Advertisement

Environmental radiation dose rate arising from patients of PET/CT

  • O. Günay
  • E. Abamor
Original Paper

Abstract

One of the most widely used methods for the screening of cancer patients today is PET/CT. The most widely used radiopharmaceutical in PET/CT imaging is fluorine-18 deoxyglucose (18F-FDG). PET/CT imaging is performed 40–60 min after intravenous injection of F18-FDG to the patient. After the FDG injection, the patients transmit radiation to the environment. The emitted radiation dose rate varies according to the activity of the radioactive substance given to the patient. In this study, the dose rate of radiation emitted from FDG-injected patients was determined both by distance and by time. The results obtained are compared with similar studies. In terms of radiation safety, the required distance between the patient and the radiation worker is calculated. This calculated distance varies according to the time of injection, since fluorine-18 radioisotope has 110-min half-life.

Keywords

Radiation PET/CT Dose rate FDG 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof Dr. Kerim Sönmezoğlu and Prof Dr. Mustafa Demir for their useful comments and Özge Ece Kara for her assistance in the laboratory tests.

References

  1. Adams S, Baum R, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hör G (1998) Prospective comparison of 18F- FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25(9), SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkurt İ (2009) Effective atomic and electron numbers of some steels at different energies. Ann Nucl Energy 36(11, 12):1702–1705.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2009.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkurt I, Basyigit C, Kilincarslan S, Mavi B, Akkurt A (2006) Radiation shielding of concretes containing different aggregates. Cem Concr Compos 28(2):153–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2005.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akkurt I, Akyıldırım H, Mavi B, Kilincarslan S, Basyigit C (2010) Photon attenuation coefficients of concrete includes barite in different rate. Ann Nucl Energy 37–7:910–914.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akkurt I, Uyanik N.A, Günoğlu K (2015) Radiation dose estimation: an in vitro measurement for Isparta–Turkey IJCESEN 1-1:1–4  https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.194376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aközcan S (2014) Annual effective dose of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil and sediment. Toxicol Environ Chem.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2014.939177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aközcan S, Külahcı F, Mercan Y (2018) A suggestion to radiological hazards characterization of 226Ra, 232Th, 40K and 137Cs: spatial distribution modelling. J Hazard Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.04.042 (in press) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Almén A, Mattsson S (2017) Radiological protection of foetuses and breast-fed children of occupationally exposed women in nuclear medicine—challenges for hospitals. Physica Med 43:172–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Alnaaimi M, Alkhorayef M, Omar M, Abughaith N, Alduaij M, Salahudin T, Alkandri F, Sulieman A, Bradley DA (2017) Occupational radiation exposure in nuclear medicine department in Kuwait. Radiat Phys Chem 140:233–806X.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2017.02.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bera G, Soret M, Maisonobe JA, Giron A, Garnier JM, Habert MO, Kas A (2018) Equivalent dose rate from patients after whole-body FDG-PET/CT. Médecine Nucléaire 42(1):45–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mednuc.2017.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çetin B, Öner F, Akkurt I (2016) Determination of natural radioactivity and associated radiological hazard in excavation field in Turkey (OluzHöyük). Acta Physica Polonıca A Vol A 130.  https://doi.org/10.12693/aphyspola.130.475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronin B, Marsden PK, O’Doherty MJ (1999) Are restrictions to behaviour of patients required following fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic studies? Eur J Nucl Med 26:121–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590050367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demir M (2015) Radiobiological effects, protection of the patient, protection of caregivers, protection of those around the patient and the environment. Nucl Med Semin 3:171–179.  https://doi.org/10.4274/nts.0026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demir M, Demir B, Sayman H, Sager S, Sabbir Ahmed A, Uslu I (2011) Radiation protection for accompanying person and radiation workers in PET/CT. Radiat Prot Dosim 147:528–532.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demir N, Kıvrak A, Üstün M, Cesur A, Boztosun I (2017) Experimental study for the energy levels of europium by the clinic LINAC. IJCESEN 3:47–49Google Scholar
  16. Fayad E, Maia S, Zilnus A (2015) Care continuity in post-scintigraphy period and radioactivity exposure of medical and technical staff. Med Nucl (Paris) 39:380–385Google Scholar
  17. Günay O (2018) Determination of natural radioactivity and radiological effects in some soil samples in Beykoz–Istanbul. Eur J Sci Technol 12:9–14Google Scholar
  18. Kara U, Mesbahi A, Akkurt I (2015a) Monte Carlo simulation of photoneutron dose in radiotherapy room as a function of gantry angles, page B-378.  https://doi.org/10.12693/aphyspola.128.b-378 Google Scholar
  19. Kara U, Mesbahi A, Akkurt I (2015b) Photoneutron dose measurement in radiotherapy room page B-372.  https://doi.org/10.12693/aphyspola.128.b-372 Google Scholar
  20. Mavi B, Akkurt I (2010) Natural radioactivity and radiation hazards in some building materials used in Isparta, Turkey. Rad Phys Chem 79:933–939  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.20
  21. Quinn B, Holahan B, Aime J, Humm J, St. Germain J, Dauer L (2012). Measured dose rate constant from oncology patients administered 18F for positron emission tomography. Med Phys 39:6071–6079.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4749966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seçkiner S, Akkurt I, Günoglu K (2017) Determination of 40K concentration in gravel samples from Konyaaltı Beach, Antalya. Acta Phys Pol A 132(3–II):1095–1097.  https://doi.org/10.12693/aphyspola.132.1095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tekin HO, Cavli B., Altunsoy EE, Manici T, Ozturk C, Karakas HM (2018) An investigation on radiation protection and shielding properties of 16 slice computed tomography (CT) facilities. IJCESEN 4:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uyanık NA, Akkurt I, Uyanık O (2010) A ground radiometric study of uranium, thorium and potassium in Isparta, Turkey. Ann Geophys 53(5–6):25–30.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-4726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uyanık NA, Uyanık O, Akkurt I (2013) Micro-zoning of the natural radioactivity levels and seismic velocities of potential residential areas in volcanic fields: the case of Isparta (Turkey). J Appl Geophys 98:191–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.08.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang-Yin J, Dirand AS, Sasanelli M, Corrégé G, Peudon A, Kiffel T, Nataf V, Clerc J, Montravers F, Talbot J (2017) Equivalent dose rate 1 meter from neuroendocrine tumor patients exiting the nuclear medicine department after undergoing imaging. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 58(8):1230–1235.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.187138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vocational School of Health Servicesİstanbul Okan UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.İstanbul Okan University HospitalİstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations