{\pm}4.4$ and $10.1{\pm}1.4{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in bone scan; $22.5{\pm}2.6$, $2.4{\pm}0.7$ and $0.9{\pm}0.2{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in myocardial SPECT. After examination, external radiation rate at skin surface, 0.5 m and 1 m distance from patients was decreased as following; $165.3{\pm}22.1$, $38.7{\pm}5.9$ and $12.4{\pm}2.5{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in PET/CT; $32.1{\pm}8.7$, $6.2{\pm}1.1$, $2.8{\pm}0.6$, respectively in bone scan; $14.0{\pm}1.2$, $2.1{\pm}0.3$, $0.8{\pm}0.2{\mu}Sv/hr$, respectively in myocardial SPECT. Based upon the results, an effective half-life was calculated, and at 30 minutes after examination the time to reach normal dose limit in 'Nuclear Safety Act' was calculated conservatively without considering a half-life. In oder of distance (at skin surface, 0.5 m and 1 m distance from patients), it was 7.9, 34.1 and 106.8 hr, respectively in PET/CT; 40.4, 199.5 and 451.1 hr, respectively in bone scan, 62.5, 519.3 and 1313.6 hr, respectively in myocardial SPECT. Conclusion Radiation exposure rate may differ slightly depending on the work process and the environment in a general ward. Exposure rate was measured at step in the general examination procedure and it made our results more reliable. Our results clearly showed that total amount of radiation exposure caused by residual radioactive isotope in the patient body was neglectable, even comparing with the natural radiation exposure. In conclusion, nurses in a general ward were much less exposed than the normal dose limit, and the effects of exposure by contacting patients undergoing nuclear medicine examination was ignorable.

  • PDF

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Exactrac in Image-guided Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer (두경부암의 영상유도방사선치료에서 ExacTrac의 유용성 평가)

  • Baek, Min Gyu;Kim, Min Woo;Ha, Se Min;Chae, Jong Pyo;Jo, Guang Sub;Lee, Sang Bong
    • The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
    • /
    • v.32
    • /
    • pp.7-15
    • /
    • 2020
  • Purpose: In modern radiotherapy technology, several methods of image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) are used to deliver accurate doses to tumor target locations and normal organs, including CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) and other devices, ExacTrac System, other than CBCT equipped with linear accelerators. In previous studies comparing the two systems, positional errors were analysed rearwards using Offline-view or evaluated only with a Yaw rotation with the X, Y, and Z axes. In this study, when using CBCT and ExacTrac to perform 6 Degree of the Freedom(DoF) Online IGRT in a treatment center with two equipment, the difference between the set-up calibration values seen in each system, the time taken for patient set-up, and the radiation usefulness of the imaging device is evaluated. Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the difference between mobile calibrations and exposure radiation dose, the glass dosimetry and Rando Phantom were used for 11 cancer patients with head circumference from March to October 2017 in order to assess the difference between mobile calibrations and the time taken from Set-up to shortly before IGRT. CBCT and ExacTrac System were used for IGRT of all patients. An average of 10 CBCT and ExacTrac images were obtained per patient during the total treatment period, and the difference in 6D Online Automation values between the two systems was calculated within the ROI setting. In this case, the area of interest designation in the image obtained from CBCT was fixed to the same anatomical structure as the image obtained through ExacTrac. The difference in positional values for the six axes (SI, AP, LR; Rotation group: Pitch, Roll, Rtn) between the two systems, the total time taken from patient set-up to just before IGRT, and exposure dose were measured and compared respectively with the RandoPhantom. Results: the set-up error in the phantom and patient was less than 1mm in the translation group and less than 1.5° in the rotation group, and the RMS values of all axes except the Rtn value were less than 1mm and 1°. The time taken to correct the set-up error in each system was an average of 256±47.6sec for IGRT using CBCT and 84±3.5sec for ExacTrac, respectively. Radiation exposure dose by IGRT per treatment was measured at 37 times higher than ExacTrac in CBCT and ExacTrac at 2.468mGy and 0.066mGy at Oral Mucosa among the 7 measurement locations in the head and neck area. Conclusion: Through 6D online automatic positioning between the CBCT and ExacTrac systems, the set-up error was found to be less than 1mm, 1.02°, including the patient's movement (random error), as well as the systematic error of the two systems. This error range is considered to be reasonable when considering that the PTV Margin is 3mm during the head and neck IMRT treatment in the present study. However, considering the changes in target and risk organs due to changes in patient weight during the treatment period, it is considered to be appropriately used in combination with CBCT.