Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

High CT doses return to the agenda

  • 461 Accesses

Importance of medical exposures

Modern medicine offers a variety of diagnostic methods and tools that include imaging techniques where patients are exposed to ionizing radiation such as X-radiography, CT scans, PET and others. In many countries, for example, the use of CT scans has continuously increased representing today an indispensable tool in X-ray diagnostics (UNSCEAR 2010). As a result, in particular in developed countries with health-care level I, even if averaged over the whole population of a certain country, medical exposures are largely responsible for exposure from manmade sources of ionizing radiation (UNSCEAR 2010).

Recent studies suggest cumulative effective doses of more than 100 mSv from CT scans

Recently, a series of publications on patients undergoing recurrent computed tomography (CT) scans have highlighted that large number of patients are falling in a relatively higher dose group of exceeding 100 mSv of effective dose (Rehani et al. 2019a, b; Brambilla et al. 2019). The authors used data from 342 hospitals located in the USA and Central Europe, and focused on patients whose cumulative effective dose from CT scans alone exceeded 100 mSv. They argued that, although effective dose is not the perfect means to quantify partial body exposures, values of effective dose of more than 100 mSv make it rather likely that various organs may receive absorbed organ doses of more than 100 mGy. Altogether, the study includes more than 2.5 million patients and almost 5 million CT scans. Interestingly, more than 1% of patients undergoing CT examinations received cumulative effective doses of more than 100 mSv, and the minimum time period to accumulate 100 mSv from the CT scans in some patients was a single day. In terms of median organ doses, data from one institute (8952 patients) suggest values of 174, 119, 34, and 42 mGy for lungs, red bone marrow, eye lens and breast, respectively. Corresponding maximum organ doses were 2.5, 0.7, 5.9 and 2.8 Gy, respectively.

Organ doses of more than 100 mGy do matter—evidence from the atomic bomb survivor studies

A recent series of publications on solid cancer incidence among atomic bomb survivors, published by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, demonstrate statistically elevated levels of excess relative risk (ERR) for a number of cancer end points, at organ-absorbed doses of about 100 mGy. Grant et al. investigated the incidence of all solid cancers combined, among a cohort of more than 105,000 survivors with a follow-up period from 1958 to 2009, and found a sex-averaged ERR per Gy of 0.47 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39–0.55] among this cohort when a linear dose response model was applied (Grant et al. 2017). A closer look revealed that the lowest dose range with a statistically significant dose response was that with doses of less than 100 mGy, when absorbed doses to the colon were used. For higher doses, the dose response relationship showed a linear increase in ERR with dose for females, while the dose response was linear quadratic for males. These overall results were confirmed recently by Cologne et al. (2019), although these authors found that combining major solid cancer sites is not the optimal analysis, due to heterogeneity in corresponding individual baseline risk. They recommended analysis of single cancer sites if statistically possible. Along these lines, Cahoon et al. (2017) analysed the same cohort as Grant et al., but focused on lung cancer incidence as an end point. These authors found a significant and linear dose response when they plotted the ERR for lung cancer incidence risk versus weighted lung dose, down to a dose interval from 100 to 200 mGy. Breast cancer incidence risk among the cohort was followed up by Brenner et al. (2018). No significant departure from linearity was observed for the full dose range of weighted breast doses. Furthermore, for lower doses down to about 250 mGy, the estimates for the ERR per unit dose were stable. When uterine cancer incidence was investigated in this cohort, no radiation-induced effect on cervical cancer incidence was found, while there was a moderate indication of a linear dose response for the incidence of uterine corpus cancer (Utada et al. 2019). Sugiyama et al. (2019) investigated colorectal cancer incidence among the cohort of atomic bomb survivors. While these authors could not find any radiation-induced effect for rectum cancer incidence, they did find a significant dose response for colon cancer incidence down to a few hundred mGy absorbed dose to the colon. Finally, a follow-up was done by Sadakane et al. (2019) on cancer incidence in the liver, biliary tract and pancreas. A significantly elevated ERR per unit dose was found only for liver cancer, again with a largely linear dose response down to a few hundred mGy of absorbed dose to the liver.

All these studies suggest that doses of low-LET radiation greater than 100 mGy, as reported by Rehani et al. (2019a) to be present among patients receiving CT scans, do indeed matter in terms of radiation-induced cancer risk.

Are studies on atomic bomb survivors relevant in the present context?

One might argue that the exposure of the atomic bomb survivors is not really relevant here, because cumulated exposure from CT scans is due to low-energy X-rays and might be distributed over several single exposures, while the atomic bomb survivors were exposed to high-energy gamma radiation (plus some contributions from neutrons) and within a single very short period. Indeed, the mean energy of gamma radiation that was present at the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of the order of several MeV (Rühm et al. 2018a) which is much higher than typical energies of diagnostic X-ray examinations. A recent report of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has reviewed the biological effectiveness of low-energy photons for evaluating human cancer risk and found that radiation used in X-ray diagnostics might be a factor of about 1.5 more effective than 1.25 MeV gamma radiation emitted by the decay of 60Co (NCRP 2017). Furthermore, recent meta-analyses of epidemiological studies where cancer risk among cohorts exposed to low dose rates (including nuclear workers, populations living in contaminated regions such as the Techa River cohort, etc.) were compared to the cancer risks observed among the atomic bomb survivors did not find much difference in cancer risk estimates (Shore et al. 2017; Hoel 2018). These findings suggest that the data described above on cancer risk among atomic bomb survivors are indeed relevant and can be used to estimate cancer risk of several 100 mGy observed by Rehani et al. among patients who received several CT examinations. It should be emphasized, however, that the risks deduced from the atomic bomb survivors might underestimate the risk from CT examinations somewhat, due to the higher relative biological effectiveness of diagnostic X-rays as compared to the higher-energy gamma radiation typical for the exposure of the atomic bomb survivors.

Combined doses from radiotherapy and associated imaging

In many countries, a considerable fraction of the population will face a cancer diagnosis at a certain time in life, and radiotherapy represents one of the major methods of treatment. Approximately, half of all cancer patients will receive radiotherapy at some point in their illness. There is therefore a large global population of patients who are exposed to high target doses (mainly using photon beams, but increasingly with protons) in a controlled and well-documented way. The basic physics of radiation interactions makes it unavoidable that lower doses are delivered to healthy organs and tissues in other parts of the body. These out-of-field doses are influenced by numerous factors, including the type of treatment machine, the energy of the radiation, the planned spatial distribution of radiation within the body and the size and shape of the patient. In all cases, doses can vary from tens of gray to milligray. All parts of the dose–risk curve for subsequent cancer induction are therefore involved, from low doses including regions where non-linear mechanisms have been postulated (e.g. bystander effects), through the region defined largely by the Japanese lifespan study (Ozasa et al. 2012; Grant et al. 2017), to the further non-linear region at high doses where cell kill and re-population effects are known to occur (Hall and Henry 2004; Schneider and Walsh 2008).

Although the target doses in radiotherapy are accurately known and delivered, modern radiotherapy techniques (such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and Tomotherapy™) often include substantial associated imaging for tumour localization, treatment planning and verification of the treatment fields during the course of radiotherapy. In fact, the data from Rehani et al. (2019b) indicate that nearly 90% of the patients in their single institution study had been diagnosed with a malignancy. A substantial fraction of this group is likely to have radiation therapy in which the associated imaging dose will augment the non-target dose from radiotherapy alone.

Doses to organs and tissues outside the planning target volume arise from scatter of the radiotherapy beams within the patient (for X-rays generated in the range 4–10 MV), leakage radiation from the X-ray target and scatter from the collimators. In general, the doses and risks to healthy organs and tissues have long been considered acceptable in view of the benefits of radiotherapy, provided that doses to critical organs are minimized at the planning stage. Magnitudes vary, but the risk of fatal secondary malignancy from radical prostate treatment using X-rays has been estimated as approximately 2–5% (Kry et al. 2005). However, with the introduction of imaging equipment as an integral part of the linear accelerator (onboard imaging using kV X-rays or the treatment beam itself) (Murphy et al. 2007) and concomitant imaging using diagnostic CT, the out-of-field doses from the treatment beams are augmented by doses from these imaging investigations. As an approximate guide, Shah et al. (2012) report doses of 5–30 mGy/image for onboard kV imaging (depending on the anatomical site) and < 10 mGy/image for MVCT imaging (Tomotherapy™). As an example, from out-of-field data for a simulated treatment of a paediatric brain (Majer et al. 2017), and assuming that 20 images are performed during the total treatment (giving a total imaging dose of ~ 200 mGy), the % of the total dose due to imaging is < 1% at the field edge, ~ 50% at 12 cm from the field edge and ~ 80% at 27 cm from the field edge (assuming, of course, that the imaging field extends to these distances). The imaging dose assumed here is the same order of magnitude as the doses from CT scans observed by Rehani et al. (2019a, b). Furthermore, the studies of Diallo et al. (2009) and Dörr and Herman (2002) are of considerable relevance here. Diallo et al. showed that the incidence of second cancers in paediatric radiotherapy patients is concentrated around the treatment field edge, in a region of high dose gradient which makes accurate retrospective dosimetry difficult. They found that most second cancers occur within approximately ± 10 cm from the field edge. In the above example, using the data of Majer et al. (2017), the total imaging dose is greater than the radiotherapy component at the same point for distances > 12 cm from the field edge. At distances from the field edge < 10 cm, the imaging dose is progressively less than the radiotherapy component but can still be significant. To understand the radiobiological processes occurring in this region, it is therefore necessary to determine the total imaging dose. This is of particular relevance given that there are already reports that cancer risks might be increased among those who received CT scans in childhood (Pierce et al. 2012; Mathews et al. 2013). Consequently, a pooled European study on CT scans among children has been initiated recently (Bosch et al. 2015; Bernier et al. 2019).

Future challenges …

There are several challenges in arriving at a combined dose to the patient from therapy and imaging. First, it should be stressed that all out-of-field doses are subject to many variables associated with the treatment machine design, radiation properties, treatment planning technique (including imaging) and, importantly, the very wide variations associated with patient size and anatomy. This makes generalization difficult in practice. Furthermore, the examples quoted above are for radiotherapy using megavoltage X-ray beams and the increasing use of proton and particle beam therapy raises many further issues, e.g. the contribution of secondary neutrons and the low out-of-field doses. However, such discussions are beyond the scope of this editorial.

The second challenge is that imaging doses and risks frequently use the concept of effective dose as a surrogate for “risk”, even though this quantity is problematical when applied to medical exposures. Effective dose uses mean organ doses from several organs with defined risk factors, in contrast to the major region of interest in radiotherapy near the field edge. Effective dose is also independent of age at exposure and is age, sex and population averaged, making its application to specific patient groups, such as children, dubious. Moreover, Diallo et al. (2009) reported a significant incidence of sarcomas in their field edge study, but in the definition of effective dose, sarcomas are remainder organs with an ill-defined risk factor. In any case, effective dose assumes the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, which may not be valid at doses > 2 Gy close to the field edge (Schneider and Walsh 2008).

These problems have prompted efforts to model the combined dose from radiotherapy and imaging using Monte Carlo techniques and to test the results experimentally by simulating the treatment using anthropomorphic phantoms loaded with thermoluminescence (TL) and other passive dosemeters. This is, for example, outlined by the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), building upon previous experimental studies of out-of-field doses in radiotherapy (Majer et al. 2017; Stolarczyk et al. 2018; Knesevic et al. 2018). A summary of recent findings of these efforts can be found in Rühm et al. (2019).

… And the way to go

The development of dosimetry techniques and the measurement of doses from both diagnostic imaging involving ionizing radiation and radiotherapy are therefore important pre-requisites for advancing this field of study. Epidemiological studies of second cancers (and also for long term non-cancer effects) following radiotherapy, in particular for those exposed at young age, require a specification of dose to the patient at the site of the subsequent malignancy, making out-of-field dosimetry an important field of dosimetric development (Harrison 2017; Harrison et al. 2017). In combination with doses a patient might receive from various applications of X-ray diagnostics, total dose estimates will be indispensable in any epidemiological study on second cancer risk among cancer survivors. Such studies will gain attention in the future, given (a) that the most important radio-epidemiological study to date, the lifespan study on the atomic bomb survivors, will come to an end in the next 20 years or so when most of the survivors have died, (b) that the number of cancer patients treated with ionizing radiation is expected to increase worldwide, and (c) that the number of cancer survivors will increase with increasing treatment success. Studies such as those of Rehani and co-workers (Brambilla et al. 2019; Rehani 2019; Rehani et al. 2019a, b) and Harrison (Harrison 2017; Harrison et al. 2017) pave the way to go. This is consistent with one of the major visions formulated by the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) in their Strategic Research Agenda where the major challenges in dosimetry for the next 20 years have been summarized (Rühm et al. 2016).


  1. Bernier MO, Baysson H, Pearce MS, Moissonnier M, Cardis E, Hauptmann M, Struelens L, Dabin J, Johansen C, Journy N, Laurier D, Blettner M, Le Cornet L, Pokora R, Gradowska P, Meulepas JM, Kjaerheim K, Istad T, Olerud H, Sovik A, Bosch de Basea M, Thierry-Chef I, Kaijser M, Nordenskjöld A, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Harbron RW, Kesminiene A (2019) Cohort profile: the EPI-CT study: a European pooled epidemiological study to quantify the risk of radiation-induced cancer from paediatric CT. Int J Epidemiol 48(2):379–381

  2. Bosch de Basea M, Pearce MS, Kesminiene A, Bernier MO, Dabin J, Engels H, Hauptmann M, Krille L, Meulepas JM, Struelens L, Baatout S, Kaijser M, Maccia C, Jahnen A, Thierry-Chef I, Blettner M, Johansen C, Kjaerheim K, Nordenskjöld A, Olerud H, Salotti JA, Andersen TV, Vrijheid M, Cardis E (2015) EPI-CT: design, challenges and epidemiological methods of an international study on cancer risk after paediatric and young adult CT. J Radiol Prot 35(3):611–628

  3. Brambilla M, Vassileva J, Kuchcinska A, Rehani MM (2019) Multinational data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent radiological procedures: call for action. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06528-7

  4. Brenner A, Preston D, Sakata R, Sugiyama H, BerringtondeGonzalez A, French B, Utada M, Cahoon E, Sadakane A, Ozasa K, Mabuchi K (2018) Incidence of breast cancer in the life span study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958–2009. Radiat Res 190(4):433–444

  5. Cahoon E, Preston D, Pierce D, Grant E, Brenner A, Mabuchi K, Utada M, Ozasa K (2017) Lung, laryngeal and other respiratory cancer incidence among Japanese atomic bomb survivors: an updated analysis from 1958 through 2009. Radiat Res 187:538–548

  6. Cologne J, Kim J, Sugiyama H, French B, Cullings H, Preston D, Mabuchi K, Ozasa K (2019) Effect of heterogeneity in background incidence on inference about the solid-cancer radiation dose response in atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 192:000–001

  7. De Saint-Hubert M, Majer M, Hršak H, Heinrich H, Knežević Ž, Miljanić S, Porwoł P, Stolarczyk L, Vanhavere F, Harrison RM (2018) Out-of-field doses in children treated for large arteriovenous malformations using hypofractionated gamma knife radiosurgery and intensity modulated radiotherapy. Radiat Protect Dosim 181(2):100–110

  8. Diallo I, Haddy N, Adjadj E, Samand A, Quiniou E, Chavaudra J, Alziar I, Perret N, Guerin S, Lefkopoulos D, de Vathaire F (2009) Frequency distribution of second solid cancer locations in relation to the irradiated volume among 115 patients treated for childhood cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(3):876–883

  9. Dörr W, Herrmann T (2002) Second primary tumors after radiotherapy for malignancies treatment-related parameters. Strahlenther Onkol 178:357–362

  10. Grant E, Brenner A, Sugiyama H, Sakata R, Sadakane A, Utada M, Cahoon E, Milder C, Soda M, Cullings H, Preston D, Mabuchi K, Ozasa K (2017) Solid cancer incidence among the life span study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958–2009. Radiat Res 187:513–537

  11. Hall EJ, Henry S (2004) Kaplan distinguished scientist award 2003. The crooked shall be made straight; dose-response relationships for carcinogenesis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80(5):327–337

  12. Harrison RM (2017) Out-of-field doses in radiotherapy: input to epidemiological studies and dose-risk models. Phys Med Eur J Med Phys 42:239–246

  13. Harrison RM, Di Fulvio A, Bordy J-M, Miljanić S, Stolarczyk L, Knežević Ž (2017) Dosimetry for second cancer risk estimation in radiotherapy: measurements in water phantoms. In: EURADOS report 2017-01, Neuherberg, Apr 2017. ISSN 2226-8057, ISBN 978-3-943701-14-2

  14. Hoel DG (2018) Nuclear epidemiologic studies and the estimation of DREF. Int J Radiat Biol 94:307–314

  15. Knežević Ž, Ambrosova I, Domingo C, De Saint-Hubert M, Majer M, Martinez-Rovira I, Miljanić S, Mojžeszek N, Ploc O, Porwol P, Romero-Exposito M, Stolarczyk L, Trinkl S, Harrison RM, Olko P (2018) Comparison of response of passive dosimetry systems in scanning proton radiotherapy—a study using paediatric anthropomorphic phantoms. Radiat Protect Dosim 180(1–4):256–260

  16. Kry SF, Salehpour M, Followill DS, Stovall M, Kuban DA, White RA, Rosen II (2005) The calculated risk of fatal secondary malignancies from intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1195–1203

  17. Majer M, Stolarczyk L, De Saint-Hubert M, Kabat D, Knežević Ž, Miljanić S, Mojżeszek N, Harrison R (2017) Out-of-field dose measurements for 3D conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy of a paediatric brain tumour. Radiat Protect Dosim 176(3):331–340

  18. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, Giles GG, Wallace AB, Anderson PR, Guiver TA, McGale P, Cain TM, Dowty JG, Bickerstaffe AC, Darby SC (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360

  19. Murphy MJ, Balter J, Balter S, Ben Como JA, Jr Das IJ, Jiang SB, Ma CM, Olivera GH, Rodebaugh RF, Ruchala KJ, Shirato H, Yin FF (2007) The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 75. Med Phys 34:4041–4063

  20. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (2017) Biological effectiveness of low-energy photons and electrons for evaluating human cancer risk. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Bethesda

  21. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, Howe NL, Ronckers CM, Rajaraman P, Sir Craft AW, Parker L, Berrington de González A (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380(9840):499–505

  22. Rehani MM (2019) Looking for solutions: vision and a call-for-attention for radiation research scientists. Int J Radiat Biol 95(6):793–796

  23. Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER, Heil J, Šalát D, Sensakovic WF, Liu B (2019a) Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06523-y

  24. Rehani MM, Melick ER, Alvi RM, Khera RD, Batool-Anwar S, Neilan TG, Bettmann M (2019) Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8

  25. Rühm W, Fantuzzi E, Harrison R, Schuhmacher H, Vanhavere F, Alves J, Bottollier Depois JF, Fattibene P, Knezevic Z, Lopez MA, Mayer S, Miljanic S, Neumaier S, Olko P, Stadtmann H, Tanner R, Woda C (2016) EURADOS strategic research agenda: vision for dosimetry of ionising radiation. Radiat Protect Dosim 168:223–234

  26. Rühm W, Azizova T, Bouffler S, Cullings HM, Grosche B, Little MP, Shore RS, Walsh L, Woloschak GE (2018a) Typical doses and dose rates in studies pertinent to radiation risk inference at low doses and low dose rates. J Radiat Res 59:ii1–ii10

  27. Rühm W, Bottollier-Depois JF, Gilvin P, Harrison R, Knežević Ž, Lopez MA, Tanner R, Vargas A, Woda C (2018b) The work programme of EURADOS on internal and external dosimetry. Ann ICRP 47(3–4):20–34

  28. Rühm W, Ainsbury E, Breustedt B, Caresana M, Gilvin P, Knežević Ž, Rabus H, Stolarczyk L, Vargas A, Bottollier-Depois JF, Harrison RM, Lopez MA, Stadtmann H, Tanner R, Vanhavere F, Woda C, Clairand I, Fantuzzi E, Fattibene P, Hupe O, Olko P, Olšovcová V, Schuhmacher H, Alves JG, Miljanić S (2019) The European radiation dosimetry group—review of recent scientific achievements. Radiat Phys Chem 168:108514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108514

  29. Sadakane A, French B, Brenner A, Preston D, Sugiyama H, Grant E, Sakata R, Utada M, Cahoon E, Mabuchi K, Ozasa K (2019) Radiation and risk of liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers among atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 1958–2009. Radiat Res 192:299–310

  30. Schneider U, Walsh L (2008) Cancer risk estimates from the combined Japanese A-bomb and Hodgkin cohorts for doses relevant to radiotherapy. Radiat Environ Biophys 47:253–263

  31. Shore RS, Walsh L, Azizova T, Rühm W (2017) Risk of solid cancer in low dose-rate radiation epidemiological studies and the dose-rate effectiveness factor. Int J Radiat Biol 93:1064–1078

  32. Stolarczyk L, Trinkl S, Romero-Expósito M, Mojżeszek N, Ambrozova I, Domingo C, Davidkova M, Farah J, Klodowska M, Knežević Ž, Liszka M, Majer M, Miljanić S, Ploc O, Schwarz M, Harrison RM, Olko P (2018) Dose distribution of secondary radiation in a water phantom for a proton pencil beam—EURADOS WG9 intercomparison exercise. Phys Med Biol 63:085017

  33. Sugiyama H, Misumi M, Brenner A, Grant E, Sakata R, Sadakane A, Utada M, Preston D, Mabuchi K, Ozasa K (2019) Radiation Risk of incident colorectal cancer by anatomical site among atomic bomb survivors: 1958–2009. Int J Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32275

  34. UNSCEAR (2010) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 report, vol I. Sources: Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B, New York

  35. Utada M, Brenner A, Preston D, Cologne J, Sakata R, Sugiyama H, Sadakane A, Grant E, Cahoon E, Ozasa K, Mabuchi K (2019) Radiation risks of uterine cancer in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–2009. JNCI Cancer Spectrum 2(4):pky081

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to W. Rühm.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rühm, W., Harrison, R.M. High CT doses return to the agenda. Radiat Environ Biophys 59, 3–7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-019-00827-9

Download citation