Cataract Risk in a Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists Performing Nuclear Medicine Procedures

Abstract

Purpose To estimate the risk of cataract in a cohort of nuclear medicine (NM) radiologic technologists on the basis of their work histories and radiation protection practices. Materials and Methods In the years 2003-2005 and 2012-2013, 42 545 radiologic technologists from a U.S. prospective study completed questionnaires in which they provided information regarding their work histories and cataract histories. Cox proportional hazards models, stratified according to birth-year cohort (born before 1940 or born in 1940 or later) and adjusted for age, sex, and race, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of cataract in radiologic technologists according to NM work history practices according to decade. Results During the follow-up period (mean follow-up, 7½ years), 7137 incident cataracts were reported. A significantly increased risk of cataract (HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03, 1.14) was observed among workers who performed an NM procedure at least once-as opposed to never. Risks of cataract were increased in the group who had performed a diagnostic (HR, 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.12) or therapeutic (HR, 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17) NM procedure. Risks were higher for those who had first performed diagnostic NM procedures in the 1980s to early 2000s (HR, 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.58) and those who had performed therapeutic NM procedures in the 1970s (HR, 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.23) and in the 1980s to early 2000s (HR, 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.29). With the exception of a significantly increased risk associated with performing therapeutic NM procedures without shielding the radiation source in the 1980s (HR, 1.32; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67), analyses revealed no association between cataract risk and specific radiation protection technique used. Conclusion An increased risk of cataract was observed among U.S. radiologic technologists who had performed an NM procedure at least once. This association should be examined in future studies incorporating estimated lens doses. RSNA, 2017.

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study

“…Additionally, there appeared to be a positive relationship of cataract risk with occupational radiation exposure 16. An increased risk of cataract was also reported in a subset of 12 964 technologists followed between 2003–2005 and 2012–2013 who reported ever working with nuclear medicine procedures 17. However, there has been no large-scale investigation of cataract risk in a subset of radiologic technologists working with FGIP that evaluates work history, proximity to the patient, and use of personal or other protective equipment.…”

“…Eligible subjects in the population of 53 850 technologists were excluded for the following reasons: report of a physician-diagnosed cataract prior to the year of completion of the second questionnaire or missing year of cataract diagnosis (n=3632), missing FGIP work history on the fourth questionnaire (n=185), did not complete the FGIP module (n=9400), lacking detailed information on years worked with FGIP or the specific FGIP performed (n=951) or report of a very large number (>200) of FGIP per month (n=496) (figure 1). Participants were also excluded if they had a history of working with nuclear medicine procedures, which has been associated with cataract risk in this cohort (n=3435) 17. The final analytic sample in the current investigation included 35 751 radiologic technologists, of whom 6262 (18%) reported ever working with FGIP and 29 489 reported never working with FGIP (82%).…”

Digital variance angiography allows about 70% decrease of DSA-related radiation exposure in lower limb X-ray angiography

“…Conventional fluoroscopy and X-ray angiography along with diagnostic CT imaging cumulatively expose patients to an increased risk of stochastic and deterministic radiation injuries and long-term radiation-induced complications 1 , 2 . Due to everyday exposure, catheter lab and hybrid operating room staff are also exposed to both stochastic and deterministic injuries, which might lead to the development of oncological disorders 3 and cataract 4 , respectively. The demand for minimally invasive procedures is gradually increasing as the procedures are evolving and evidence-based international guidelines are broadening the indication field for the vascular, oncological and other interventional procedures, such as prostatic artery embolization 5 or transarterial chemoembolization 6 .…”

Estimation of Hp(3) Among Staff Members in Two Nuclear Medicine Units in Finland

“…According to ICRU 51 ( 9 ) , operational quantities (personal dose equivalents) can be used as surrogates for protection quantities. Therefore, in the case of the lens of the eye, H p ( 3 ) (i.e. personal dose equivalent to the lens of the eye) can be used to estimate the protection quantity equivalent dose to the lens of the eye.…”