Finger Radiation Doses Received By Different Nuclear Medicine Working Professions in Three PET/ CT Centers.

Abstract

In the present study, we have investigated the finger radiation doses received by nuclear medicine staff involved in dispensing, administration of 18F-FDG and interacting with radioactive patients during imaging procedures in PET/ CT facility within three different diagnostic centers. Materials and methods: Using finger ring dosimeters delivered to physicists, technicians, and nurses, the readings were collected after one month of working. Each with his own assigned job task that varies according to the center's policy. Results: Finger doses were found to be within the permissible limits. The mean prospective annual finger dose measurements, across the three centers show that the physicist group has the highest received prospective annual dose 440.01 mSv/year. The mean technician's prospective annual finger dose measurements, across the three centers, appeared to be the lowest scoring 94.83 mSv/year and nurses measured 115.8 mSv/year. Finally, there was no recorded significance for the studied categories across the three centers between their prospective annual finger dose measurements. The highest finger dose was recorded for the physicists who are likely exposed from the handling of the 18F-FDG multi-dose syringe, transferring the dose to the injection room and measuring the postinjection residual dose in the syringe. The nurse performed shorter part with readymade individual radiopharmaceutical syringe and pre-intravenous time before and during administration. Also, the technicians spent the maximal time per study; however, they have the lowest finger dose because they are not exposed directly to handle the radioactive material.

Nuclear medicine staff exposure to ionising radiation in 18F-FDG PET/CT practice: a preliminary retrospective study

“…Hp(10)/procedure and Hp(10)/A of injected 18 F-FDG established in our study are in good agreement with several other reports ( 5 , 6 , 8 , 17 ) but not with some other studies ( 7 , 15 ), probably due to different workflow between the compared centres. Hp(0.07)/procedure in our study was compared with only one study ( 18 ), and a weak agreement was found. In our opinion, this is mainly due to the different processes of dispersion and injection of the radiopharmaceutical.…”