M. Alvarez et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 1), 28 – 36 35
a more thorough evaluation, it’ s necessary to calculate E considering the specifics of various procedures and patient biotypes, to prevent LDRLs from becoming outdated and disconnected from the values found in clinical practice.
Wambani et al.( 2014) contend that using E as a generic measure to estimate the occurrence of stochastic effects can result in inappropriate oversimplifications of the complex biological processes associated with the development of such effects, highlighting that the quantity assessed for determining the biological risk associated with medical exposures is heavily dependent on the specific context. Conversely, the ICRP strongly advocates the use of LDRLs as an initial tool for the monitoring and optimization of doses at a particular institution( Vañó et al., 2017). The authors agree that merely determining these values is not enough and that LDRLs should serve as indicators for actions and measures that the medical team must implement in relation to radiation protection in the hospital environment.
5 Conclusion
The developed software was efficient in extracting data from the PACs image sent by the equipment evaluated, and the determined LDRLs for the main hemodynamic procedures in this work were coherent with literature. Determining the risk of stochastic effects is complex, given the varied geometries and complexities of the procedures. Thus, utilizing LDRLs emerges as an initial step in dose optimization. We concluded the methodology applied with the software is robust, and the tool has been successful in monitoring and optimizing doses at the evaluated institution. Notably, the Effective Dose calculated using the collected data agrees with the values described in previous studies. It is recognized that there is a continual need to update procedure data, ensuring that the institution’ s reference values accurately represent current practices.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Health for the financial support for the Medical Physics Residency scholarships.
Funding
This research was funded by São Paulo Research Foundation( Process number: 2023 / 01156-6) and by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development( Process number: 304992 / 2022-4).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conficts of interest in regards to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Additional data may be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Author contribution statement
The authors of this work have contributed equally to its completion. Each member has brought unique expertise, dedication, and effort to the project, resulting in a collaborative and balanced effort.
Ethics approval
Approved by the Research Ethics Committee( CEP) under protocol: CAAE 16932513.5.0000.5411.
Informed Consent
In this study, we exclusively utilize DICOM images for analysis and research purposes. It is important to note that no personally identifiable information of the patients has been included or utilized in our work. Therefore, we consider informed consent unnecessary, given the strictly anonymous and non-invasive nature of our approach. Our focus lies in aggregate data analysis rather than individual participant identification. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the importance of privacy and ethics in medical research and adhere to all relevant regulations and guidelines in this domain.
References
Aroua A, Rickli H, Stauffer J-C, Schnyder P, Trueb PR, Valley J-F, Vock P, Verdun FR. 2007. How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level. Eur Radiol 17( 6): 1621 – 1633
Arthur WR, Dhawan J, Norell MS, Hunter AJ, Clark AL. 2002. Does cardiologist- or radiographer-operated fluoroscopy and image acquisition influence optimization of patient radiation exposure during routine coronary angiography? Br J Radiol 75: 748 – 753.
Damilakis J, Vassileva J. 2021. The growing potential of diagnostic reference levels as a dynamic tool for dose optimization. Phys Med 84( April): 285 – 287.
Kicken PJH, Kemerink G, van Engelshoven J. 1999. Patient dosimetry in arteriography of the lower limbs. Part I: Quantification of exposure. Radiat. Protect. Dosimetry 81( January): 25 – 36.
Kim KP, Miller DL, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Balter S, Kleinerman RA, Ostroumova E, Simon SL, Linet MS. 2012. Occupational radiation doses to operators performing fluoroscopically-guided procedures. Health Phys 103: 80.
Laura. 2015.‘ NCRP Report 160- NCRP | Bethesda, MD’. 29 May2015. https:// ncrponline. org / publications / reports / ncrp-report-160 /.
Li X, Hirsch JA, Rehani MM, Yang K, Liu B. 2020. Effective dose assessment for patients undergoing contemporary fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Am J Roentgenol 214: 158 – 170.
Loose RW, Vano E, Mildenberger P, Tsapaki V, Caramella D, Sjöberg J, Paulo G et al. 2021. Radiation dose management systemsrequirements and recommendations for users from the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Initiative. Eur Radiol 31( 4): 2106 – 2114
Martin CJ. 2007. The importance of radiation quality for optimisation in radiology. Biomed Imag Intervent J 3( 2): e38.
Ministério da Saude, IN / No 91. 2021.‘ INSTRUÇÃO NORMATIVA- IN No 91, DE 27 DE MAIO DE 2021- DOU- Imprensa Nacional Fluoroscopia. Pdf- Empresa Brasileira de Serviços Hospitalares’. 2021. https:// www. gov. br / ebserh / pt-br / hospitais-universitarios / regiao-sul / hu-ufsc / acesso-a-informacao / participacao-social / com issoes-comites-nucleos-equipes-e-grupos-de-trabalho / comissaode-protecao-radiologica-riscos-hu-ufsc-ebserh / instrucao-norma