Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses under CT fluoroscopy: radiation doses to the patient and interventionalist
- 214 Downloads
Computed tomographic (CT) fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous cryoablation is an effective therapeutic method used to treat focal renal masses. The purpose of this study is to quantify the radiation dose to the patient and interventional radiologist during percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses using CT fluoroscopic guidance.
Over a 1-year period, the CT fluoroscopy time during percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses was recorded in 41 patients. The level of complexity of each procedure was designated as simple, intermediate, or complex. Patient organ radiation doses were estimated using an anthropomorphic model. Dose to the interventional radiologist was estimated using ion chamber survey meters.
The average CT fluoroscopy time for technically simple cases was 47 s, 126 s for intermediate cases, and 264 s for complex cases. The relative risk of hematologic stomach and liver malignancy in patients undergoing this procedure was 1.003–1.074. The lifetime attributable risk of cancer ranged from 2 to 58, with the highest risk in younger patients for developing leukemia. The estimated radiation dose to the interventionalist without lead shielding was 390 mR (3.9 mGy) per year of cases.
The radiation risk to the patient during CT fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous renal mass cryoablation is, as expected, related to procedure complexity. Quantification of patient organ radiation dose was estimated using an anthropomorphic model. This information, along with the associated relative risk of malignancy, may assist in evaluating risks of the procedure, particularly in younger patients. The radiation dose to the interventionist is low regardless of procedure complexity, but highlights the importance of lead shielding.
KeywordsCT fluoroscopy Radiation dose Cryoablation
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 7.National Research Council (U.S.) (2006) Committee to assess health risks from exposure to low level of ionizing radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2, vol. xvi. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, p 406Google Scholar
- 11.Adult male phantom model 702-D handling instructions (package insert) (2002) Norfolk, VA: CIRS, p 200XGoogle Scholar
- 15.Balter S (2001) Interventional fluoroscopy: physics, technology, and safety. New York: Wiley, p 308Google Scholar
- 16.Huda W, Slone RM (1995) Review of radiologic physics, vol. xv. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, p 286Google Scholar
- 17.Wolbarst AB (2005) Physics of radiology, vol. xv, 2nd edn. Madison: Medical Physics Pub, p 647Google Scholar
- 18.Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ (2012) Radiobiology for the radiologist, 7th edn. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & WilkinsGoogle Scholar
- 19.Curry TS, et al. (1990) Christensen’s physics of diagnostic radiology, vol. xi, 4th edn. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, p 522Google Scholar