Dataset Information

Occupational Radiation Exposure and Validity of National Dosimetry Registry among Korean Interventional Radiologists.

ABSTRACT: The national dose registry (NDR) contains essential information to help protect radiation workers from radiation-related health risks and to facilitate epidemiological studies. However, direct validation of the reported doses has not been considered. We investigated the validity of the NDR with a personal dosimeter monitoring conducted among Korean interventional radiologists. Among the 56 interventional radiologists, NDR quarterly doses were compared with actively monitored personal thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) doses as standard measures of validation. We conducted analyses with participants categorized according to compliance with TLD badge-wearing policies. A correlation between actively monitored doses and NDR doses was low (Spearman ρ = 0.06), and the mean actively monitored dose was significantly higher than the mean NDR dose (mean difference 0.98 mSv) in all participants. However, interventional radiologists who wore badges irregularly showed a large difference between actively monitored doses and NDR doses (mean difference 2.39 mSv), and participants who wore badges regularly showed no apparent difference between actively monitored doses and NDR doses (mean difference 0.26 mSv). This study indicated that NDR data underestimate the actual occupational radiation exposure, and the validity of these data varies according to compliance with badge-wearing policies. Considerable attention is required to interpret and utilize NDR data based on radiation workers' compliance with badge-wearing policies.

SUBMITTER: Ko S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8071388 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of the present study was to determine whether there is a linear relation between the doses measured above and those measured under the lead apron of the radiologists performing interventional procedures. To monitor radiation exposure the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends the use of a single dosimeter under the protective apron. To determine the exposure more accurately an additional dosimeter is recommended above the protective apron. The exposure of eight radiologists was monitored with two personal dosimeters during 3 consecutive years. To measure the doses uniformly the two dosimeters were worn in a special holder attached to the lead apron. The two personal dosimeters were replaced every 4 weeks on the same day. The doses above and under the protective aprons of seven radiologists did not differ significantly. A significant lower dose above and under the protective apron was measured for one of the radiologists. During a 4-week period the average dose measured above the lead apron was 3.44 mSv (median, 3.05 mSv), while that under the 0.25-mm lead apron was 0.12 mSv (median, 0.1 mSv). The coefficients of the regression line result in the equation Y = 0.036X-0.004, with Y as the dose under the lead apron and X as the dose above the lead apron. The statistical analysis of the data established a linear relation between the doses above and those under the lead apron (R(2) = 0.59). Before the special holder was introduced it was not possible to derive a relation between the doses above and those under the lead apron, as the doses were measured at varying places above and under the lead apron. There is no evidence that the effective dose can be estimated more accurately when an additional dosimeter is used. The present study revealed a threshold before doses under the lead apron were measured. Due to the threshold it can be concluded that the doses under the lead apron will not be underestimated easily when doses above the lead apron are used to calculate them. This is not the case when the doses above the lead apron are calculated for the doses under the lead apron.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The cancer risk of radiation exposure in the moderate-to-high dose range has been well established. However, the risk remains unclear at low-dose ranges with protracted low-dose rate exposure, which is typical of occupational exposure. Several epidemiological studies of Korean radiation workers have been conducted, but the data were analysed retrospectively in most cases. Moreover, groups with relatively high exposure, such as industrial radiographers, have been neglected. Therefore, we have launched a prospective cohort study of all Korean radiation workers to assess the health effects associated with occupational radiation exposure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Approximately 42 000 Korean radiation workers registered with the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission from 2016 to 2017 are the initial target population of this study. Cohort participants are to be enrolled through a nationwide self-administered questionnaire survey between 24 May 2016 and 30 June 2017. As of 31 March 2017, 22?982 workers are enrolled in the study corresponding to a response rate of 75%. This enrolment will be continued at 5-year intervals to update information on existing study participants and recruit newly hired workers. Survey data will be linked with the national dose registry, the national cancer registry, the national vital statistics registry and national health insurance data via personal identification numbers. Age-specific and sex-specific standardised incidence and mortality ratios will be calculated for overall comparisons of cancer risk. For dose-response assessment, excess relative risk (per Gy) and excess absolute risk (per Gy) will be estimated with adjustments for birth year and potential confounders, such as lifestyle factors and socioeconomic status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has received ethical approval from the institutional review board of the Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (IRB No. K-1603-002-034). All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolment. The findings of the study will be disseminated through scientific peer-reviewed journals and be provided to the public, including radiation workers, via the study website (http://www.rhs.kr/) and onsite radiation safety education.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although fluoroscopically guided procedures involve a considerably high dose of radiation, few studies have investigated the effects of radiation on medical workers involved in interventional fluoroscopy procedures. Previous research remains in the early stages and has not reached a level comparable with other occupational studies thus far. Furthermore, the study of radiation workers provides an opportunity to estimate health risks at low doses and dose rates of ionising radiation. Therefore, the objectives of this study are (1) to initiate a prospective cohort study by conducting a baseline survey among medical radiation workers who involve interventional fluoroscopy procedures and (2) to assess the effect of occupational radiation exposure and on the overall health status through an in-depth cross-sectional study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Intervention medical workers in Korea will be enrolled by using a self-administered questionnaire survey, and the survey data will be linked with radiation dosimetry data, National Health Insurance claims data, cancer registry and mortality data. After merging these data, the radiation organ dose, lifetime attributable risk due to cancer and the risk per unit dose will be estimated. For the cross-sectional study, approximately 100 intervention radiology department workers will be investigated for blood tests, clinical examinations such as ultrasonography (thyroid and carotid artery scan) and lens opacity, the validation of badge dose and biodosimetry. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of Korea University (KU-IRB-12-12-A-1). All participants will provide written informed consent prior to enrolment. The findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations, and a report will be submitted to the relevant public health authorities in the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help with the development of appropriate research and management policies.

Project description:PurposeTo present a new outcomes-based registry to collect data on outpatient endovascular interventions, a relatively new site of service without adequate historical data to assess best clinical practices. Quality data collection with subsequent outcomes analysis, benchmarking, and direct feedback is necessary to achieve optimal care.Materials and methodsThe Outpatient Endovascular and Interventional Society (OEIS) established the OEIS National Registry in 2017 to collect data on safety, efficacy, and quality of care for outpatient endovascular interventions. Since then, it has grown to include a peripheral artery disease (PAD) module with plans to expand to include cardiac, venous, dialysis access, and other procedures in future modules. As a Qualified Clinical Data Registry approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this application also supports new quality measure development under the Quality Payment Program. All physicians operating in an office-based laboratory or ambulatory surgery center can use the Registry to analyze de-identified data and benchmark performance against national averages. Major adverse events were defined as death, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute onset of limb ischemia, index bypass graft or treated segment thrombosis, and/or need for urgent/emergent vascular surgery.ResultsSince Registry inception in 2017, 251 participating physicians from 64 centers located in 18 states have participated. The current database includes 18,134 peripheral endovascular interventions performed in 12,403 PAD patients (mean age 72.3±10.2 years; 60.1% men) between January 2017 and January 2020. Cases were performed primarily in an office-based laboratory (85.1%) or ambulatory surgery center setting (10.4%). Most frequently observed procedure indications from 16,086 preprocedure form submissions included claudication (59%), minor tissue loss (16%), rest pain (9%), acute limb ischemia (5%), and maintenance of patency (3%). Planned diagnostic procedures made up 12.2% of cases entered, with the remainder indicated as interventional procedures (87.6%). The hospital transfer rate was 0.62%, with 88 urgent/emergent transfers and 24 elective transfers. The overall complication rate for the Registry was 1.87% (n=338), and the rate of major adverse events was 0.51% (n=92). Thirty-day mortality was 0.03% (n=6).ConclusionThis report describes the current structure, methodology, and preliminary results of OEIS National Registry, an outcomes-based registry designed to collect quality performance data with subsequent outcome analysis, benchmarking, and direct feedback to aid clinicians in providing optimal care.

Dataset Information

Occupational Radiation Exposure and Validity of National Dosimetry Registry among Korean Interventional Radiologists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets