skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-G-IeP3-13: Real-Time Patient and Staff Dose Monitoring in Fluoroscopy Guided Interventions

Abstract

Purpose: Interventional radiology procedures involve the use of X-rays, which can pose a large radiation burden on both patients and staff. Although some reports on radiation dose are available, most studies focus on limited types of procedures and only report patient dose. In our cathlabs a dedicated real-time patient and staff monitoring system was installed in November 2015. The aim of this study was to investigate the patient and staff dose exposure for different types of interventions. Methods: Radiologists involved in fluoroscopy guided interventional radiology procedures wore personal dose meters (PDM, DoseAware, Philips) on their lead-apron that measured the personal dose equivalent Hp(10), a measure for the effective dose (E). Furthermore, reference PDMs were installed in the C-arms of the fluoroscopy system (Allura XPer, Philips). Patient dose-area-product (DAP) and PDM doses were retrieved from the monitoring system (DoseWise, Philips) for each procedure. A total of 399 procedures performed between November 2015 and February 2016 were analyzed with respect to the type of intervention. Interventions were grouped by anatomy and radiologist position. Results: The mean DAP for the different types of interventions ranged from 2.86±2.96 Gycm{sup 2} (percutaneous gastrostomy) to 147±178 Gycm{sup 2} (aortic repair procedures). The radiologist dose (E) rangedmore » from 5.39±7.38 µSv (cerebral interventions) to 84.7±106 µSv (abdominal interventions) and strongly correlated with DAP (R{sup 2}=0.83). The E normalized to DAP showed that the relative radiologist dose was higher for interventions in larger body parts (e.g. abdomen) compared to smaller body parts (e.g. head). Conclusion: Using a real-time dose monitoring system we were able to assess the staff and patient dose revealing that the relative staff dose strongly depended on the type of procedure and patient anatomy. This could be explained by the position of the radiologist with respect to the patient and X-ray tube. To facilitate this study L Vergoossen received a scholarship from Philips Medical Systems.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ; ;  [2]
  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven (Netherlands)
  2. Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht (Netherlands)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649406
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; DOSE EQUIVALENTS; FLUOROSCOPY; MONITORING; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; X-RAY TUBES

Citation Formats

Vergoossen, L, Sailer, A, Paulis, L, Wildberger, J, and Jeukens, C. SU-G-IeP3-13: Real-Time Patient and Staff Dose Monitoring in Fluoroscopy Guided Interventions. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957062.
Vergoossen, L, Sailer, A, Paulis, L, Wildberger, J, & Jeukens, C. SU-G-IeP3-13: Real-Time Patient and Staff Dose Monitoring in Fluoroscopy Guided Interventions. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957062.
Vergoossen, L, Sailer, A, Paulis, L, Wildberger, J, and Jeukens, C. 2016. "SU-G-IeP3-13: Real-Time Patient and Staff Dose Monitoring in Fluoroscopy Guided Interventions". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957062.
@article{osti_22649406,
title = {SU-G-IeP3-13: Real-Time Patient and Staff Dose Monitoring in Fluoroscopy Guided Interventions},
author = {Vergoossen, L and Sailer, A and Paulis, L and Wildberger, J and Jeukens, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Interventional radiology procedures involve the use of X-rays, which can pose a large radiation burden on both patients and staff. Although some reports on radiation dose are available, most studies focus on limited types of procedures and only report patient dose. In our cathlabs a dedicated real-time patient and staff monitoring system was installed in November 2015. The aim of this study was to investigate the patient and staff dose exposure for different types of interventions. Methods: Radiologists involved in fluoroscopy guided interventional radiology procedures wore personal dose meters (PDM, DoseAware, Philips) on their lead-apron that measured the personal dose equivalent Hp(10), a measure for the effective dose (E). Furthermore, reference PDMs were installed in the C-arms of the fluoroscopy system (Allura XPer, Philips). Patient dose-area-product (DAP) and PDM doses were retrieved from the monitoring system (DoseWise, Philips) for each procedure. A total of 399 procedures performed between November 2015 and February 2016 were analyzed with respect to the type of intervention. Interventions were grouped by anatomy and radiologist position. Results: The mean DAP for the different types of interventions ranged from 2.86±2.96 Gycm{sup 2} (percutaneous gastrostomy) to 147±178 Gycm{sup 2} (aortic repair procedures). The radiologist dose (E) ranged from 5.39±7.38 µSv (cerebral interventions) to 84.7±106 µSv (abdominal interventions) and strongly correlated with DAP (R{sup 2}=0.83). The E normalized to DAP showed that the relative radiologist dose was higher for interventions in larger body parts (e.g. abdomen) compared to smaller body parts (e.g. head). Conclusion: Using a real-time dose monitoring system we were able to assess the staff and patient dose revealing that the relative staff dose strongly depended on the type of procedure and patient anatomy. This could be explained by the position of the radiologist with respect to the patient and X-ray tube. To facilitate this study L Vergoossen received a scholarship from Philips Medical Systems.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957062},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To investigate the benefits and limitations of patient-phantom matching for determining organ dose during fluoroscopy guided interventions. Methods: In this study, 27 CT datasets representing patients of different sizes and genders were contoured and converted into patient-specific computational models. Each model was matched, based on height and weight, to computational phantoms selected from the UF hybrid patient-dependent series. In order to investigate the influence of phantom type on patient organ dose, Monte Carlo methods were used to simulate two cardiac projections (PA/left lateral) and two abdominal projections (RAO/LPO). Organ dose conversion coefficients were then calculated for each patient-specific andmore » patient-dependent phantom and also for a reference stylized and reference hybrid phantom. The coefficients were subsequently analyzed for any correlation between patient-specificity and the accuracy of the dose estimate. Accuracy was quantified by calculating an absolute percent difference using the patient-specific dose conversion coefficients as the reference. Results: Patient-phantom matching was shown most beneficial for estimating the dose to heavy patients. In these cases, the improvement over using a reference stylized phantom ranged from approximately 50% to 120% for abdominal projections and for a reference hybrid phantom from 20% to 60% for all projections. For lighter individuals, patient-phantom matching was clearly superior to using a reference stylized phantom, but not significantly better than using a reference hybrid phantom for certain fields and projections. Conclusions: The results indicate two sources of error when patients are matched with phantoms: Anatomical error, which is inherent due to differences in organ size and location, and error attributed to differences in the total soft tissue attenuation. For small patients, differences in soft tissue attenuation are minimal and are exceeded by inherent anatomical differences. For large patients, difference in soft tissue attenuation can be large. In these cases, patient-phantom matching proves most effective as differences in soft tissue attenuation are mitigated. With increasing obesity rates, overweight patients will continue to make up a growing fraction of all patients undergoing medical imaging. Thus, having phantoms that better represent this population represents a considerable improvement over previous methods. In response to this study, additional phantoms representing heavier weight percentiles will be added to the UFHADM and UFHADF patient-dependent series.« less
  • PurposeKnowledge of medical radiation exposure permits application of radiation protection principles. In our center, the first dedicated real-time, automated patient and staff dose monitoring system (DoseWise Portal, Philips Healthcare) was installed. Aim of this study was to obtain insight in the procedural and occupational doses.Materials and MethodsAll interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and technicians wore personal dose meters (PDMs, DoseAware, Philips Healthcare). The dose monitoring system simultaneously registered for each procedure dose-related data as the dose area product (DAP) and effective staff dose (E) from PDMs. Use and type of shielding were recorded separately. All procedures were analyzed according to proceduremore » type; these included among others cerebral interventions (n = 112), iliac and/or caval venous recanalization procedures (n = 68), endovascular aortic repair procedures (n = 63), biliary duct interventions (n = 58), and percutaneous gastrostomy procedure (n = 28).ResultsMedian (±IQR) DAP doses ranged from 2.0 (0.8–3.1) (percutaneous gastrostomy) to 84 (53–147) Gy cm{sup 2} (aortic repair procedures). Median (±IQR) first operator doses ranged from 1.6 (1.1–5.0) μSv to 33.4 (12.1–125.0) for these procedures, respectively. The relative exposure, determined as first operator dose normalized to procedural DAP, ranged from 1.9 in biliary interventions to 0.1 μSv/Gy cm{sup 2} in cerebral interventions, indicating large variation in staff dose per unit DAP among the procedure types.ConclusionReal-time dose monitoring was able to identify the types of interventions with either an absolute or relatively high staff dose, and may allow for specific optimization of radiation protection.« less
  • Purpose: Fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGI) are routinely performed across many different hospital departments. However, many involved staff members have minimal training regarding safe and optimal use of fluoroscopy systems. We developed and taught a hands-on fluoroscopy safety class incorporating real-time patient and staff dosimetry in order to promote safer and more optimal use of fluoroscopy during FGI. Methods: The hands-on fluoroscopy safety class is taught in an FGI suite, unique to each department. A patient equivalent phantom is set on the patient table with an ion chamber positioned at the x-ray beam entrance to the phantom. This provides a surrogatemore » measure of patient entrance dose. Multiple solid state dosimeters (RaySafe i2 dosimetry systemTM) are deployed at different distances from the phantom (0.1, 1, 3 meters), which provide surrogate measures of staff dose. Instructors direct participating clinical staff to operate the fluoroscopy system as they view live fluoroscopic images, patient entrance dose, and staff doses in real-time. During class, instructors work with clinical staff to investigate how patient entrance dose, staff doses, and image quality are affected by different parameters, including pulse rate, magnification, collimation, beam angulation, imaging mode, system geometry, distance, and shielding. Results: Real-time dose visualization enables clinical staff to directly see and learn how to optimize their use of their own fluoroscopy system to minimize patient and staff dose, yet maintain sufficient image quality for FGI. As a direct result of the class, multiple hospital departments have implemented changes to their imaging protocols, including reduction of the default fluoroscopy pulse rate and increased use of collimation and lower dose fluoroscopy modes. Conclusion: Hands-on fluoroscopy safety training substantially benefits from real-time patient and staff dosimetry incorporated into the class. Real-time dose display helps clinical staff visualize, internalize, and ultimately utilize the safety techniques learned during the training. RaySafe/Unfors/Fluke lent us a portable version of their RaySafe i2 Dosimetry System for 6 months.« less
  • Computed tomography fluoroscopy (CT fluoroscopy) enables real-time image control over the entire body with high geometric accuracy and, for the most part, without significant interfering artifacts, resulting in increased target accuracy, reduced intervention times, and improved biopsy specimens [1-4]. Depending on the procedure being used, higher radiation doses than in conventional CT-supported interventions might occur. Because the radiologist is present in the CT room during the intervention, he is exposed to additional radiation, which is an important aspect. Initial experience with CT fluoroscopically guided interventions is from the work of Katada et al. in 1994 [5] and only relatively fewmore » reports on radiation aspects in CT fluoroscopy are found in the literature [1, 2, 6-11]. To date, there are no reported injuries to patients and radiologists occurring with CT fluoroscopy. The time interval since the wide use of CT fluoroscopy is too short to have data on late effects to the operator using CT fluoroscopy on a daily basis. In addition, the spectrum of CT fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures will expand and more sophisticated procedures requiring longer fluoroscopy times will be performed. Thus, effective exposure reduction is very important. The purpose of our study was to assess the radiation dose to the operator's hand by using data from phantom measurements. In addition, we investigated the effect of a lead drape on the phantom surface adjacent to the scanning plane, the use of thin radiation protective gloves, and the use of different needle holders.« less
  • The current clinical standard of organ respiratory imaging, 4D-CT, is fundamentally limited by poor soft-tissue contrast and imaging dose. These limitations are potential barriers to beneficial “4D” radiotherapy methods which optimize the target and OAR dose-volume considering breathing motion but rely on a robust motion characterization. Conversely, MRI imparts no known radiation risk and has excellent soft-tissue contrast. MRI-based motion management is therefore highly desirable and holds great promise to improve radiotherapy of moving cancers, particularly in the abdomen. Over the past decade, MRI techniques have improved significantly, making MR-based motion management clinically feasible. For example, cine MRI has highmore » temporal resolution up to 10 f/s and has been used to track and/or characterize tumor motion, study correlation between external and internal motions. New MR technologies, such as 4D-MRI and MRI hybrid treatment machines (i.e. MR-linac or MR-Co60), have been recently developed. These technologies can lead to more accurate target volume determination and more precise radiation dose delivery via direct tumor gating or tracking. Despite all these promises, great challenges exist and the achievable clinical benefit of MRI-based tumor motion management has yet to be fully explored, much less realized. In this proposal, we will review novel MR-based motion management methods and technologies, the state-of-the-art concerning MRI development and clinical application and the barriers to more widespread adoption. Learning Objectives: Discuss the need of MR-based motion management for improving patient care in radiotherapy. Understand MR techniques for motion imaging and tumor motion characterization. Understand the current state of the art and future steps for clinical integration. Henry Ford Health System holds research agreements with Philips Healthcare. Research sponsored in part by a Henry Ford Health System Internal Mentored Grant.« less