DOCSLIB.ORG

Cumulative Exposure to Ionising Radiation from Diagnostic Imaging Tests: a 12-Year Follow-Up Population-Based Analysis in Spain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cumulative Exposure to Ionising Radiation from Diagnostic Imaging Tests: a 12-Year Follow-Up Population-Based Analysis in Spain Open access Original research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030905 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from Cumulative exposure to ionising radiation from diagnostic imaging tests: a 12-year follow-up population-based analysis in Spain Blanca Lumbreras, 1,2 Josee María Salinas,3 Isabel Gonzalez-Alvarez4 To cite: Lumbreras B, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Salinas JM, Gonzalez-Alvarez I. Objectives To calculate each patient’s cumulative Cumulative exposure to ionising radiation exposure and the recurrent tests during a 12- ► This study follows the Basic Safety Standards radiation from diagnostic year study period, according to sex and age, in routine imaging tests: a 12-year Directive adopted by the European Union in 2013 in practice. follow-up population-based order to assess the amount of effective dose that Retrospective cohort study. analysis in Spain. BMJ Open Design patients receive during their lifetime. Setting A general hospital with a catchment population of 2019;9:e030905. doi:10.1136/ ► The analysis of medical records allowed us to eval- bmjopen-2019-030905 224 751 people, in the Southeast of Spain. uate all imaging tests performed in a cohort of 224 Participants Population belonged to the catchment area Prepublication history and 751 patients in routine practice during a 12-year ► of that hospital in 2007. We collected all consecutive additional material for this study period, according to sex and age. diagnostic imaging tests undergone by this population until paper are available online. To ► The retrospective design did not allow a detailed as- view these files, please visit 31 December 2018. We excluded: imaging tests that did sessment of the longitudinal nature of the exposure. not involve radiation exposure. the journal online (http:// dx. doi. ► Instead of recording the effective dose for each indi- org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2019- Main outcome measures The cumulative effective dose vidual examination, we used the available evidence, 030905). and the recurrent imaging tests by sex and age at entry of as is proposed by the Dose DataMed project. study. ► The inclusion of a general hospital and its catchment Received 05 April 2019 Results Of the 224 751 people, 154 520 (68.8%) Revised 22 July 2019 area could have led to some limited generalisability underwent an imaging test. The population had 1 335 Accepted 26 July 2019 in other settings. 752 imaging tests during the period of study: 1 110 077 (83.0%) plain radiography; 156 848 (11.8%) CT; 63 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 157 (4.8%) fluoroscopy and 5670 (0.4%) interventional radiography. 25.4% of the patients who had a CT, In the last decades, there has been an underwent five or more CTs (5.4% in the 0–20 years age increase in utilisation of X-rays, particularly group). The median total cumulative effective dose was of CT. Although a single CT scan does not 2.10 mSv (maximum 3980.30) and 16.30 mSv (maximum present a significant risk for patients’ health, 1419.30 mSv) if we considered only doses associated each additional scan increases the potential with CT. Women received more effective dose than for cancer-inducing biological damage2 and men (median 2.38 vs median 1.90, p<0.001). A total of patients may receive multiple CT scans over © Author(s) (or their 7142 (4.6%) patients received more than 50 mSv, with 3 on September 30, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. employer(s)) 2019. Re-use differences in men and women (p<0.001) and 2.5% of the time. permitted under CC BY-NC. No patients in the 0–20 years age group, if we considered According to stochastic effect theory and commercial re-use. See rights only doses associated with CT. based on the estimated incidence of fatal and permissions. Published by cancer from the International Commission BMJ. Conclusions Nearly 5% of patients received doses higher than 50 mSv during the 12-year period of study of Radiation Protection (ICRP), as well as 1Department of Public Health, and 2.5% of the patients in the 0–20 years age group, if Miguel Hernandez University of from the Biological Effects of Ionising Radi- Elche, Alicante, Spain we considered only doses associated with CT. The rate ation Committee VII (BEIR VII), an effec- 2CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud of recurrent examinations was high, especially in older tive dose of 100 mSv results in a risk of fatal Pública, Alicante, Spain patients, but also relevant in the 0–20 years age group. 3 cancer of approximately 1 in 200 in adults, Information Technology and 1 in 100 for combined fatal and non-fatal Department, San Juan Hospital, 4 Alicante, Spain cancer. Moreover, although the BEIR VII 4Radiodiagnostic Department, INTRODUCTION report concludes that at doses lower than 100 San Juan Hospital, Alicante, The use of ionising radiation in medicine mSv, the risk of cancer is small,5 the Radiation Spain provides valuable diagnostic information Effect Research Foundation (RERF) in Japan, Correspondence to that undoubtedly benefits many patients. defends a ‘linear-no-threshold’ risk model, Dr Blanca Lumbreras; However, this radiation is also the greatest where the risk of cancer follows in a linear 1 blumbreras@ goumh. umh. es source of artificial radiation exposure. fashion at lower doses, without a threshold. Lumbreras B, et al. BMJ Open 2019;9:e030905. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030905 1 Open access BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030905 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from Smaller doses, therefore, have the potential to cause a of ionising radiation.16 According to previous literature, small increase in cancer risk.6 patients with a diagnosis of neoplasm are prone to have A recent study in France7 estimated that 0.7% of all new recurrent imaging tests.3 cancer cases in 2015 were attributable to medical ionising The purpose of this study was to quantify the number radiation. In Spain, a rate of 10.9 scans per 1000 children of all radiological investigations performed in a cohort and young adults (0–20 years) was estimated in 2013, and of patients in routine practice to calculate each patient’s a total of 168.6 cancer cases (95% CI 30.1 to 421.1) will be cumulative radiation exposure and the recurrent tests attributable to these CTs.8 during a 12-year study period, according to sex, age, Concern regarding the effects of ionising radiation focusing on children and young adults (0–20 years) from these medical tests on population health and the and imaging test. In addition, we identified the clinical estimated increased risk of cancer for the population in context of patients with potentially high cumulative radi- general, and for children and young adults in particular ation risks. (0–20 years)9 10 has led to several initiatives to reduce the use of ionising radiation. The Basic Safety Standards Directive was adopted by METHODS 11 the European Union (EU) in 2013 to be transposed Study design into national law by 6 February 2018. One key and innova- We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyse the tive surveillance mechanism in this revised directive is to individual cumulative effective dose in routine practice record the radiation dose received by each patient under- and the recurrent imaging diagnostic tests. going a medical imaging test. The directive mainly focuses on CT and tests involving interventional radiology, all of Setting which are associated with a relatively high dose of radia- The target population for the study were all residents tion. Other diagnostic tests such as conventional radiog- in the catchment area of San Juan Hospital (Alicante), raphy, however, are also frequently repeated in patients in the Valencian Community (Spain), a general centre, during their lives with a potential impact on health and with a catchment population of 234 424 people. This is a could be included in these evaluations. However, these referral hospital for all individuals living in the catchment evaluations have not still been developed in the Euro- area who belong to the National Health Care System pean countries as a systematically procedure. (NHS). The majority of the Spanish population uses the A full evaluation of the radiation exposure from all NHS as the main medical service (the publicly funded medical diagnostic tests in Europe has been previously insurance scheme covers 98.5% of the Spanish popula- carried out in the project Dose DataMed I and II.12 13 This tion) and hence, only a small percentage of patients are project, based on national surveys, includes information likely to have had imaging tests outside this setting. on 36 European countries regarding population frequen- http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ cies and radiation dose of X-ray and nuclear medicine Participants radiodiagnostic tests. Although this project has led to a We selected the population who belonged to the catch- significant advance in the evaluation of population doses, ment area of that hospital during the year 2007, and we still do not have data regarding the cumulative dose collected all consecutive diagnostic imaging tests under- in routine practice received by patients during long time gone by this population until 31 December 2018 (in any periods. Some previous studies carried out in routine care setting, inpatient, outpatient or emergency depart- practice have evaluated the cumulative effective dose by ment). Cohort members remained in the study until their 14 15 focusing on specific pathologies, population groups exit date or they left the catchment area. We assigned each on September 30, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. or the effect of recurrent CT.3 The previously mentioned person to the unexposed group from the date of entry study in France7 assessed the cumulative exposure in until the date of the first imaging test, and to the exposed adults of 30 years of age and older, using 2007 national group from the date of the first imaging test until the exit frequencies of imaging tests and adjusted for changes date.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Personal Radiation Monitoring
    Personal Radiation Monitoring Tim Finney 2020 Radiation monitoring Curtin staff and students who work with x-ray machines, neutron generators, or radioactive substances are monitored for exposure to ionising radiation. The objective of radiation monitoring is to ensure that existing safety procedures keep radiation exposure As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). Personal radiation monitoring badges Radiation exposure is measured using personal radiation monitoring badges. Badges contain a substance that registers how much radiation has been received. Here is the process by which a user’s radiation dose is measured: 1. The user is given a badge to wear 2. The user wears the badge for a set time period (usually three months) 3. At the end of the set time, the user returns the badge 4. The badge is sent away to be read 5. A dose report is issued. These steps are repeated until monitoring is no longer required. Badges are supplied by a personal radiation monitoring service provider. Curtin uses a service provider named Landauer. In addition to user badges, the service provider sends control badges that are kept on site in a safe place away from radiation sources. The service provider reads each badge using a process that extracts a signal from the substance contained in the badge to obtain a dose measurement. (Optically stimulated luminescence is one such process.) The dose received by the control badge is subtracted from the user badge reading to obtain the user dose during the monitoring period. Version 1.0 Uncontrolled document when printed Health and Safety Page 1 of 7 A personal radiation monitoring badge Important Radiation monitoring badges do not protect you from radiation exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Proper Use of Radiation Dose Metric Tracking for Patients Undergoing Medical Imaging Exams
    Proper Use of Radiation Dose Metric Tracking for Patients Undergoing Medical Imaging Exams Frequently Asked Questions Introduction In August of 2021, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the Health Physics Society (HPS) jointly released the following position statement advising against using information about a patient’s previous cumulative dose information from medical imaging exams to decide the appropriateness of future imaging exams. This statement was also endorsed by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). It is the position of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the Health Physics Society (HPS) that the decision to perform a medical imaging exam should be based on clinical grounds, including the information available from prior imaging results, and not on the dose from prior imaging-related radiation exposures. AAPM has long advised, as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), that justification of potential patient benefit and subsequent optimization of medical imaging exposures are the most appropriate actions to take to protect patients from unnecessary medical exposures. This is consistent with the foundational principles of radiation protection in medicine, namely that patient radiation dose limits are inappropriate for medical imaging exposures. Therefore, the AAPM recommends against using dose values, including effective dose, from a patient’s prior imaging exams for the purposes of medical decision making. Using quantities such as cumulative effective dose may, unintentionally or by institutional or regulatory policy, negatively impact medical decisions and patient care. This position statement applies to the use of metrics to longitudinally track a patient’s dose from medical radiation exposures and infer potential stochastic risk from them.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Radiation Dose in Patients Admitted with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: a Prospective PATIENT SAFETY Study Using a Self-Developing Film Badge
    Cumulative Radiation Dose in Patients Admitted with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Prospective PATIENT SAFETY Study Using a Self-Developing Film Badge A.C. Mamourian BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While considerable attention has been directed to reducing the x-ray H. Young dose of individual imaging studies, there is little information available on the cumulative dose during imaging-intensive hospitalizations. We used a radiation-sensitive badge on 12 patients admitted with M.F. Stiefel SAH to determine if this approach was feasible and to measure the extent of their x-ray exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining informed consent, we assigned a badge to each of 12 patients and used it for all brain imaging studies during their ICU stay. Cumulative dose was deter- mined by quantifying exposure on the badge and correlating it with the number and type of examinations. RESULTS: The average skin dose for the 3 patients who had only diagnostic DSA without endovascular intervention was 0.4 Gy (0.2–0.6 Gy). The average skin dose of the 8 patients who had both diagnostic DSA and interventions (eg, intra-arterial treatment of vasospasm and coiling of aneurysms) was 0.9 Gy (1.8–0.4 Gy). One patient had only CT examinations. There was no effort made to include or exclude the badge in the working view during interventions. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to incorporate a film badge that uses a visual scale to monitor the x-ray dose into the care of hospitalized patients. Cumulative skin doses in excess of 1 Gy were not uncommon (3/12) in this group of patients with acute SAH.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Glossary
    Radiation Glossary Activity The rate of disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The units of activity are Curie (Ci) and the Becquerel (Bq). Agreement State Any state with which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has entered into an effective agreement under subsection 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Under the agreement, the state regulates the use of by-product, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material within said state. Airborne Radioactive Material Radioactive material dispersed in the air in the form of dusts, fumes, particulates, mists, vapors, or gases. ALARA Acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable". Making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far below the dose limits as practical, consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken. It takes into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of radioactive materials and licensed materials in the public interest. Alpha Particle A positively charged particle ejected spontaneously from the nuclei of some radioactive elements. It is identical to a helium nucleus, with a mass number of 4 and a charge of +2. Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) Annual intake of a given radionuclide by "Reference Man" which would result in either a committed effective dose equivalent of 5 rems or a committed dose equivalent of 50 rems to an organ or tissue. Attenuation The process by which radiation is reduced in intensity when passing through some material.
    [Show full text]
  • ``Low Dose``And/Or``High Dose``In Radiation Protection: a Need To
    IAEA-CN-67/154 "LOW DOSE" AND/OR "HIGH DOSE" IN RADIATION PROTECTION: A NEED TO SETTING CRITERIA FOR DOSE CLASSIFICATION Mehdi Sohrabi National Radiation Protection Department & XA9745670 Center for Research on Elevated Natural Radiation Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Tehran ABSTRACT The "low dose" and/or "high dose" of ionizing radiation are common terms widely used in radiation applications, radiation protection and radiobiology, and natural radiation environment. Reading the title, the papers of this interesting and highly important conference and the related literature, one can simply raise the question; "What are the levels and/or criteria for defining a low dose or a high dose of ionizing radiation?". This is due to the fact that the criteria for these terms and for dose levels between these two extreme quantities have not yet been set, so that the terms relatively lower doses or higher doses are usually applied. Therefore, setting criteria for classification of radiation doses in the above mentioned areas seems a vital need. The author while realizing the existing problems to achieve this important task, has made efforts in this paper to justify this need and has proposed some criteria, in particular for the classification of natural radiation areas, based on a system of dose limitation. In radiation applications, a "low dose" is commonly associated to applications delivering a dose such as given to a patient in a medical diagnosis and a "high dose" is referred to a dose in applications such as radiotherapy, mutation breeding, control of sprouting, control of insects, delay ripening, and sterilization having a range of doses from 1 to 105 Gy, for which the term "high dose dosimetry" is applied [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Internal and External Exposure Exposure Routes 2.1
    Exposure Routes Internal and External Exposure Exposure Routes 2.1 External exposure Internal exposure Body surface From outer space contamination and the sun Inhalation Suspended matters Food and drink consumption From a radiation Lungs generator Radio‐ pharmaceuticals Wound Buildings Ground Radiation coming from outside the body Radiation emitted within the body Radioactive The body is equally exposed to radiation in both cases. materials "Radiation exposure" refers to the situation where the body is in the presence of radiation. There are two types of radiation exposure, "internal exposure" and "external exposure." External exposure means to receive radiation that comes from radioactive materials existing on the ground, suspended in the air, or attached to clothes or the surface of the body (p.25 of Vol. 1, "External Exposure and Skin"). Conversely, internal exposure is caused (i) when a person has a meal and takes in radioactive materials in the food or drink (ingestion); (ii) when a person breathes in radioactive materials in the air (inhalation); (iii) when radioactive materials are absorbed through the skin (percutaneous absorption); (iv) when radioactive materials enter the body from a wound (wound contamination); and (v) when radiopharmaceuticals containing radioactive materials are administered for the purpose of medical treatment. Once radioactive materials enter the body, the body will continue to be exposed to radiation until the radioactive materials are excreted in the urine or feces (biological half-life) or as the radioactivity weakens over time (p.26 of Vol. 1, "Internal Exposure"). The difference between internal exposure and external exposure lies in whether the source that emits radiation is inside or outside the body.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Safety
    Ionizing Radiation Exposure from Radiologic Imaging Background The current and common unit of measurement of “absorbed” ionizing radiation is a milliSievert (mSv). Chest, abdomen or The increased use of diagnostic imaging requiring the use of pelvis CTs will typically expose one to between 6 – 8 mSv. “ionizing radiation,” the rapidly expanding use of computed tomography in the emergency setting, the introduction Specifically, a CT coronary angiogram may carry an of multi-detector CT units and newly reported concerns overall effective radiation dose in a 20 mSv range; the related to the human consequences of low-level radiation organ equivalent dose is quite different.7 Anthromorphic exposure have revitalized a long-standing concern over the mathematical phantoms have shown that such studies quantification and management of an individual’ s cumulative will expose 20-year-old female breast tissue to an organ 1,2,3 “medical” radiation exposure. Studies have shown that equivalent dose of 75 – 80 mSv, and lung tissue as high as 90 many physicians, including radiologists, have developed a mSv. The cancer incidence for a 20-year-old in this example is misconception that the shorter imaging acquisition times believed to be in the one in 143 range…quite significant! With have resulted in lower doses of radiation, when in fact many improvements in technology and CCTA imaging protocols, times the opposite is true. The multi-detector CT units today, effective dose has been reduced significantly, to less than 10 even with shorter scan times, expose patients to higher doses mSv in many cases. of radiation per scan than earlier units.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Radiation Exposure and Your Patient
    Imaging Guideline JANUAry 2013 Cumulative Radiation Exposure and Your Patient This document, developed by Intermountain Healthcare’s Cardiovascular Clinical Program and Imaging Clinical Service, provides information on the cumulative radiation exposure reported in HELP2: the limitations of this information, why Intermountain is measuring and reporting it, tips on interpreting this information, and factors to consider when choosing an imaging procedure. Information in this document (click each item below to skip to that section): Please note that while this 1 What’s included — and not included — in your patient’s document provides evidence- cumulative radiation exposure as reported in HELP2 based information to consider in making treatment 2 Why Intermountain is measuring and reporting cumulative decisions for most patients, radiation exposure your approach should be adapted to meet the needs 3 The risks of radiation exposure of individual patients and 4 Factors to consider when choosing an imaging test situations, and should not 5 Discussing this information with your patient replace clinical judgment. 6 Estimated radiation exposures and lifetime risks from common procedures — a quick reference with resources A brief overview of this 1 WHAT’S INCLUDED IN MY PATIENT’S REPORTED topic is also available. For basic, concise information CUMULATIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE? on radiation exposure and The number reported for each patient: risk, see the brief Physician’s Guide to Radiation Exposure. • Includes four types of relatively higher-dose procedures: CT studies, angiography, nuclear cardiology, and cardiac catheterization procedures. • Begins in mid-2012: Earlier exposures are not included. • Does NOT include: Procedures performed at non-Intermountain facilities, other procedures besides the four listed above, or radiation (oncology) treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Techniques to Estimate Radiation Dose to Skin During Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures
    Skin Dose Measurements AAPM July 2002 1 of 10 α Techniques to estimate radiation dose to skin during fluoroscopically guided procedures . Stephen Balter1 Douglas W. Fletcher2, Hsin M. Kuan3, Donald Miller2,4 , Detlev Richter5, Hannes Seissl5, Thomas B. Shope, Jr.6,Ω 1. Introduction Fluoroscopically guided invasive procedures are an essential part of medicine. Until the late 1980’s, most of these were relatively low dose diagnostic procedures. Patient radiation safety issues focused on the risks of stochastic injury. Deterministic effects were rare and usually attributable to malfunctioning equipment. The substantial use of fluoroscopy to guide interventional procedures began in the eighties with the widespread adoption of balloon angioplasty. By 1990, radiation induced skin injury became a concern (American College of Radiology 1993). Initially, attention was focused on malfunctioning equipment and high dose-rate techniques. By the mid 90’s the most likely cause was seen to be long procedures conducted at ‘normal’ dose rates (Food and Drug Administration 1994 and 1995; Koenig, Mettler, and Wagner 2001; Lichtenstein et al.1996; Huda 1994). Evidence for chronic skin injury began to emerge by the end of the second millennium (Vañó et al. 2001). Dosimetric information is helpful at multiple levels. Equipment manufacturers can only build equipment within the limits of the laws of nature and available technology. The standards and regulatory systems place safety and performance baselines to assure at least minimum implementations. Fortunately, most modern interventional equipment exceeds these minimums. The physics acceptance testing and QA processes assure dose-rate limits on clinical equipment. Post-procedure tools provide valuable feedback both into the quality improvement process and in the supervision of individual patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Radiation Terms
    Glossary of Radiation Terms Activation The process of making a radioisotope by bombarding a stable element with neutrons, protons, or other types of radiation. Agreement State A state that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under which the state regulates the use of by-product, source and small quantities of special nuclear material within that state. Air sampling The collection of samples to detect the presence of, and/or to measure the quantity of volatile or solid radioactive material, non-radioactive particulate matter, or various chemical pollutants in the air. Airborne radioactivity A room, enclosure, or area in which airborne radioactive materials, area composed wholly or partly of licensed material, exist in concentrations that: (1) Exceed the derived air concentration limits, or (2) Would result in an individual present in the area without respiratory protection exceeding, during the hours the individual is present in the area, 0.6 percent of the annual limit on intake or 12 derived air concentration-hours. ALARA Acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable," means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far below the dose limits as practical, consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest. Alpha particle A positively charged particle ejected spontaneously from the nuclei of some radioactive elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Ltrhead-Clinic
    Your Annual Dosimetry Badge Summary Report What is this report? This report summarizes the total occupational radiation dose you received from your work with X-rays and radioactive materials at Cornell in the most recent calendar year. Why am I receiving it? State regulations require us to provide individuals monitored for occupational radiation dose an annual summary report of their dose. You can also check your radiation dose online at any time during the year following the instructions at the web portal. What should I do with it? Read the report and contact the Radiation Safety Group if you have questions or concerns: • [email protected] • 607-255-8200 What information is important for me to look at? Your occupational radiation dose from external sources of radiation is summarized on the right side of the form under “Doses (in rem).” The most important values for you to look at are: • Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE): external radiation dose at a tissue depth of 1 cm to the whole body • Lens (Eye) Dose Equivalent (LDE): external radiation dose to the lens of the eye at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm • Shallow Dose Equivalent (SDE,WB): radiation dose to the skin of the whole body at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm • Shallow Dose Equivalent (SDE,ME): radiation dose to the skin of an extremity at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm (arm below the elbow, leg below the knee) • Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE): dose to a specific organ or tissue that will be received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period following the intake • Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE): sum of the products of committed dose equivalents for the body organs or tissues multiplied their specific weighting factors What do my numbers mean? State and federal occupational radiation dose limits are set at levels below which there are believed to be negligible health risks to workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Reports Overview
    Reports Overview dosimetry services A Mirion Technologies Division Featuring: TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview.................................................................. 1 Report Definition..................................................... 2-3 Occupational Radiation Exposure........................ 4-5 ALARA Exposure.................................................... 6-7 ALARA Letter........................................................... 8 History Detail........................................................... 9 Annual Individual Summary (Form 5)................... 10-11 Statistical Summary................................................ 12 Total Dose............................................................... 13 Dose Management.................................................. 14-17 Preliminary Dose.................................................... 18 Dose Adjustment Confirmation............................. 19 Dose Estimate......................................................... 20-21 Annual Account Summary..................................... 22-23 Unreturned Badge.................................................. 24 Environmental Monitoring Letter.......................... 25 Environmental Monitoring..................................... 26 Report Requests..................................................... 27 OVERVIEW This Reports Overview booklet provides descriptions and samples of the reports that are available through your service with Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division. Mirion Technologies Dosimetry
    [Show full text]