Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET/CT-guided Interventions: Personnel Radiation Dose

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To quantify radiation exposure to the primary operator and staff during PET/CT-guided interventional procedures.

Methods

In this prospective study, 12 patients underwent PET/CT-guided interventions over a 6 month period. Radiation exposure was measured for the primary operator, the radiology technologist, and the nurse anesthetist by means of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters. Radiation exposure was correlated with the procedure time and the use of in-room image guidance (CT fluoroscopy or ultrasound).

Results

The median effective dose was 0.02 (range 0–0.13) mSv for the primary operator, 0.01 (range 0–0.05) mSv for the nurse anesthetist, and 0.02 (range 0–0.05) mSv for the radiology technologist. The median extremity dose equivalent for the operator was 0.05 (range 0–0.62) mSv. Radiation exposure correlated with procedure duration and with the use of in-room image guidance. The median operator effective dose for the procedure was 0.015 mSv when conventional biopsy mode CT was used, compared to 0.06 mSv for in-room image guidance, although this did not achieve statistical significance as a result of the small sample size (p = 0.06).

Conclusion

The operator dose from PET/CT-guided procedures is not significantly different than typical doses from fluoroscopically guided procedures. The major determinant of radiation exposure to the operator from PET/CT-guided interventional procedures is time spent in close proximity to the patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferrucci JT Jr, Wittenberg J (1978) CT biopsy of abdominal tumors: aids for lesion localization. Radiology 129:739–744

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rasmussen SN, Holm HH, Kristensen JK et al (1972) Ultrasonically-guided liver biopsy. Br Med J 2:500–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM et al (1994) Hepatic CT enhancement: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents in the same patients. Radiology 190:721–725

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Burns PN, Wilson SR (2007) Focal liver masses: enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced images—concordance of US scans with CT scans and MR images. Radiology 242:162–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sato M, Watanabe Y, Tokui K et al (2000) CT-guided treatment of ultrasonically invisible hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 95:2102–2106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schoellnast H, Larson SM, Nehmeh SA et al (2011) Radiofrequency ablation of non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung under real-time FDG PET CT guidance. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 34(suppl 2):S182–S185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tatli S, Gerbaudo V, Feeley C et al (2011) PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy of abdominal masses: initial experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:507–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Valentin J (1998) Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (addendum 2 to ICRP publication 53). Ann ICRP 28:1–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huang B, Law MWM, Khong PL (2009) Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 251:166–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2011) Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Medical Procedures. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ahmed S, Zimmer A, McDonald N et al (2007) The effectiveness of lead aprons in reducing radiation exposures from specific radionuclides. J Nucl Med Meeting Abstr 48:470

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krücker J, Xu S, Venkatesan A et al (2011) Clinical utility of real-time fusion guidance for biopsy and ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:515–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Venkatesan AM, Kadoury S, Abi-Jaoudeh N et al (2011) Real-time FDG PET guidance during biopsies and radiofrequency ablation using multimodality fusion with electromagnetic navigation. Radiology 260:848–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Khandani AH, Calvo BF, O’Neil BH et al (2007) A pilot study of early 18F-FDG PET to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation of liver metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1199–1202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000) Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR (2000) Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. United Nations, New York

  16. Panuccio G, Greenberg RK, Wunderle K et al (2011) Comparison of indirect radiation dose estimates with directly measured radiation dose for patients and operators during complex endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg 53:885–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paulson EK, Sheafor DH, Enterline DS et al (2001) CT fluoroscopy—guided interventional procedures: techniques and radiation dose to radiologists. Radiology 220:161–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Moran JK, Lee HB, Blaufox MD (1999) Optimization of urinary FDG excretion during PET imaging. J Nucl Med 40:1352–1357

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Madsen MT, Anderson JA, Halama JR et al; AAPM Task Group 108 (2006) PET and PET/CT shielding requirements. Med Phys 33:4–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, Suite H118, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    E. Ronan Ryan, Raymond Thornton, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Joseph P. Erinjeri & Stephen B. Solomon

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Meier Hsu

  3. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Brian Quinn & Lawrence T. Dauer

Authors
  1. E. Ronan Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Thornton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constantinos T. Sofocleous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph P. Erinjeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meier Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brian Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lawrence T. Dauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stephen B. Solomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Ronan Ryan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ryan, E.R., Thornton, R., Sofocleous, C.T. et al. PET/CT-guided Interventions: Personnel Radiation Dose. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36, 1063–1067 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0515-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0515-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation