Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The prevalence of women radiologists has risen in the past decade [1, 2]. However, women are grossly underrepresented in Interventional Radiology [1], and this may be partly due to fear of radiation exposure, particularly in the child bearing age. There is a lot of literature on potential health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level radiation, occupational exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women and radiation exposure of the conceptus [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. However, practical advice for women who plan a career in interventional radiology or interventional radiologists who train and counsel female residents is rare.
The basis for the control of the occupational exposure of women who are not pregnant is the same as that for men. The additive risk of developing cancer is considered to be very small [3, 10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, women in the child bearing age may have a heightened concern about the long-term genetic risks or in case of pregnancy the risks of their unborn child related to exposure of low-level radiation. This issue has been extensively discussed in the literature [4, 9, 16, 17]. For example, according to the Report 174 of the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), there is little to no evidence among the offspring for an excess of cytogenetic syndromes, single-gene disorders, malformations, stillbirths, neonatal deaths, cancer, or cytogenetic markers that would indicate an increase in heritable genetic mutations in the exposed parents [18]. At present, there is no evidence that exposures to the conceptus below 1 mSv during the whole pregnancy involve an additional risk to the unborn child [18, 19]. Based on this threshold, guidelines were established to minimize risk to patient and conceptus from diagnostic imaging [20,21,22]. These guidelines help health-care workers in managing risks for pregnant patients and counseling pregnancy-related issues.
When appropriate steps are taken to establish a safe radiation environment in Interventional Radiology (IR), the occupational exposure is very low [14, 23]. Current data show that under-apron personal dose equivalent Hp(10)Footnote 1 measurements are typically of 0.01 mSv per case for the operator; the conceptus dose is generally < 0.005 mSv per case [4]. Thus, the threshold for an increased risk to the conceptus of 1 mSv during pregnancy is not reached. Nevertheless, even if radiation dose to conceptus is lower than the limits, a strategy to reduce them to the lowest possible level has to be applied. Strategies to decrease dose to patients and staff do not differ if a potentially pregnant or pregnant IR is performing the procedure. However, the female IR should wear an apron with an equivalent of 0.5 mm Pb or higher.
Summary
-
Considering available risk evaluations, the dose limit for the conceptus of less than 1 mSv during the whole pregnancy is extremely conservative.
-
Based on currently available knowledge, this limit is not reached in clinical practice and there is no need for pregnant or potentially pregnant interventional radiologists to be excluded from work on the grounds of radiation exposure.
-
By keeping below the occupational dose limits, the risk of developing radiation-induced genetic defects in the offspring is negligible. Thus, women of child bearing age should not be discouraged from entering the field of IR.
-
With appropriate radiation protection measures in place, the risk of developing cancer for the unborn baby and the mother is not increased.
-
Robust and appropriate standardized operating procedures must be in place to prevent unintentional overexposures during fluoroscopic-guided interventions (FGI).
-
Interventional radiologists should be aware of how to minimize radiation dose and when extra protective measures may be required such as in complex procedures.
-
It is the woman’s choice, based on the above information and her general health during pregnancy, whether to continue to perform FGIs.
Notes
The human body-related protection quantities, equivalent dose in an organ/tissue and effective dose, are not measurable. To overcome these practical difficulties, the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) has introduced a set of operational quantities [24,25,26], which can be measured and which are intended to provide a reasonable estimate for the protection quantities. The operational dose quantity used to control Effective Dose is the Personal Dose Equivalent Hp (10). The personal dose equivalent is usually measured with a calibrated personal dosimeter worn on the body.
References
Brotherton SE, Etzel SI. Graduate medical education, 2013–2014. JAMA. 2014;312(22):2427–45. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12575.
Zener R, Lee SY, Visscher KL, Ricketts M, Speer S, Wiseman D. Women in radiology: exploring the gender disparity. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(3):344–50.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.10.019.
Parikh JR, Geise RA, Bluth EI, Bender CE, Sze G, Jones AK, et al. Potential radiation-related effects on radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):595–602. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17212.
Dauer LT, Miller DL, Schueler B, Silberzweig J, Balter S, Bartal G, et al. Occupational radiation protection of pregnant or potentially pregnant workers in IR: a joint guideline of the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(2):171–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2014.11.026.
Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Tzedakis A, Manios E, Vardas P, et al. Anticipation of radiation dose to the conceptus from occupational exposure of pregnant staff during fluoroscopically guided electrophysiological procedures. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005;16(7):773–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2005.40727.x.
Hall EJ. Scientific view of low-level radiation risks. Radiographics. 1991;11(3):509–18. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.11.3.1852943.
Mole RH. Irradiation of the embryo and fetus. Br J Radiol. 1987;60(709):17–31. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-60-709-17.
Lopez-Rendon X, Walgraeve MS, Woussen S, Dedulle A, Zhang G, Bosmans H, et al. Comparing different methods for estimating radiation dose to the conceptus. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(2):851–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4389-0.
Chu B, Miodownik D, Williamson MJ, Gao Y, St Germain J, Dauer LT. Radiological protection for pregnant women at a large academic medical Cancer Center. Phys Med. 2017;43:186–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.012.
Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniels RD, Gillies M, O’Hagan JA, Hamra GB, et al. Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 2015;351:h5359. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5359.
Harvey HB, Brink JA, Frush DP. Informed consent for radiation risk from CT is unjustified based on the current scientific evidence. Radiology. 2015;275(2):321–5. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142859.
Rehani MM. Radiation effects and risks: overview and a new risk perception index. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4):7–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv117.
Radiation UNSCotEoA. Biological mechanisms of radiation actions at low doses: a white paper to guide the Scientific Committee’s future programme of work. UNSCEAR White Paper. 2012.
Linet MS, Kitahara CM, Ntowe E, Kleinerman RA, Gilbert ES, Naito N, et al. Mortality in U.S. physicians likely to perform fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures compared with psychiatrists, 1979 to 2008. Radiology. 2017;284(2):482–94. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161306.
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Ntowe E, Kitahara CM, Gilbert E, Miller DL, Kleinerman RA, et al. Long-term mortality in 43 763 U.S. radiologists compared with 64 990 U.S. psychiatrists. Radiology. 2016;281(3):847–57. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152472.
Miller DL, Vano E, Bartal G, Balter S, Dixon R, Padovani R, et al. Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33(2):230–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-009-9756-7.
Ghatan CE, Fassiotto M, Jacobsen JP, Sze DY, Kothary N. Occupational radiation exposure during pregnancy: a survey of attitudes and practices among interventional radiologists. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(7):1013–20.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.03.040.
Preconception and prenatal radiation exposure: health effects and protective guidance; Report No. 174, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 2013.
ICRP. Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP Publication 84. Ann ICRP. 2000;30(1). http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%2084.
Lam DL, Larson DB, Eisenberg JD, Forman HP, Lee CI. Communicating potential radiation-induced cancer risks from medical imaging directly to patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(5):962–70. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15057.
ESR. White paper on radiation protection by the European Society of Radiology. Insights Imaging. 2011;2(4):357–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0108-1.
McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD, Braun NN, Regner DM, Brown DL, et al. Radiation exposure and pregnancy: when should we be concerned? Radiographics. 2007;27(4):909–17. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.274065149 (discussion 17-8).
Bartal G, Vano E, Paulo G, Miller DL. Management of patient and staff radiation dose in interventional radiology: current concepts. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(2):289–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0685-0.
Measurements ICRU. Report 39: determination of dose equivalents resulting from external radiation sources, part 1. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 1985. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os20.2.report39.
Burlin TE, Bengtsson G, Chilton AB, Drexler G, Harvey JR, Portal G, et al. Report 43: determination of dose equivalents from external radiation sources, Part 2. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 1988. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os22.2.Report43.
Portal G, Cross WG, Dietze G, Harvey JR, Schwartz RB. Report 47: measurements of dose equivalents from external photon and electron radiations. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 1992. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os24.2.Report47.
Acknowledgements
Open access funding provided by University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Jaschke, W., Bartal, G., Trianni, A. et al. Fighting the Gender Gap in Interventional Radiology: Facts and Fiction Relating to Radiation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41, 1254–1256 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1968-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1968-2