Search

Objectives: To assess women surgeons' awareness of radiation protection protocols, cumulative dose, safety measures, radiation exposure, and breast cancer risk in India. Methods: The data were acquired through a survey monkey questionnaire circulated to women orthopaedic surgeons across the country through the WOICE group, e-mails and phone. The questionnaire assessed the respondents' awareness of radiation protection measures and level of exposure. Medical history on breast cancer during their professional life, time of diagnosis, and radiation exposure were collected. Data were analysed and expressed as percentages. Results: Fifty-one women orthopaedic surgeons responded. These were sub-grouped into early and late-career group based on whether they had worked in orthopaedics for less than 10 years (n = 33) or 10 or more years (n = 18). The mean number of years of practice of the respondents was 8.1 years, and for the group with 10 or more years was 18.7 years. 90.2% reported compliance to the lead shield, while 9.8% (n = 5) were non-compliant because of the shield's weight. Of the included respondents, 88.8% are currently working. Among all the respondents, only 13.7% (n = 7) use a radiation dosimeter. Not surprisingly, 88.2% (n = 45) of all respondents were unaware of the total radiation exposure received. Two surgeons in the more than 10-year practice category reported a history of breast carcinoma. Conclusions: This preliminary report suggested a need for more awareness of radiation protection measures among women orthopaedic surgeons. Hence, along with the practice of wearing a lead gown, use of lightweight shield, awareness on exposure measure and use of radiation dosimeter should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of the present study is to propose a set of regional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric intraoral (IO) radiography procedures classified by IO examinations in Tamil Nadu, India. Of the 120 total units, 60 were digital and the remaining 60 units used film as image receptors. The third quartile values obtained for the selected IO examinations ranged from 1.05 mGy for the mandibular incisors to 1.48 mGy for the maxillary molars. The DRLs of the present study compare well with other International published DRLs. Following this primary study, DRLs will be proposed for other regions of the country, to arrive at national DRLs for pediatric IO dentistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because of the excellent ability of α-particles to transfer a high amount of energy over a short tissue range, targeted α-therapy has been attracting rising numbers of nuclear medicine centers. In this study, we estimated the radiation exposure to the occupational workers with pocket dosimeters during handling of the α-emitter 213Bi, used for targeted α-therapy of neuroendocrine tumor and castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The dose rates from patients at different distances and time points after injection of the therapy were also evaluated. Methods: This prospective study was done in the Department of Nuclear Medicine at Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, India. Twelve patients with neuroendocrine tumors or castration-resistant prostate cancer were enrolled to receive 213Bi-DOTATOC or 213Bi-prostate-specific membrane antigen therapy, respectively. Each patient received 2-3 intravenous injections of 213Bi-peptide, 266-362 MBq (7.2-9.8 mCi) in a single cycle over 2-3 d. The radiation exposure to nuclear medicine personnel at the chest and extremity levels was assessed for tasks such as elution, dispensing, injecting, and collecting blood samples. Radiation levels were measured at distances of 1 cm and 1 m from patients immediately after, and at 1, 2, and 4 h after, the administration of 213Bi-peptide. Results: The external dose incurred at the chest level by radiopharmacists during synthesis, by physicians during injection, by technologists during imaging, and by nurses during sample collection was 2-7 μSv/procedure. The extremity dose was 1-14 μSv/procedure. The dose rate at 1 m from patients immediately after 213Bi-radiopharmaceutical injection was 0.02-0.03 μSv/MBq⋅h. Conclusion: The external radiation doses received by occupational workers involved in various procedures were far below the limit prescribed by the regulatory authority (20 mSv/y). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to understand how the regulatory requirements for functioning radiotherapy practices in India to control risk were conceptualised, perceived and applied accordingly in the radiotherapy facilities. It further examined how the social factors influenced the decision-making process for implementing regulatory requirements in the radiotherapy facilities. Material and method: This study was carried out in nine radiotherapy facilities located in the northeastern Indian states of Manipur, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The study adopted both the semi-structured and in-depth questionnaire, developed on the basis of multidisciplinary fields. Result: The study found that the facilities in the northeastern regions were commissioned in line with the regulatory requirements. The facilities had adequate structural shielding rooms to protect workers, patients and the public from the risk of ionising radiation. However, in the operational phase of the facilities, majority of the facilities had the improper management of existing resources and non-implementation of regulatory requirements on time. It was observed that workers in some facilities continued the practice, despite the failure of specific safety functions, or not meeting regulatory requirements. Such practices led to the suspension of patient treatment in three of the facilities by the regulator. The existence of a varying nature of risk perceptions among oncologists, medical physicists, radiological safety officers, radiotherapy technologists in the facilities were observed and these influenced the decision-making process of the facilities on the implementation of regulatory requirements. Conclusion: The study found that the facilities needed to explore various means, including to narrow the gap that existed in respects of perceived risk (within the facilities), communication to enhance work coordination and mutual trust among workers. The adoption of the institutional policy for conducting an internal audit of working practices, encouragement of workers to participate in continuing education programs would enhance effective utilisation of already existing infrastructure/equipment and work procedures including quality assurance programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positron emission tomography (PET) has been in use for a few decades but with its fusion with computed tomography (CT) in 2001, the new PET/CT integrated system has become very popular and is now a key influential modality for patient management in oncology. However, along with its growing popularity, a growing concern of radiation safety among the radiation professionals has become evident. We have judiciously developed a PET/CT facility with optimal shielding, along with an efficient workflow to perform high volume procedures and minimize the radiation exposure to the staff and the general public by reducing unnecessary patient proximity to the staff and general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is the national authority for ensuring that the use of ionizing radiation and nuclear energy does not cause any undue risk to the health of workers, members of the public and to the environment. AERB is responsible for the stipulation and enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to nuclear and radiological safety. This paper describes the regulatory process followed by AERB for ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants (NPPs) during their construction as well as operation. This regulatory process has been continuously evolving to cater to the new developments in reactor technology. Some of the recent initiatives taken by AERB in this direction are briefly described. Today, AERB faces new challenges like simultaneous review of a large number of new projects of diverse designs, a fast growing nuclear power program and functioning of operating plants in a competitive environment. This paper delineates how AERB is gearing up to meet these challenges in an effective manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical cyclotron is a particle accelerator used in producing short lived radiotracers such as 18F, 11C, 15O, 13N etc. These radiotracers are labeled with suitable pharmaceuticals for use to gather information related to metabolic activity of the cell using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan. Target foil rupture is considered one of the major emergency situations during medical cyclotron operations because there is a potential of over exposure to the working personnel. Radiation protection survey of a self-shielded medical cyclotron installation was carried out during normal and emergency conditions. It is found that the induced activity in the target foil increases with its successive usages. As a case study, we have evaluated the emergency handling procedures of GE PETtrace-6 medical cyclotron. Recommendations have also been made to reduce personal exposure while handling the target foil rupture condition such as the use of L-Bench near the target area and participation of experienced personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because of the excellent ability of α-particles to transfer a high amount of energy over a short tissue range, targeted α-therapy has been attracting rising numbers of nuclear medicine centers. In this study, we estimated the radiation exposure to the occupational workers with pocket dosimeters during handling of the α-emitter 213 Bi, used for targeted α-therapy of neuroendocrine tumor and castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The dose rates from patients at different distances and time points after injection of the therapy were also evaluated. Methods: This prospective study was done in the Department of Nuclear Medicine at Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, India. Twelve patients with neuroendocrine tumors or castration-resistant prostate cancer were enrolled to receive 213 Bi-DOTATOC or 213 Bi-prostate-specific membrane antigen therapy, respectively. Each patient received 2-3 intravenous injections of 213 Bi-peptide, 266-362 MBq (7.2-9.8 mCi) in a single cycle over 2-3 d. The radiation exposure to nuclear medicine personnel at the chest and extremity levels was assessed for tasks such as elution, dispensing, injecting, and collecting blood samples. Radiation levels were measured at distances of 1 cm and 1 m from patients immediately after, and at 1, 2, and 4 h after, the administration of 213 Bi-peptide. Results: The external dose incurred at the chest level by radiopharmacists during synthesis, by physicians during injection, by technologists during imaging, and by nurses during sample collection was 2-7 μSv/procedure. The extremity dose was 1-14 μSv/procedure. The dose rate at 1 m from patients immediately after 213 Bi-radiopharmaceutical injection was 0.02-0.03 μSv/MBq⋅h. Conclusion: The external radiation doses received by occupational workers involved in various procedures were far below the limit prescribed by the regulatory authority (20 mSv/y)., (© 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

The purpose of this research was to measure the radiation level and estimate the dosage at the control panel (CP) and outside the patient entrance door (PED) of diagnostic X-ray installations. This is important for ensuring the safety of workers and the public, particularly in the study area, where there is no proper radiation monitoring service. A water phantom, 10-L fresh water in a plastic container, was used as the source of scattered radiation. Using an ion-chamber survey meter, the stray radiation rate was measured at the CP and outside the PED for both chest and couch missions. The CPs were fully covered by a protective barrier, providing a negligible exposure rate (i.e., 0.07-4.2 mR/h for chest and 0.21-3.8 mR/h for couch). By contrast, installations that did not properly cover the CP showed relatively high exposures (from 18 to 205 mR/h for chest and 2.4-270 mR/h for couch). The radiation rates outside the PED in installations having lead-lined doors were negligibly low; whereas, in installations having no lead-lining, exposure rates reached as high as 95 and 110 mR/h for chest and couch missions, respectively. The occupational doses were well below the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board dose limit (i.e., 40 mR/week). However, excessive doses were observed in public spaces outside the PED, compared with the dose limit for the public (i.e., 2 mR/week).