Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract The new recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection for occupational eye dose is an equivalent dose limit to the eye of 20 mSv year–1, averaged over a 5-year period. This recommendation is a drastic reduction from the previous limit of 150 mSv year–1. Hence, it is important to protect physicians’ eyes from X-ray radiation. Particularly in interventional radiology (IVR) procedures, many physicians use protective lead (Pb) glasses to reduce their occupational exposure. This study assessed the shielding effects of novel 0.07 mm Pb glasses. The novel glasses (XR-700) have Pb–acrylic lens molded in three dimensions. We studied the novel type of 0.07 mm Pb glasses over a period of seven consecutive months. The eye dose occupational radiation exposure of seven IVR physicians was evaluated during various procedures. All IVR physicians wore eye dosimeters (DOSIRIS™) close to the left side of the left eye. To calculate the shielding effects of the glasses, this same type of eye dosimeter was worn both inside and outside of the Pb lenses. The average shielding effect of the novel glasses across the seven physicians was 61.4%. Our results suggest an improved shielding effect for IVR physicians that use these glasses. No physician complained that the new glasses were uncomfortable; therefore comfort is not a problem. The lightweight glasses were acceptable to IVR physicians, who often must perform long procedures. Thus, the novel glasses are comfortable and reasonably protective. Based on the results of this study, we recommend that IVR physicians use these novel 0.07 mm Pb glasses to reduce their exposure.

Although the clinical value of fluoroscopically guided respiratory endoscopy (bronchoscopy) is clear, there have been very few studies on the radiation dose received by staff during fluoroscopically guided bronchoscopy. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is suggesting reducing the occupational lens dose limit markedly from 150 to 20 mSv/year, averaged over defined periods of five years. The purpose of this study was to clarify the current occupational eye dose of bronchoscopy staff conducting fluoroscopically guided procedures. We measured the occupational eye doses (3-mm-dose equivalent, Hp(3)) of bronchoscopy staff (physicians and nurses) over a 6-month period. The eye doses of eight physicians and three nurses were recorded using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS. We also estimated eye doses using personal dosimeters worn at the neck. The mean ± SD radiation eye doses (DOSIRIS) to physicians and nurses were 7.68 ± 5.27 and 2.41 ± 1.94 mSv/6 months, respectively. The new lens dose limit, 20 mSv/year, may be exceeded among bronchoscopy staff, especially physicians. The eye dose of bronchoscopy staff (both physicians and nurses) was underestimated when measured using a neck dosimeter. Hence, the occupational eye dose of bronchoscopy staff should be monitored. To reduce the occupational eye dose, we recommend that staff performing fluoroscopically guided bronchoscopy wear Pb glasses. correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using an eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS is necessary for bronchoscopy staff.

Occupational radiation exposure in nuclear medicine presents complex spatial and temporal patterns due to the use of unsealed radiopharmaceuticals and prolonged proximity to patients. Traditional passive dosimetry provides only cumulative dose values, limiting its usefulness in identifying task-specific exposures or capturing momentary fluctuations. This study applied a real-time dosimetry system capable of second-by-second measurements, combined with time-series analysis, to evaluate staff exposure during myocardial perfusion imaging using technetium-99m. Dosimeters were placed on the left and right sides of the neck and head of two radiological technologists. Dose rates were continuously recorded throughout the injection and imaging phases. The right side of the neck received the highest cumulative and peak dose rates among all sites. Although no significant difference in total dose was observed between the injection and imaging phases, specific high-exposure events were detected. Notably, ECG lead placement and post-injection handling produced dose spikes. A positive correlation was found between administered activity and dose rate at neck-level sites but not at head-level sites. These findings demonstrate the value of real-time dosimetry in identifying procedural actions associated with elevated exposure. Time-series analysis further contextualized these peaks, supporting improved task-specific protective strategies beyond the capabilities of conventional dosimetry.

Fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy is an essential tool for diagnosing and treating lung diseases, particularly lung cancer. However, prolonged fluoroscopic exposure raises concerns regarding radiation-induced lens injuries in physicians, such as radiation cataracts. In response to the International Commission on Radiological Protection lowering the occupational lens dose limit to an average of 20 mSv/year over 5 years, there is an increasing need for effective lens protection during such procedures. This study has aimed to develop a novel lens protection device specifically designed for bronchoscopy physicians and evaluate its protective performance through a phantom study. The device consisted of a 0.175 mm lead (Pb) sheet positioned on the left side of the physician’s head, secured with headgear to improve stability and comfort during prolonged use. A phantom study was conducted using a trunk phantom to simulate a patient and a head phantom to simulate a physician. The scattered radiation doses were measured at 15 locations on the phantom head using a radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeter, both with and without a protective device. The device demonstrated a protective effect of more than 80% for the left eye across all tested angles, whereas the right eye showed protection ranging from approximately 40% to 75% depending on the angle. This novel lens protection device has the potential to significantly reduce scattered radiation to the left eye while minimizing vision obstruction and discomfort. This offers a practical solution for radiation protection during bronchoscopy and may be applicable to other interventional procedures requiring fluoroscopic guidance.

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended reducing the annual equivalent dose limit to the eye lens. This study investigated the effects of physician height and years of experience on lens radiation exposure in a clinical setting. The lens dose was measured using the DOSIRIS dosimeter, which quantified Hp(3) while accounting for the shielding effect of lead glasses, and a neck dosimeter for Hp(0.07). A significant negative correlation was found between physician height and both Hp(0.07) (R = −0.642) and Hp(3) (R = −0.728), suggesting that taller physicians received lower lens doses because of their greater distance from the scatter source. A positive correlation was observed between years of experience and Hp(0.07) (R = 0.650). Two-group comparisons showed that physicians shorter than 170 cm had a 2.77-fold higher median Hp(3) than those ≥170 cm (p < 0.05). As experienced physicians may be exposed to higher radiation levels, regular review of protective practices and continued radiation safety education are essential, regardless of clinical experience. This is the first clinical study to simultaneously evaluate the effects of physician height and experience on lens dose in interventional cardiology. Regular review of protective practices remains essential regardless of operator height or experience.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has lowered the annual equivalent eye-lens dose to 20 mSv. Although occupational exposure can be high in nuclear medicine (NM) departments, few studies have been conducted regarding eye-lens exposure among NM staff. This study aimed to estimate the annual lens doses of staff in an NM department and identify factors contributing to lens exposure. Four nurses and six radiographers performing positron emission tomography (PET) examinations and four radiographers performing radioisotope (RI) examinations (excluding PET) were recruited for this study. A lens dosimeter was attached near the left eye to measure the 3-mm-dose equivalent; a personal dosimeter was attached to the left side of the neck to measure the 1-cm- and 70-µm-dose equivalents. Measurements were acquired over six months, and the cumulative lens dose was doubled to derive the annual dose. Correlations between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses, between the lens dose and the numbers of procedures, and between the lens dose and the amounts of PET drugs (radiopharmaceuticals) injected were examined. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to compare lens and personal-dosimeter doses. The estimated annual doses were 0.93 ± 0.13 mSv for PET nurses, 0.71 ± 0.41 mSv for PET radiographers, and 1.10 ± 0.53 mSv for RI radiographers. For PET nurses, but not for PET or RI radiographers, there was a positive correlation between the numbers of procedures and lens doses and between amounts injected and lens doses. There was a significant difference between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses of PET nurses. The use of protective measures, such as shielding, should prevent NM staff from receiving lens doses > 20 mSv/year. However, depending on the height of the protective shield, PET nurses may be unable to assess the lens dose accurately using personal dosimeters.

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses.

In recent years, endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms has attracted considerable attention as a promising alternative to traditional surgery. Hybrid operating room systems (HORSs) are increasingly being used to perform endovascular procedures. The clinical benefits of endovascular treatments using HORSs are very clear, and these procedures are increasing in number. In procedures such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), wires and catheters are used to deliver and deploy the stent graft in the thoracic/abdominal aorta under fluoroscopic control, including DSA. Thus, the radiation dose to the patient is an important issue. We determined radiation dose indicators (the dose–area product (DAP) and air karma (AK) parameters) associated with endovascular treatments (EVAR and TEVAR) using a HORS. As a result, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) DAPs of TEVAR and EVAR were 323.7 ± 161.0 and 371.3 ± 186.0 Gy × cm2, respectively. The mean ± SD AKs of TEVAR and EVAR were 0.92 ± 0.44 and 1.11 ± 0.54 Gy, respectively. The mean ± SD fluoroscopy times of TEVAR and EVAR were 13.4 ± 7.1 and 23.2 ± 11.7 min, respectively. Patient radiation dose results in this study of endovascular treatments using HORSs showed no deterministic radiation effects, such as skin injuries. However, radiation exposure during TEVAR and EVAR cannot be ignored. The radiation dose should be evaluated in HORSs during endovascular treatments. Reducing/optimizing the radiation dose to the patient in HORSs is important.

Background/Aim: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an intractable tumor that has a very poor prognosis despite intensive treatment with temozolomide plus radiotherapy. Patients and Methods: Sixteen newly diagnosed patients with high-grade gliomas were enrolled in a phase II study of the α-type-1 DC vaccine. Briefly, DCs obtained from the culture of enriched monocytes in the presence of a cytokine cocktail, were pulsed with a cocktail of 5 synthetic peptides and cryopreserved until injection into patients. Results: The amount of IL-12 produced by activated DCs was higher than that previously reported. Among 15 evaluable patients, 10 showed positive CTL responses to any peptides in an ELISPOT assay. After 6 years of observation, five patients were still alive, and two of these patients were relapse-free. Moreover, a significant survival-prolonging effect was verified in DC-treated glioma patients. Conclusion: Peptide-cocktail-pulsed α-type-1 DC vaccines have a potential therapeutic effect on survival when used in combination with the standard regimen, which is partly based on IL-12-IFN-γ-mediated T-cell activation.

In a previous phase 3 study in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), edaravone did not show a significant difference in the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) score compared with placebo. Post-hoc analysis of these data revealed that patients in an early stage with definite or probable diagnosis of ALS, defined by the revised El Escorial criteria, who met a select set of inclusion criteria showed a greater magnitude of effect than did the full study population. We aimed to substantiate this post-hoc result and assess safety and efficacy of edaravone in a phase 3 trial that focused on patients with early stage ALS who met the post-hoc analysis inclusion criteria. In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients aged 20–75 years with ALS of grade 1 or 2 in the Japan ALS Severity Classification, scores of at least 2 points on all 12 items of ALSFRS-R, forced vital capacity of 80% or more, definite or probable ALS according to the revised El Escorial criteria, and disease duration of 2 years or less were recruited from 31 hospitals in Japan. Eligible patients also had a decrease of 1–4 points in the ALSFRS-R score during a 12-week observation period before randomisation. Patients meeting all criteria were then randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 60 mg intravenous edaravone or intravenous saline placebo for 6 cycles (4 weeks per cycle with 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off) for a total treatment duration of 24 weeks. In cycle 1, the study drug or placebo was administered once per day for 14 days within a 14 day period, followed by the drug-free period. In cycle 2 and thereafter, the study drug or placebo was administered for 10 days within a 14 day period, followed by a 2 week drug-free period. Participants and investigators, including those assessing outcomes, were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in ALSFRS-R score from the baseline to 24 weeks (or at discontinuation if this was after the third cycle) after randomisation. The primary outcome was assessed in all patients who had received at least one treatment infusion, had at least one assessment post-baseline, and reached the end of cycle 3. For patients with missing values at the end of cycle 6, data were imputed by the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method, provided the patients had completed at least cycle 3. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one treatment infusion and had at least one assessment post-baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01492686. Between Nov 28, 2011, and Sept 3, 2014, we screened 213 patients, and enrolled 192 as potential participants. Of these, 137 patients completed the observation period: 69 were randomly assigned to receive edaravone, and 68 were randomly assigned to receive placebo. 68 patients taking edaravone and 66 taking placebo were included in the primary efficacy analysis. For the primary outcome, the change in ALSFRS-R score was −5·01 (SE 0·64) in the edavarone group and −7·50 (0·66) in the placebo group. The least-squares mean difference between groups was 2·49 (SE 0·76, 95% CI 0·99–3·98; p=0·0013) in favour of edaravone. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 58 (84%) patients receiving edaravone and 57 (84%) patients receiving placebo. 11 (16%) patients taking edaravone and 16 (24%) taking placebo had serious adverse events, and one (1%) patient receiving edaravone and four (6%) patients receiving placebo had adverse events (one dysphagia in edaravone group and one dyspnoea, two respiratory disorder, and one rash in the placebo group) that led to withdrawal. Edaravone showed efficacy in a small subset of people with ALS who met criteria identified in post-hoc analysis of a previous phase 3 study, showing a significantly smaller decline of ALSFRS-R score compared with placebo. There is no indication that edaravone might be effective in a wider population of patients with ALS who do not meet the criteria. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation.