Calculation of hand dose in nuclear medicine staff during the administration of syringes and handling of vials containing Sr-89 and In-111

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Radiology, Baghdad Al-Karkh Health Directorate, Al-Furat General Hospital, Ira-qi Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq

2 Department of Radiology, Baghdad Al-Karkh Health Directorate, Consultative Clinic for Chest and Respiratory Disease, Iraqi Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq

3 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medical Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Teh-ran, Iran

4 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Nuclear medicine (NM) staff are frequently exposed to higher radiation doses than other occupational groups, particularly in the hands, due to the direct manipulation of radiopharmaceutical syringes and vials. This study aimed to quantify the absorbed dose to the hands of NM staff during syringe injection and vial handling of two clinically relevant radionuclides, Sr-89 and In-111, using the GATE Monte Carlo code.
Methods: A high-resolution voxelized hand phantom was employed to model syringe injections with 2 mm and 9 mm tungsten shields, and vial handling with and without a 25 mm lead shield. Absorbed dose was quantified at the skin of the fingertips and hand.
Results: Our results showed that unshielded syringe injections of In-111 produced absorbed doses nearly 4.7-fold higher than those of Sr-89. Application of a 9 mm tungsten syringe shield reduced the hand dose from In-111 by approximately 5600 fold. During unshielded vial handling, the In-111 dose was about 65 times higher than that of Sr-89, whereas using a 25 mm lead shield reduced the absorbed dose to nearly negligible levels.
Conclusion: Spatial dose distribution revealed that the index fingertip received the highest dose during syringe injection, whereas the thumb was most exposed during vial handling. These findings highlight the need for optimized shielding strategies and improved dosimetry approaches to ensure occupational safety in NM practice.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Kyriakidou A, Schlief J, Ginjaume M, Kollaard R. Need for harmonisation of extremity dose monitoring in nuclear medicine: results of a survey amongst national dose registries in Europe. J Radiol Prot. 2021;41(4).
  2. Soret M, Maisonobe JA, Payen S, Gaubert A, Brunel S, Bergeret S, et al. Radiation dose to nuclear medicine technologists when operating PET/MR compared with PET/CT. J Radiol Prot. 2022;42(2).
  3. Martin CJ. Strategies for assessment of doses to the tips of the fingers in nuclear medicine. J Radiol Prot. 2016;36(3):405–18.
  4. Wrzesień M, Albiniak Ł. Hand exposure of workers in (18)F-FDG production centre. J Radiol Prot. 2016;36(4):N67–n76.
  5. Wrzesień M, Olszewski J, Jankowski J. Hand exposure to ionising radiation of nuclear medicine workers. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;130(3):325–30.
  6. Ruiz Lopez N, Sans Merce M, Barth I, Rimpler A, Carinou E, Koukorava C, et al. The ORAMED project: Optimization of radiation protection for medical staff in interventional radiology, cardiology and nuclear medicine. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); 2010. Contract No.: IAEA-CN--182.
  7. McCann A, Cherbuin N, Covens P, Dabin J, Haruz-Waschitz S, Gallo L, et al. Finger doses due to(68)Ga-labelled pharmaceuticals in PET departments-results of a multi-centre pilot study. J Radiol Prot. 2023;43(1).
  8. Rogers DW. Fifty years of Monte Carlo simulations for medical physics. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R287–301.
  9. Papadimitroulas P. Dosimetry applications in GATE Monte Carlo toolkit. Phys Med. 2017;41:136–40.
  10. Al-Shareefi H, Rajabi H. Estimation of cancer risk induced by radiation exposure in nuclear medical Staff: Impact of hand-absorbed dose. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2025;18(2):101529.
  11. Owaki Y, Inoue K, Narita H, Tsuda K, Fukushi M. Characteristic X-ray imaging for palliative therapy using strontium-89 chloride: understanding the mechanism of nuclear medicine imaging of strontium-89 chloride. Radiol Phys Technol. 2017;10(2):227–33.
  12. Ho Y, Hennessy O. Indium-111 WBC scan to diagnose mycotic aneurysm. Clin Nucl Med. 1999;24(11):903–4.
  13. Sarrut D, Arbor N, Baudier T, Borys D, Etxebeste A, Fuchs H, et al. The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(18).
  14. Kuahara LT, Correa EL, Potiens MdPA. Determination of geometry correction factors to different vials used to radiopharmaceutical activity measurements. Associacao Brasileira de Energia Nuclear (ABEN), Rio de Janeiro, RJ (Brazil); 2015.
  15. Allisy A. ICRU Report 44: tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. tech. rep., International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1989.
  16. Wong FC. MIRD: radionuclide data and decay schemes. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2009;50(12):2091–.
  17. Chauvie S, Guatelli S, Ivanchenko V, Longo F, Mantero A, Mascialino B, et al., editors. Geant4 low energy electromagnetic physics. IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004.; 2004 16–22 Oct. 2004.
  18. Osborne KL, Nielsen CJ, Bullock JR, Jennings SG. A Comparison of Readings from Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Ring Badges Worn in Different Positions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2020;48(4):361–2.
  19. Wrzesień M, Olszewski J. Wrist dosimeter in nuclear medicine - An alternative for the ring dosimeter? Phys Med. 2018;54:117–20.
  20. Salesses F, Perez P, Maillard AE, Blanchard J, Mallard S, Bordenave L. Effect of dosimeter's position on occupational radiation extremity dose measurement for nuclear medicine workers during (18)F-FDG preparation for PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):16.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics