Evaluation of physician eye lens doses during permanent seed implant brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Abstract

Treatment of low grade prostate cancer with permanent implant of radioactive seeds has become one of the most common brachytherapy procedures in use today. The implant procedure is usually performed with fluoroscopy image guidance to ensure that the seeds are deployed in the planned locations. In this situation the physician performing the transperineal implant is required to be close to the fluoroscopy unit and dose to the eye lens may be of concern. In 1991 the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) provided a recommended dose limit of 150 mSv yr(-1) for occupational exposures to the lens of the eye. With more long term follow-up data, this limit was revised in 2011 to 20 mSv yr(-1). With this revised limit in mind, we have investigated the dose to the lens of the eye received by physicians during prostate brachytherapy seed implantation. By making an approximation of annual workload, we have related the dose received to the annual background dose. Through clinical and phantom measurements with thermoluminescent dosimeters, it was found that the excess dose to the physician's eye lens received for a conservative estimate of annual workload was never greater than 100% of the annual background dose.

Original paper A novel perineal shield for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy

“…In contrast, less data is available about radiation exposure to personnel performing the implant [ 17 ]. When such information is discussed in the literature, it is usually limited and involves one site of interest, such as the eye or hand [ 18 , 19 ]. Despite this, even fewer articles discuss techniques or materials that can help reduce exposure to the medical staff performing the implant.…”

A Novel Perineal Shield for Low-Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy

“…When such information is discussed in the literature, it is usually limited and involves one site of interest, such as the eye or hand [18,19]. Despite this, even fewer articles discuss techniques or materials that can help reduce exposure to the medical staff performing the implant.…”