Assessment of Radiation Dose and Phantom Skin Dose in Transarterial Chemoembolization in a Single Center with 2 Digital Subtraction Angiography Units
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31584/jhsmr.2023996Keywords:
nanoDot optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters, phantom study, radiation dose, transarterial chemoembolizationAbstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess and compare the radiation dose and phantom skin dose in transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) of two digital subtraction angiography (DSA) units (unit A: Philips Allura Xper FD20, unit B: Artis zee biplane)
Material and Methods: The dose area product (DAP), reference air kerma (RAK), number of images (NI) and fluoroscopy time (FT) of 240 cases (120 cases/DSA unit) were retrospectively reviewed and collected. To assess skin dose, 28 nanoDot optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were placed on the phantom’s back and the TACE procedure was performed with 2 DSA units.
Results: The median DAP, RAK, NI, and FT of unit A were 200.49 Gy·cm2, 379.84 mGy, 115 images, and 9.04 minutes, while for unit B were 109.74 Gy·cm2, 276.55 mGy, 121 images, and 10.19 minutes, respectively. Significant differences were observed in DAP, RAK, and FT. The RAK of all patients was less than 2 Gy. The phantom skin dose obtained from unit B was significantly lower than that of unit A in all positions. The peak skin doses of the phantom studies from both units were 973.15 and 658.66 mGy, respectively.
Conclusion: The median DAP of the unit A DSA was higher than the national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). The TACE procedure from both units is safe from skin reaction. To benefit patients, the planning of a dose optimization process of unit A DSA and management of TACE cases using the existing DSA machine must be considered.
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209–49.
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: an overview. Int J Cancer 2021;10.1002/ijc.33588.
Mittal S, El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: consider the population. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013 Jul;47 Suppl:S2-6.
Tsilimigras DI, Aziz H, Pawlik TM. Critical analysis of the updated barcelona clinic liver cancer (bclc) group guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 2022;29:7231–4.
Lucatelli P, Guiu B. 2022 Update of BCLC treatment algorithm of hcc: what’s new for interventional radiologists?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022;45:275-6.
Schneider T, Wyse E, Pearl MS. Analysis of radiation doses incurred during diagnostic cerebral angiography after the implementation of dose reduction strategies. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:384–8.
Manu S, Suntharos P, Boyle GJ, Wang L, Prieto LR. Radiation reduction in the pediatric catheterization laboratory using a novel imaging system. J Invasive Cardiol 2018;30:28–33.
Buranurak S, Pong-Inwong V, Hanpanich P, Wongwiwatchai J, Ahooja A, Pungkun V. Al2O3:C optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry for evaluation of potential factors contributing to entrance skin doses received by liver cancer patients undergoing Transarterial Chemoembolization. Radiat Phys Chem 2023;202:110570.
Javor D, Moyses J, Loewe C, Schernthaner RE. Radiation dose reduction capabilities of a new C-arm system with optimized hard- and software. Eur J Radiol 2021;134:109367.
Tang KT, Chen ZC, Wenshiann W, Hsieh Y, Ting C. Influence of difference flat-panel detector sizes on radiation dose of clinical intervention angiography procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1380.
Martin CJ, Vano E. Diagnostic reference levels and optimisation in radiology: where do we go from here? J Radiol Prot 2018;38:E1–4.
Lee MY, Kwon J, Ryu GW, Kim KH, Nam HW, Kim KP. Review of national diagnostic reference levels for interventional procedures. Prog Med Phys 2019;30:75.
Papanastasiou E, Protopsaltis A, Finitsis S, Hatzidakis A, Prassopoulos P, Siountas A. Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels and Peak Skin Doses in selected diagnostic and therapeutic interventional radiology procedures. Physica Medica 2021;89:63–71.
Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health National Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thailand 2021. Bangkok: Beyond Publishing Limited; 2021.
González-Ruíz A, Ou-Saada I, Isidro-Ortega FJ, Sánchez- Mendoza HI. Local dose reference levels during transarterial chemoembolization procedure. Appl Radiat Isot 2021;178:109982.
ICRP. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging ICRP Publication 135. Ann Icrp 2017;46:1–144.
Kwon D, Little MP, Miller DL. Reference air kerma and kerma-area product as estimators of peak skin dose for fluoroscopically guided interventions. Med Phys 2011;38:4196–204.
Choudhary S. Deterministic and stochastic effects of radiation. Canc Therapy & Oncol Int J 2018;12.
Valentin J. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ann ICRP 2000;30:7–67.
IInternational Organization for Standardization, Geneva (Switzerland) (Jun 1999). X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and doserate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy Part 3: Calibration of area and personal dosemeters and the measurement of their response as a function of energy and angle of incidence. [homepage on the Internet]. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2022 [cited 2023 Mar 13] Available from: http:// inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:35068219
Kanda R, Akahane M, Koba Y, Chang W, Akahane K, Okuda Y, et al. Developing diagnostic reference levels in Japan. Jpn J Radiol 2021;39:307–14.
Liu B, Hirsch JA, Li X, Sheridan RM, Rehani MM, Zheng H, et al. Radiation dose monitoring for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: effect on patient radiation exposure. Radiology 2019;290:744–9.
Yuan H, Lu H, Zeng J, Zhang Y, Shen L. Comparison of radiation doses between hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy and transarterial chemoembolization for liver cancer. J Interv Med 2021;4:184–9.
Osei B, Xu L, Johnston A, Darko S, Darko J, Osei E. Retrospective study of patients radiation dose during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20181021.
Ritlumlert N, Tweeatsani N, Jongjirasiri S, Kittikhemakorn T, Chaiwongkot N, Pairodsantikul P, et al. Evaluation of radiation dose in computed tomography angiography before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Health Sci Med Res 2023;41:e2022910.
Schernthaner RE, Duran R, Chapiro J, Wang Z, Geschwind JFH, Lin M. A new angiographic imaging platform reduces radiation exposure for patients with liver cancer treated with transarterial chemoembolization. Eur Radiol 2015;25:3255–62.
Javor D, Moyses J, Loewe C, Schernthaner RE. Radiation dose reduction capabilities of a new C-arm system with optimized hard- and software. Eur J Radiol 2021;134:109367.
Schernthaner RE, Haroun RR, Nguyen S, Duran R, Sohn JH, Sahu S, et al. Characteristics of a new x-ray imaging system for interventional procedures: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018;41:502–8.
Camacho YSM, Tapia EA, Timaran DE, Torres CA, Palma JG, Chavez F, et al. Impact of tumor anatomic characteristics on patient radiation dose during transarterial chemoembolization. AJIR 2020;4:5.
Kohlbrenner R, Kolli KP, Taylor AG, Kohi MP, Fidelman N, LaBerge JM, et al. Patient radiation dose reduction during transarterial chemoembolization using a novel x-ray imaging platform. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015;26:1331–8.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
