Search

Abstract Background While diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are well-established for the radiopharmaceutical part, published DRLs for the CT component of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) are limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the different objectives of CT in hybrid imaging and summarizes reported CT dose values for the most common PET/CT and SPECT/CT examinations. Also, an overview of already proposed national DRLs is given. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles reporting CT dose index volume (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and/or national DRLs for the most frequently performed PET/CT and/or SPECT/CT examinations. Data were grouped according to the clinical objective: diagnostic (D-CT), anatomical localisation (AL-CT) or attenuation correction (AC-CT) CT. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Results Twenty-seven articles were identified of which twelve reported national DRLs. For brain and tumour PET/CT imaging, CTDIvol and DLP values were higher for a D-CT (brain: 26.7 mGy, 483 mGy cm; tumour: 8.8 mGy, 697 mGy cm) than for an AC/AL-CT (brain: 11.3 mGy, 216 mGy cm; tumour: 4.3 mGy, 419 mGy cm). Similar conclusions were found for bone and parathyroid SPECT/CT studies: D-CT (bone: 6.5 mGy, 339 mGy cm; parathyroid: 15.1 mGy, 347 mGy cm) results in higher doses than AL-CT (bone: 3.8 mGy, 156 mGy cm; parathyroid: 4.9 mGy, 166 mGy cm). For cardiac (AC-CT), mIBG/octreotide, thyroid and post-thyroid ablation (AC/AL-CT) SPECT/CT pooled mean CTDIvol (DLP) values were 1.8 mGy (33 mGy cm), 4.6 mGy (208 mGy cm), 3.1 mGy (105 mGy cm) and 4.6 mGy (145 mGy cm), respectively. For all examinations, high variability in nuclear medicine practice was observed. Conclusion The large variation in CT dose values and national DRLs highlights the need for optimisation in hybrid imaging and justifies the clinical implementation for nuclear medicine specific DRLs.

Key points 1. European health professionals reveal different RP E&T experiences. 2. Around 12% of the respondents report the absence of undergraduate RP topics. 3. The radiation protection problems perception varies across Europe. 4. The results revealed a heterogeneity of compliance with the EU recommendations.

Key points 1. PRPE are susceptible to hidden integrity defects. 2. Regular quality control is needed to ensure adequate radiation protection. 3. New and repaired pieces are not guaranteed to remain free of tears.

Abstract Background A Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis was performed to understand the status quo of education and training in radiation protection (RP) and to develop a coordinated European approach to RP training needs based on stakeholder consensus and existing activities in the field. Fourteen team members represented six European professional societies, one European voluntary organisation, two international healthcare organisations and five professions, namely: Medical Physicists; Nuclear Medicine Physicians; Radiologists; Radiation Oncologists and Radiographers. Four subgroups analysed the “Strengths”, “Weaknesses”, “Opportunities” and “Threats” related to E&T in RP developed under previous European Union (EU) programmes and on the Guidelines on Radiation Protection Education and Training of Medical Professionals in the EU. Results Consensus agreement identified four themes for strengths and opportunities, namely: (1) existing structures and training recommendations; (2) RP training needs assessment and education & training (E&T) model(s) development; (3) E&T dissemination, harmonisation, and accreditation; (4) financial supports. Weaknesses and Threats analysis identified two themes: (1) awareness and prioritisation at a national/global level and (2) awareness and prioritisation by healthcare professional groups and researchers. Conclusions A lack of effective implementation of RP principles in daily practice was identified. EuRnR strategic planning needs to consider processes at European, national and local levels. Success is dependent upon efficient governance structures and expert leadership. Financial support is required to allow the stakeholder professional agencies to have sufficient resources to achieve a pan European radiation protection training network which is sustainable and accredited across multiple national domains.

Abstract Background The European directive on basic safety standards (Council directive 2013/59 Euratom) mandates dosimetry-based treatment planning for radiopharmaceutical therapies. The directive comes into operation February 2018, and the aim of a report produced by the Internal Dosimetry Task Force of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine is to address this aspect of the directive. A summary of the report is presented. Results A brief review of five of the most common therapy procedures is included in the current text, focused on the potential to perform patient-specific dosimetry. In the full report, 11 different therapeutic procedures are included, allowing additional considerations of effectiveness, references to specific literature on quantitative imaging and dosimetry, and existing evidence for absorbed dose-effect correlations for each treatment. Individualized treatment planning with tracer diagnostics and verification of the absorbed doses delivered following therapy is found to be scientifically feasible for almost all procedures investigated, using quantitative imaging and/or external monitoring. Translation of this directive into clinical practice will have significant implications for resource requirements. Conclusions Molecular radiotherapy is undergoing a significant expansion, and the groundwork for dosimetry-based treatment planning is already in place. The mandated individualization is likely to improve the effectiveness of the treatments, although must be adequately resourced.