Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 3;16(12):e75052.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.75052. eCollection 2024 Dec.

Optimizing Radiation Protection in PET/CT Examinations: Reducing Occupational Exposure During Patient Positioning

Affiliations

Optimizing Radiation Protection in PET/CT Examinations: Reducing Occupational Exposure During Patient Positioning

Keisuke Nagamoto et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the occupational radiation exposure of healthcare workers during positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examinations, focusing on patient positioning and assessing the effectiveness of different radiation protection measures. Methods Thirteen medical workers (physicians, radiological technologists, and nurses) performed PET/CT examinations on 86 patients at a major Japanese hospital from June to August 2019. Occupational doses were measured using a real-time semiconductor dosimeter: RaySafe i2 (Unfors RaySafe, Billdal, Sweden), recording the 1 cm dose equivalent (Hp(10)). Exposure during various tasks was assessed, and radiation protection measures were evaluated, including increasing the number of personnel during patient positioning, using a protective screen (3.0 mm lead equivalent; Kuraray Trading Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan), and implementing remote patient positioning via the PET/CT operator console. Results Patient positioning and discharge (task 4) resulted in the highest occupational exposure, with a median Hp(10) of 0.66 μSv per event (interquartile range (IQR): 0.54-0.71 μSv). Increasing the number of staff during task 4 did not significantly reduce occupational dose (p=0.725). Using a protective screen reduced the median Hp(10) to 0.58 μSv per event (IQR: 0.51-0.80 μSv). Remote positioning via the operator console further reduced it to 0.49 μSv per event (IQR: 0.35-0.62 μSv), achieving a significant dose-reduction (p=0.016). The dose reduction rates were 23.7% for the protective screen and 35.5% for the operator console method. Conclusions Patient positioning is the primary source of occupational radiation exposure during PET/CT examinations. Remote positioning via the operator console significantly reduces occupational exposure and working time compared to other methods, providing an effective and cost-efficient radiation protection strategy that aligns with the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle. Advances in knowledge This study demonstrates that remote patient positioning via the operator console is an effective, easily implementable radiation protection measure that enhances operational efficiency without additional costs, representing a valuable advancement in occupational safety during PET/CT examinations.

Keywords: 1 cm dose equivalent; 18f-fdg; alarp; occupational exposure; patient positioning; pet/ct; radiation protection; real-time semiconductor dosimeter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Human subjects: Consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. The Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan issued approval Protocol Number R1-054. The Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan (Protocol Number R1-054) approved this study, which was conducted in compliance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were given detailed information about the study and provided informed consent before data collection. To protect the privacy of the participants, the radiation exposure data collected during the study were anonymized and managed using a unique coding system to ensure confidentiality. The anonymized dataset was securely stored and only the principal investigator had access to the list linking individual participants to their data. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: This work was supported in part by grants from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (Grant Numbers 210501-01) and MEXT KAKENHI (Grant Number JP22K10379, and JP24K20187). Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic map of the facility
1. medication room; 2. preparation room; 3. resting room; 4, toilet; 5. corridor; 6. PET/CT room; 7. imaging console room; 8, disposal room. Task 1 - radiopharmaceutical preparation and isotope handling; task 2 - radiopharmaceutical administration; task 3 - patient care in the resting room (psychologically restlessness patients, patients who needed walking assistance (due to a risk of fall), patients who needed to be transferred to a wheelchair, etc.); and task 4 - patient positioning and discharge. Each task was performed by a radiological technologist (tasks 1 and 4), a physician (task 2), and a nurse (task 3). PET - positron emission tomography
Figure 2
Figure 2. The i2 dosimeter attachment position is shown
Hp(10) were measured using a real-time semiconductor dosimeter (RaySafe i2: Unfors RaySafe, Billdal, Sweden).The i2 dosimeter attachment position is shown.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Position of the protective screen
This figure illustrates the placement of the 3.0 mm-Pb protective screen in the PET/CT examination room. The screen is strategically positioned to minimize scattered radiation exposure to healthcare workers, particularly during prolonged procedures.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. ICRP statement on tissue reactions / early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs - threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. ICRP publication 118. Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, et al. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_41_1-2 Ann ICRP. 2012; 41:1–68. - PubMed
    1. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP ICRP. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_21_1-3 Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1–201. - PubMed
    1. Trends in radiation protection of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Alenezi A, Soliman K. Ann ICRP. 2015;44:259–275. - PubMed
    1. Radiation protection in fixed PET/CT facilities--design and operation. Peet DJ, Morton R, Hussein M, Alsafi K, Spyrou N. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:643–646. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Technologist radiation exposure in routine clinical practice with 18F-FDG PET. Guillet B, Quentin P, Waultier S, Bourrelly M, Pisano P, Mundler O. http://tech.snmjournals.org/content/jnmt/33/3/175.full.pdf J Nucl Med Tech. 2005;33:175–179. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources