Biological and physical methods for risk estimation in interventional radiology: A detrimental effect approach

Interventional radiologists and staff members are frequently exposed to the effects of direct and scattered radiation, which undergo in deterministic effects (radiodermitis, aged skin, cataracts, telangiectasia in nasal region, vasocellular epitelioms, hands depilation) and/or stochastic ones (cancer incidence). A methodology has been proposed for estimating the radiation risk or detriment from a group of six exposed interventional radiologists of the Hospital Universitario La Fe (Valencia, Spain), which had developed general exposition symptoms attributable to deterministic effects of ionizing radiation. Equivalent doses have been periodically registered using termoluminiscence dosimeters (TLD's) and wrist dosimeters, Hp(10) and Hp(0.07), respectively, and estimated through the observation of translocations in lymphocytes of peripheral blood (biological methods), by extrapolating the yield of translocations to their respective dose-effect curves. The software RADRISK has been applied for estimating radiation risks in these occupational radiation exposures. The minimum and maximum average excess ratio for skin cancer has been, using wrist physical doses, of [1.03 × 10−3, 5.06 × 10−2], concluding that there is not an increased risk of skin cancer incidence. The minimum and maximum average excess ratio for leukemia has been, using TLD physical doses, of [7.84 × 10−2, 3.36 × 10−1], and using biological doses, of [1.40 × 10−1, 1.51], which is considerably higher than incidence rates, showing an excess radio-induced risk of leukemia in the group under study. Finally, the maximum radiological detriment in the group, evaluated as the total number of radio-induced cancers using physical dosimetry, has been of 2.18 per 1000 person-year (skin and leukemia), and using biological dosimetry of 9.20 per 1000 PY (leukemia). As a conclusion, this study has provided an assessment of the non-deterministic effects (rate of radio-induced cancer incidence) attributable to the group under study due to their professional activity.

[1]  D. Lloyd,et al.  Accidental intake of tritiated water: a cytogenetic follow-up case on translocation stability and dose reconstruction. , 1998, International journal of radiation biology.

[2]  E. Paulson,et al.  CT fluoroscopy--guided interventional procedures: techniques and radiation dose to radiologists. , 2001, Radiology.

[3]  J F Barquinero,et al.  Comparison of X-ray dose-response curves obtained by chromosome painting using conventional and PAINT nomenclatures. , 1999, International journal of radiation biology.

[4]  K Faulkner,et al.  Relevant training issues for introduction of digital radiology: results of a survey. , 2005, Radiation Protection Dosimetry.

[5]  E Vano,et al.  Correlation of patient and staff doses in interventional cardiology. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[6]  G Verdú,et al.  Modelling of the mammographic exposure conditions for radiological detriment study in the Valencian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[7]  M. Sluzewski,et al.  Patient and occupational dose in neurointerventional procedures , 2002, Neuroradiology.

[8]  R. Padovani,et al.  Staff dosimetry in interventional cardiology. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[9]  L Roy,et al.  Review of translocations detected by FISH for retrospective biological dosimetry applications. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[10]  Stefano Bonassi,et al.  Biomarkers in molecular epidemiology studies for health risk prediction. , 2002, Mutation research.

[11]  G Verdú,et al.  Use of risk projection models to estimate mortality and incidence from radiation-induced breast cancer in screening programs , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  A M Kellerer,et al.  On the conversion of solid cancer excess relative risk into lifetime attributable risk , 2001, Radiation and environmental biophysics.