Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures?

The effective dose (E) was created to provide a dose quantity that was related to the probability of health detriment due to stochastic effects from exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. E is derived from the weighted sum of doses to tissues that are known to be sensitive to radiation and so can only be derived by calculation. The tissue weighting factors are derived from the extrapolation of epidemiological evidence. E was intended for use in radiation protection, but has found wide application in evaluation of doses for medical exposures involving only parts of the body. More reliance is often placed on E values and risk estimates based on E than the evidence on which it is based can justify. In this paper, the uncertainties in the estimated values of E for a reference patient and the associated risk coefficients are reviewed in order to provide an indication of how much reliance can be placed on E as an indicator of risk for patients. The relative uncertainty in estimated values of E for medical exposures for a reference patient is seen to be about +/-40%. The estimated risk of cancer may be a factor of three higher or lower when applied to a reference patient, and will be more variable when applied to an individual. A set of recommendations relating to the use of E and description of risk for medical exposures is proposed.

[1]  M. Tapiovaara,et al.  Organ Dose Calculation in Medical X Ray Examinations by the Program PCXMC , 1998 .

[2]  J J Morant,et al.  Monte Carlo calculation of radiation dose in CT examinations using phantom and patient tomographic models. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[3]  Icrp.  1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , 1991 .

[4]  T. Hosoi,et al.  Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. , 2001, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  C. Muirhead,et al.  What are the risks from medical X-rays and other low dose radiation? , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[6]  H. D. Roedler,et al.  Accuracy of internal dose calculations with special consideration of radiopharmaceutical biokinetics , 1981 .

[7]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Cancer Incidence in Five Continents , 1970, Union Internationale Contre Le Cancer / International Union against Cancer.

[8]  J. Lampinen,et al.  Computing patient doses of X-ray examinations using a patient size- and sex-adjustable phantom. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  W. Jacobi.  The concept of the effective dose a proposal for the combination of organ doses , 1975, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[10]  J J DeMarco,et al.  A Monte Carlo-based method to estimate radiation dose from spiral CT: from phantom testing to patient-specific models , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  M Caon,et al.  A comparison of radiation dose measured in CT dosimetry phantoms with calculations using EGS4 and voxel-based computational models. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Erik Holmberg,et al.  Radiation Effects on Breast Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Cohorts , 2002, Radiation research.

[13]  E. Ron,et al.  Normal Organ Radiation Dosimetry and Associated Uncertainties in Nuclear Medicine, with Emphasis on Iodine-131 , 2006, Radiation research.

[14]  M. Little,et al.  Comparison of breast cancer incidence in the Massachusetts tuberculosis fluoroscopy cohort and in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. , 1999, Radiation research.

[15]  Icrp.  Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals , 1988 .

[16]  B. Wall,et al.  Estimation of effective dose in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements , 1994 .

[17]  L. Feinendegen.  Relative implications of protective responses versus damage induction at low dose and low-dose-rate exposures, using the microdose approach. , 2003, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[18]  P Fraser,et al.  Radiation dose and second cancer risk in patients treated for cancer of the cervix. , 1988, Radiation research.

[19]  J. Valentin,et al.  Contents, preface, executive summary, chapters 1 and 2 , 2005 .

[20]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[21]  E. Gilbert.  Invited commentary: studies of workers exposed to low doses of radiation. , 2001, American journal of epidemiology.

[22]  D A Pierce,et al.  Radiation-Related Cancer Risks at Low Doses among Atomic Bomb Survivors , 2000, Radiation research.

[23]  J. W. Vieira,et al.  MAX meets ADAM: a dosimetric comparison between a voxel-based and a mathematical model for external exposure to photons. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  C. Martin.  A review of factors affecting patient doses for barium enemas and meals. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[25]  C. Land,et al.  Malignant Neoplasms after Radiation Therapy for Peptic Ulcer , 2002, Radiation research.

[26]  D. Pierce.  Age-time patterns of radiogenic cancer risk: their nature and likely explanations. , 2002, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[27]  C. Proukakis,et al.  Differences in effective dose estimation from dose-area product and entrance surface dose measurements in intravenous urography. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[28]  B. Wall,et al.  Organ Doses from Medical X-Ray Examinations Calculated Using Monte Carlo Techniques , 1985 .

[29]  N Petoussi-Henss,et al.  Organ dose conversion coefficients for external photon irradiation of male and female voxel models , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[30]  E. Wilkinson.  Cancer Research UK , 2002 .

[31]  H. Kawamura,et al.  Introduction to the ICRP Publication 70, “Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection: The Skeleton” , 1996 .

[32]  R. Doll,et al.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.