Cargando…

Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) simulations using a Stereotactic Body Frame (SBF: Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) were expanded to include (18)F‐deoxyglucosone positron‐emission tomography (FDG PET) for treatment planning. Because of the length of time that staff members are in close proximity...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kearns, William T., Urbanic, James J., Hampton, Carnell J., McMullen, Kevin P., Blackstock, A. William, Stieber, Volker W., Hinson, William H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18716587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v9i3.2763
_version_ 1783284980053442560
author Kearns, William T.
Urbanic, James J.
Hampton, Carnell J.
McMullen, Kevin P.
Blackstock, A. William
Stieber, Volker W.
Hinson, William H.
author_facet Kearns, William T.
Urbanic, James J.
Hampton, Carnell J.
McMullen, Kevin P.
Blackstock, A. William
Stieber, Volker W.
Hinson, William H.
author_sort Kearns, William T.
collection PubMed
description Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) simulations using a Stereotactic Body Frame (SBF: Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) were expanded to include (18)F‐deoxyglucosone positron‐emission tomography (FDG PET) for treatment planning. Because of the length of time that staff members are in close proximity to the patient, concerns arose over the radiation safety issues associated with these simulations. The present study examines the radiation exposures of the staff performing SBRT simulations, and provides some guidance on limiting staff exposure during these simulations. Fifteen patients were simulated with PET/CT using the SBF. Patients were immobilized in the SBF before the FDG was administered. The patients were removed from the frame, injected with FDG, and allowed to uptake for approximately 45 minutes. After uptake, the patients were repositioned in the SBF. During the repositioning, exposure rates were recorded at the patient's surface, at the SBF surface, and at 15 cm, 30 cm, and 1 m from the SBF. Administered dose and the approximate time spent on patient repositioning were also recorded. The estimated dose to staff was compared with the dose to staff performing conventional diagnostic PET studies. The average length of time spent in close proximity [Formula: see text] to the patient after injection was 11.7 minutes, or more than twice the length of time reported for diagnostic PET staff. That time yielded an estimated average dose to the staff of 26.5mSv per simulation. The annual occupational exposure limit is 50 mSv. Based on dose per simulation, staff would have to perform nearly 1900 SBRT simulations annually to exceed the occupational limit. Therefore, at the current rate of 50–100 simulations annually, the addition of PET studies to SBRT simulations is safe for our staff. However, ALARA (“as low as reasonably achievable”) principles still require some radiation safety considerations during SBRT simulations. The PET/CT‐based SBRT simulations are safe and important for treatment planning that optimizes biologic dose distribution with highly accurate and reproducible target definition. PACS numbers: 87.57.uk, 87.59.bd
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5722297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57222972018-04-02 Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy Kearns, William T. Urbanic, James J. Hampton, Carnell J. McMullen, Kevin P. Blackstock, A. William Stieber, Volker W. Hinson, William H. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Protection & Regulations Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) simulations using a Stereotactic Body Frame (SBF: Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) were expanded to include (18)F‐deoxyglucosone positron‐emission tomography (FDG PET) for treatment planning. Because of the length of time that staff members are in close proximity to the patient, concerns arose over the radiation safety issues associated with these simulations. The present study examines the radiation exposures of the staff performing SBRT simulations, and provides some guidance on limiting staff exposure during these simulations. Fifteen patients were simulated with PET/CT using the SBF. Patients were immobilized in the SBF before the FDG was administered. The patients were removed from the frame, injected with FDG, and allowed to uptake for approximately 45 minutes. After uptake, the patients were repositioned in the SBF. During the repositioning, exposure rates were recorded at the patient's surface, at the SBF surface, and at 15 cm, 30 cm, and 1 m from the SBF. Administered dose and the approximate time spent on patient repositioning were also recorded. The estimated dose to staff was compared with the dose to staff performing conventional diagnostic PET studies. The average length of time spent in close proximity [Formula: see text] to the patient after injection was 11.7 minutes, or more than twice the length of time reported for diagnostic PET staff. That time yielded an estimated average dose to the staff of 26.5mSv per simulation. The annual occupational exposure limit is 50 mSv. Based on dose per simulation, staff would have to perform nearly 1900 SBRT simulations annually to exceed the occupational limit. Therefore, at the current rate of 50–100 simulations annually, the addition of PET studies to SBRT simulations is safe for our staff. However, ALARA (“as low as reasonably achievable”) principles still require some radiation safety considerations during SBRT simulations. The PET/CT‐based SBRT simulations are safe and important for treatment planning that optimizes biologic dose distribution with highly accurate and reproducible target definition. PACS numbers: 87.57.uk, 87.59.bd John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2008-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5722297/ /pubmed/18716587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v9i3.2763 Text en © 2008 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Protection & Regulations
Kearns, William T.
Urbanic, James J.
Hampton, Carnell J.
McMullen, Kevin P.
Blackstock, A. William
Stieber, Volker W.
Hinson, William H.
Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
title Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_full Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_fullStr Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_full_unstemmed Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_short Radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_sort radiation safety issues with positron‐emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy
topic Radiation Protection & Regulations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18716587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v9i3.2763
work_keys_str_mv AT kearnswilliamt radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT urbanicjamesj radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT hamptoncarnellj radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT mcmullenkevinp radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT blackstockawilliam radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT stiebervolkerw radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT hinsonwilliamh radiationsafetyissueswithpositronemissioncomputedtomographysimulationforstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy