32/14/07

12 January 2007
1

6 Radiological Protection in
7 Medicine
8

10

11

12

13
14
15
16 CONTENTS
17
18 1. Background
19 2. Scope of Ionising Radiation in Medicine
 1 3. Brief Summary of Biological Basis for Radiological Protection
2 3.1 Deterministic Effects (Tissue Reactions)
3 3.2 Stochastic Effects (Cancer and Hereditary Effects)
4 3.3 Effects of In Utero Irradiation
5 4. Dosimetric Quantities
6 5. Unique Aspects of Radiological Protection in Medicine
7 5.1 Deliberate Exposure
8 5.2 Voluntary Exposure
9 5.3 Medical Screening of Asymptomatic Patients
10 5.4 Radiation Therapy
11 5.5 Management of Radiation Dose
12 5.6 Demographics of the Patient Population
13 5.7 Range of Detriments from Radiation Uses in Medicine
14 6. The Framework of Radiological Protection in the New Recommendations
15 7. Discussion of the Term ‘Practice’
16 7.1 The Term ‘Practice’ in the Field of Medicine
17 7.2 Introduction and Elimination of ‘Practices’ in the Field of Medicine
18 8. Justification of a Radiological Practice in Medicine
19 8.1. The Justification of a Defined Radiological Procedure (Level 2)
20 8.2 The Justification of a Procedure for an Individual Patient (Level 3)
21 9. Optimisation of Protection for Patient Doses in Medical Exposures
22 9.1 General Approach
23 9.2. The Use of Constraints
24 9.3 Management of Medical Exposure
25 10. Individual Dose Limits
26 11. Radiological Protection in Emergency Medical Situations with Radioactive Materials
27 12. Practical Methods of Protection
28 12.1 Occupational Exposure
29 12.2. Public Exposure
30 12.3 Exposure of Volunteers in Biomedical Research
31 12.4 Exposure of Comforters and Carers of Patients

2
 1 13. Diagnostic Reference Levels
2 13.1 Diagnostic Reference Levels (Publications 60 and 73)
3 13.2 Diagnostic Reference Levels (Supporting Guidance 2)
4 14. Preventing Accidents and Emergencies in Medicine
5 15. Education and Training
6 16. Institutional Arrangements
7 17. Focused Evaluations of Radiological Protection in Medicine
8 17.1 Pregnancy and Medical Radiation (Publication 84)
9 17.2 Medical Interventional Procedures (Fluoroscopically Guided) (Publication 85)
10 17.3 Accidental Exposures in Radiation Therapy (Publication 86)
11 17.4 Computed Tomography (Publication 87)
12 17.5 Guide for General Practitioners (Supporting Guidance 2)
13 17.6 Digital Radiology (Publication 93)
14 17.7 Unsealed Radionuclides (Release after Therapy) (Publication 94)
15 17.8 High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (Accidents) (Publication 97)
16 17.9 Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer with Permanent Sources (Radiation Safety)
17 (Publication 98)
18 References
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1. Background
29
30 Publication 73 ‘Radiological Protection and Safety in Medicine’ (ICRP, 1996) was
31 published to expand on the application in medicine of the 1990 recommendations of the

3
 1 Commission (ICRP, 1991). The Commission is currently preparing an updated set of
2 recommendations, and requested Committee 3 to produce a document underpinning its
3 recommendations for the medical exposure of patients, including their comforters and
4 carers to assist in this process.
5
6 The Commission has over the last decade published a number of documents prepared by
7 Committee 3 that provide detailed advice related to radiological protection and safety in
8 the medical applications of ionising radiation. Each of these publications addresses a
9 specific topic defined by the type of radiation source and the medical discipline in which
10 the source is applied, and was written with the intent of communicating directly with the
11 relevant medical practitioners and supporting medical staff. These publications (in
12 chronological order) are:
13 • Publication 84. Pregnancy and Medical Radiation (ICRP, 2000a)
14 • Publication 85. Avoidance of Radiation Injuries from Medical Intervention
15 Procedures (ICRP, 2000b)
16 • Publication 86. Prevention of Accidental Exposures to Patients Undergoing Radiation
17 Therapy (ICRP, 2000c)
18 • Publication 87. Managing X-ray Dose in Computed Tomography (ICRP, 2000d)
19 • Supporting Guidance 2. Radiation and Your Patient: A Guide for Medical
20 Practitioners (ICRP, 2001)
21 • Supporting Guidance 2. Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging - Review
22 and Additional Advice (ICRP, 2001)
23 • Publication 93. Managing Patient Dose in Digital Radiology (ICRP 2003a)
24 • Publication 94. Release of Patients after Therapy with Unsealed Radionuclides
25 (ICRP, 2004)
26 • Publication 97. Prevention of High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Accidents (ICRP,
27 2005a)
28 • Publication 98. Radiation Safety Aspects of Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer using
29 Permanently Implanted Sources (ICRP, 2005b)
30 Also, in 1999, the Commission published Publication 80 ‘Radiation Dose to Patients
31 from Radiopharmaceuticals’ (ICRP, 1999a), a joint document of Committees 2 and 3,

4
 1 that presented biokinetic and dosimetric data on ten new radiopharmaceuticals not
2 previously published and updated the similar data presented in the series of earlier ICRP
3 publications on this subject.
4
5 In preparation for the present document, Committee 3:
6 • Reviewed the main topics covered in Publication 73;
7 • Augmented that review with the additional advice provided in the documents (listed
8 above) published since Publication 73; and
9 • Reviewed the Commission recommendations under development.
10
11 The Commission uses Task Groups and Working Parties to deal with specific areas. Task
12 Groups are appointed by the Commission to perform a defined task, and usually contain a
13 majority of specialists from outside the Commission's structure. Working Parties are set
14 up by Committees with the approval of the Commission, to develop ideas for the
15 Committee, sometimes leading to a Task Group. The membership is usually limited to
16 Committee members. Currently, Committee 3 has a number of similar documents in
17 preparation addressing the following topics:
18 • Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (Task Group)
19 • Radiological protection for cardiologists performing fluoroscopically guided
20 procedures (Task Group)
21 • Radiological protection issues of modern radiation therapy techniques (Joint Task
22 Group with International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements)
23 • Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (Joint Task Group with
24 Committee 2).
25 • Protecting children: Diagnostic techniques involving ionising radiation (Working
26 Party)
27 • Doses to the hands of radiopharmacists (Working Party)
28 • Radiological protection training for diagnostic and fluoroscopically guided
29 interventional procedures (Working Party)
30 • Medical examinations and follow-up of persons accidentally or occupationally
31 exposed to ionising radiation (Working Party)

5
 1 • Medical screening of asymptomatic persons using ionising radiation (Working Party)
2 Additional advice from Committee 3 concerning radiological protection in medicine will
3 be forthcoming as these documents are completed.
4
5 In this Committee 3 document, the term ‘exposure’ is used to express the act of being
6 exposed to ionising radiation. The terms ‘dose’ or ‘radiation dose’ are used when the
7 context is not specific to a particular radiation dose quantity. When the context is
8 specific, the name for the quantity is used (e.g., absorbed dose, equivalent dose, effective
9 dose).
10
11 2. Scope of Ionising Radiation in Medicine
12
13 More people are exposed to ionising radiation from medical practice, and in many cases
14 the individual doses are higher than from any other human activity. In countries with
15 advanced health care systems, the annual number of radiological diagnostic procedures
16 approaches or exceeds one for every member of the population. Furthermore, the doses to
17 patients for the same type of examination differ widely between centres, suggesting that
18 there is considerable scope for management of patient dose.
19
20 Radiation exposures in medicine are predominantly to individuals undergoing diagnostic,
21 fluoroscopically guided interventional, or radiation therapy procedures. But staff and
22 other individuals helping to support and comfort patients are also open to exposure.
23 These individuals include parents holding children during diagnostic procedures, and
24 others, normally family or close friends, who may come close to patients following the
25 administration of radiopharmaceuticals or during brachytherapy. Exposure to members of
26 the general public also occurs, but it is almost always very small. Radiological protection
27 in medicine refers to all these exposures. Other Commission documents cover
28 radiological protection for workers in medicine (occupational exposure), and radiological
29 protection for members of the public associated with medicine (public exposure). This
30 document covers the following types of exposure in medicine and biomedical research
31 (called in brief medical exposure):

6
 1 • The exposure of individuals for diagnostic, fluoroscopically guided interventional and
2 therapeutic purposes;
3 • Exposures (other than occupational) incurred knowingly and willingly by individuals
4 such as family and close friends helping either in hospital or at home in the support
5 and comfort of patients undergoing diagnosis or treatment.
6 • Exposures incurred by volunteers as part of a program of biomedical research that
7 provides no direct benefit to the volunteers.
8
9 The use of radiation for medical diagnostic examinations contributes over 95 percent of
10 man-made radiation exposure and is only exceeded by natural background as a source of
11 exposure (UNSCEAR, 2000). In the next few years [particularly as a result of the rapidly
12 spreading use of computed tomography (CT) in developed and developing countries],
13 radiation uses of medicine may exceed natural background as a source of population
14 exposure.
15
16 UNSCEAR (2000) compared estimates of the 1985-1990 and 1991-1996 periods and
17 concluded that the worldwide annual per caput effective dose from medical exposure of
18 patients increased by 35 percent and the collective dose by 50 percent, while the
19 population increased by only 10 percent. It was also estimated that worldwide there were
20 about 2,000 million x-ray studies, 32 million nuclear-medicine studies and over 6 million
21 radiation therapy patients treated annually. These numbers are expected to increase in
22 future years.
23
24 The estimated number of medical and dental radiographic machines is about 2 million
25 worldwide. While it is difficult to estimate the number of occupationally exposed medical
26 workers, UNSCEAR (2000) estimated that monitored medical-radiation workers exceed
27 2.3 million.
28
29 3. Brief Summary of Biological Basis for Radiological Protection
30

7
 1 The biological effects of radiation can be grouped into two kinds: deterministic effects
2 (tissue reactions) and stochastic effects (cancer and hereditary effects). These effects are
3 briefly noted here; the biological basis for radiological protection is covered in depth in
4 other Commission documents. The Commission recognises that the generic terms,
5 deterministic and stochastic effects, have a firmly embedded use in its system of
6 protection and will use the generic and directly descriptive terms synonymously,
7 according to context.
8
9 3.1 Deterministic Effects (Tissue Reactions)
10
11 If the effect results only when many cells in an organ or tissue are killed, the effect will
12 be clinically observable only if the radiation dose is above some threshold. The
13 magnitude of this threshold will depend on the dose rate (i.e., dose per unit time) and
14 LET (linear energy transfer) of the radiation, the organ irradiated, and the clinical effect
15 of interest. With increasing doses above the threshold, the probability of occurrence will
16 rise steeply to l00 percent (i.e., every exposed person will show the effect), and the
17 severity of the effect will increase with dose. The Commission calls these effects
18 deterministic (tissue reactions), and a detailed discussion and information on
19 deterministic effects (tissue reactions) is found in ICRP (2006a). Such effects can occur
20 in the application of ionising radiation in radiation therapy, and in interventional medical
21 procedures that are fluoroscopically guided when the procedure times are lengthy.
22
23 3.2 Stochastic Effects (Cancer and Hereditary Effects)
24
25 There is good evidence from cellular and molecular biology that radiation damage to
26 the DNA in a single cell can lead to a transformed cell that is still capable of
27 reproduction. Despite the body's defenses, which are normally very effective, there is a
28 small probability that this type of damage, promoted by the influence of other agents
29 not necessarily associated with radiation, can lead to a malignant condition. Because
30 the probability is low, this will occur in only a few of those exposed. If the initial
31 damage is to the germ cells in the gonads, hereditary effects may occur.

8
 1
2 The probability of a stochastic effect attributable to the radiation increases with dose and
3 is probably proportional to dose at low doses. At higher doses and dose rates, the
4 probability often increases with dose more markedly than simple proportion. At even
5 higher doses, close to the thresholds of deterministic effects (tissue reactions), the
6 probability increases more slowly, and may begin to decrease, because of the competing
7 effect of cell killing. These effects, both somatic and hereditary, are called stochastic. The
8 probability of such effects is increased when ionising radiation is used in medical
9 procedures.
10
11 Whereas a single radiological examination confers on a patient a small probability of
12 cancer induction, of the order of 10-3 to 10-5 in a lifetime, the fact that in developed
13 countries each member of the population undergoes on the average such an examination
14 once in a year, the cumulative risk increases accordingly. Calculations performed on the
15 assumption of a linear non-threshold model of radiation action estimate that the
16 proportion of cancer deaths that could be attributed to exposure from radiological
17 procedures may reach a level from a fraction of one to several percent of that cancer
18 mortality. In addition, one has to remember that the risk is non-uniformly distributed in a
19 population. There are some groups of patients who are much more frequently examined
20 than the average numbers would suggest. Also, there are groups that show higher than
21 average sensitivity for cancer induction due to age (children and adolescents). Moreover,
22 cancers occurring early in life result in much higher lifetime loss than those that become
23 manifest late in life. All these circumstances indicate that proper justification of radiation
24 use in medicine is an indispensable principle of radiological protection.
25
26 A detailed discussion and information on somatic and hereditary effects is found in ICRP
27 (2006a), and the Commission’s view on cancer risk at low doses is presented in
28 Publication 99 (ICRP, 2006b). It is generally impossible to determine on epidemiological
29 grounds alone that there is, or is not, an increased risk of cancer associated with absorbed
30 doses of the order of 10 mGy or below. The linear no-threshold (LNT) model remains a

9
 1 prudent basis for the practical purposes of radiological protection at low doses and low
2 dose rates.
3
4 The Commission has also reviewed the topic of individuals with genetic susceptibility to
5 cancer and expressed its preliminary views in Publication 79 (ICRP, 1999b), and will
6 continue to monitor this subject in regard to its implications for radiological protection.
7
8 3.3 Effects of In Utero Irradiation
9
10 There are radiation-related risks to the embryo and fetus during pregnancy that are related
11 to the stage of pregnancy and the absorbed dose to the embryo or fetus. These are noted
12 below briefly under the topics of lethal effects, malformations, central nervous system
13 effects, and leukemia and childhood cancer. The Commission has evaluated the effects of
14 prenatal irradiation in detail in Publication 90 (ICRP, 2003b).
15
16 Lethal effects - There is embryonic sensitivity to the lethal effects of irradiation in the
17 pre-implantation period of embryonic developments. At doses under 100 mGy, such
18 lethal effects will be very infrequent and there is no reason to believe that there will be
19 significant risks to health expressing after birth.
20
21 Malformations - During the periods of major organogenesis, conventionally taken to be
22 from the third to the eighth week after conception, malformations may be caused
23 especially in the organs under development at the time of exposure. These effects have a
24 threshold of 100 to 200 mGy or higher.
25
26 Central nervous system - During the period of 8 to 25 weeks post conception, the central
27 nervous system is particularly sensitive to radiation. A reduction in intelligence quotient
28 (IQ) cannot be clinically identified at fetal doses of less than 100 mGy. During the same
29 time period, fetal doses in the range of 1 Gy result in a high probability of severe mental
30 retardation. The sensitivity is highest 8 to 15 weeks post conception, and less sensitive at
31 16 to 25 weeks of gestational age.

10
 1
2 Leukemia and childhood cancer - Radiation has been shown to increase the probability of
3 leukemia and many types of cancer in both adults and children. Throughout most of
4 pregnancy, the embryo and fetus are assumed to be at about the same risk for potential
5 carcinogenic effects as are children.
6
7 Consideration of the effects listed above is important when pregnant patients undergo
8 diagnostic, fluoroscopically guided interventional and therapeutic procedures using
9 ionising radiation. A balance must be attained between the health care of the patient and
10 the potential for detrimental health effects to the fetus (or embryo) that accompanies the
11 specific radiological procedure.
12
13 4. Dosimetric Quantities
14
15 The basic physical quantity used in radiological protection is the absorbed dose averaged
16 over an organ or defined tissue (i.e., mean absorbed dose; the energy deposited in the
17 organ divided by the mass of that organ). The SI unit for absorbed dose is J per kg and its
18 special name is gray (Gy).
19
20 During medical imaging procedures using x rays, absorbed doses in tissues and organs of
21 the patient undergoing diagnostic x-ray or fluoroscopically guided interventional
22 procedures usually cannot be measured directly. Measurable quantities that characterize
23 the external radiation field are used therefore to assist in managing the patient dose.
24 These include simple quantities such as absorbed dose in a tissue equivalent material at
25 the surface of a body or in a phantom, but also a number of other quantities of varying
26 complexity, depending on the nature of the x-ray equipment. Significant progress has
27 been achieved in recent years in providing methods to derive absorbed doses in tissues
28 and organs from a number of practical measurements, and a considerable body of data is
29 available, in particular, ICRU Report 74 ‘Patient Dosimetry for X Rays used in Medical
30 Imaging’ (ICRU, 2005).
31

11
 1 Some radiations are more effective than others in causing stochastic effects. To allow for
2 this, a quantity equivalent dose (the average absorbed dose in an organ or tissue
3 multiplied by a dimensionless radiation weighting factor) has been introduced. For almost
4 all the radiations used in medicine, the radiation weighting factor is unity, so the absorbed
5 dose and the equivalent dose are numerically equal. The exceptions are alpha particles,
6 for which the current radiation weighting factor is 20, and neutrons, for which the current
7 radiation weighting factors are between 5 and 20, depending on the energy of the
8 neutrons incident on the body. The special name for the unit of equivalent dose is the
9 sievert (Sv). A detailed discussion on radiation weighting factors is provided in
10 Publication 92 (ICRP, 2003c).
11
12 Radiation exposure of the different organs and tissues in the body results in different
13 probabilities of harm and different severities. The Commission calls the combination of
14 probability and severity of harm 'detriment', meaning health detriment. To reflect the
15 combined detriment from stochastic effects due to the equivalent doses in all the organs
16 and tissues of the body, the equivalent dose in each organ and tissue is multiplied by a
17 tissue weighting factor, and the results are summed over the whole body to give the
18 effective dose. The special name for the unit of effective dose is also the sievert (Sv).
19 The tissue weighting factors proposed in the most current draft recommendations are
20 those in (ICRP, 2006c).
21
22 The Commission intended effective dose for use as a principal protection quantity for the
23 establishment of radiological protection guidance. It should not be used to assess risks of
24 stochastic effects in retrospective situations for exposures in identified individuals, nor
25 should it be used in epidemiological evaluations of human exposure, because the
26 Commission has made judgements on the relative severity of various components of the
27 radiation risks in the derivation of ‘detriment’ for the purpose of defining tissue
28 weighting factors. Such risks for stochastic effects are dependent on age. The age
29 distributions for workers and the general population (for which the effective dose is
30 derived) can be quite different from that of the overall age distribution for the population
31 undergoing medical procedures using ionising radiation, and will also differ from one

12
 1 type of medical procedure to another, depending on the age- and sex-prevalence of the
2 individuals for the medical condition being evaluated. For these reasons, risk assessment
3 for medical uses of ionising radiation is best evaluated using appropriate risk values for
4 the individual tissues at risk and for the age and sex distribution of the individuals
5 undergoing the medical procedures.
6
7 5. Unique Aspects of Radiological Protection in Medicine
8
9 Several features of radiation exposure in medicine require an approach to radiological
10 protection that is somewhat different from that for other types of radiation exposure.
11
12 5.1 Deliberate Exposure
13
14 The exposure of patients is deliberate. Except in radiation therapy, it is not the aim to
15 deliver radiation dose as a therapy, but rather to use the radiation to provide diagnostic
16 information or to conduct a fluoroscopically guided interventional procedure.
17 Nevertheless, the dose is given deliberately and cannot be reduced indefinitely without
18 prejudicing the intended outcome.
19
20 5.2 Voluntary Exposure
21
22 Medical uses of radiation are voluntary in nature, combined with the expectation of direct
23 individual health benefit to the patient. The voluntary decision is made with varying
24 degrees of informed consent that includes not only the expected benefit but also the
25 potential risks (including radiation). The degree of informed consent varies based on the
26 exposure level and the possible emergent medical circumstances, and also on cultural or
27 societal factors. Usually little informed consent is given for low risk procedures (such as
28 a chest x-ray procedure), more informed consent is given for fluoroscopically guided
29 interventional procedures and a high level (typically written) consent is often obtained
30 before most radiation therapy procedures.
31

13
 1 The exception to the concept of a voluntary exposure leading to a direct individual
2 medical benefit is the use of radiation in biomedical research. In these circumstances, the
3 voluntary exposure usually accrues to a societal benefit rather than an individual benefit.
4
5 5.3 Medical Screening of Asymptomatic Patients
6
7 Screening is performed to try and identify a disease process that has not become manifest
8 clinically. The aim is that earlier diagnosis will lead to earlier and more effective
9 treatment and a better outcome in terms of quality of life and survival. For example,
10 current screening practices using ionising radiation (e.g., mammography) appear to be
11 valid and are recommended for certain populations. On the other hand, there is
12 increasing use of computed tomography (CT) (including self-referral) and positron
13 emission tomography (PET) in screening for disease in asymptomatic individuals, and
14 these applications have not been justified on the basis of current scientific literature.
15
16 Patients undergoing these scans should be fully informed of the potential benefits and
17 risks, including the radiation risks. Each application of ionising-radiation for screening of
18 asymptomatic individuals should be evaluated and justified in regard to its clinical merit.
19
20 5.4 Radiation Therapy
21
22 In radiation therapy, the aim is to eradicate the neoplastic target tissue. Some
23 deterministic damage (tissue reactions) to surrounding tissue and some risk of stochastic
24 effects in remote non-target tissues are inevitable, but the goal of all radiation therapy is
25 to optimise the relationship between tumor control probability and normal tissue
26 complications.
27
28 5.5 Management of Radiation Dose
29
30 In medicine, the requirement is to manage the radiation dose to the patient to be
31 commensurate with the medical purpose. The goal is to use the appropriate dose to obtain

14
 1 the desired image or desired therapy. In this regard, the Commission introduced the use
2 of diagnostic reference levels for imaging procedures, which will be discussed in more
3 detail later in this document.
4
5 5.6 Demographics of the Patient Population
6
7 Risk estimates developed by the Commission apply to either the working population or
8 the whole population, and were derived for age- and sex-averaged populations for the
9 purpose of establishing radiological protection guidance (see Section 4). The risks for
10 various age groups are different by amounts that depend on the age at exposure and the
11 organs and tissues exposed. For the exposure of young children, the attributable lifetime
12 risk of death (total cancers) would be higher, perhaps by a factor of 2 or 3 (Annex C of
13 Publication 60) (ICRP, 1991a). For many common types of diagnostic examination, the
14 higher risk per unit dose may be offset by the reduction in dose relative to that to an adult.
15 For an age at exposure of about 60 years, the risk would be lower, perhaps by a factor of
16 three. At higher ages at exposure, the risks are even less (Annex C of Publication 60)
17 (ICRP, 1991a).
18
19 It is difficult to apply the concept of effective dose to compare doses from medical
20 exposure of patients to other sources of exposure to humans as the effective dose values
21 are for an age and sex-averaged population. Effective dose can be of value for comparing
22 doses from different diagnostic procedures and for comparing the use of similar
23 technologies and procedures in different hospitals and countries as well as the use of
24 different technologies for the same medical examination, provided the reference patient
25 or patient populations are similar with regard to age and sex. As noted in Section 4, for
26 planning the exposure of patients and risk-benefit assessments, the equivalent dose or the
27 absorbed dose to irradiated tissues is the relevant quantity.
28
29 5.7 Range of Detriments from Radiation Uses in Medicine
30

15
 1 There is a wide range of potential radiation detriment to an individual patient that occurs
2 in medical practice. The detriments range from most commonly minimal to rarely lethal.
3
4 An example of minimal detriment would be a chest x-ray procedure on a very elderly
5 patient. There would be no chance of deterministic effects (tissue reactions) and
6 essentially no risk of stochastic effects.
7
8 An example of more significant detriment is computed tomography (CT) examinations,
9 which can involve relatively high doses to patients. The absorbed doses to tissues from a
10 whole-body CT examination are typically in the range of 10 to 100 mGy. Therefore, a 45-
11 year old adult who beginning at that age undergoes an annual whole-body CT
12 examination for 30 years could accrue a significant lifetime cumulative absorbed dose to
13 tissues [i.e., 300 to 3,000 mGy (0.3 to 3 Gy)]. This cumulative absorbed dose is of a
14 magnitude at which an increase in the probability of cancer has been observed in human
15 epidemiological studies.
16
17 There are also a growing number of deterministic injuries (tissue reactions) resulting
18 from unnecessarily high doses from the use of fluoroscopy during interventional
19 procedures. In radiation oncology, the tolerance for deviation from the treatment regimen
20 is very small. Usually overdosage in excess of 10 percent will result in an unacceptably
21 high risk of severe or fatal complications. Underdosage will result in not curing the
22 cancer and will cause more than expected deaths from cancer.
23
24 6. The Framework of Radiological Protection in the 2007 Recommendations
25
26 The primary aim of radiological protection is to provide an appropriate standard of
27 protection for people and the environment without unduly limiting the beneficial
28 practices giving rise to radiation exposure. As noted before, in most situations arising
29 from the medical uses of radiation, the radiation sources are deliberately used and are
30 under control.
31

16
 1 In the 1990 Recommendations, the Commission gave principles of protection for
2 practices separately from intervention situations. The Commission continues to regard
3 these principles as fundamental for the system of protection, and has now formulated a
4 set of principles that apply equally to planned, emergency and existing controllable
5 situations. In the 2007 Recommendations, the Commission also clarifies how the
6 fundamental principles apply to radiation sources and to the individual, as well as that the
7 source-related principles apply to all controllable situations.
8
9 Source Related
10 • The principle of justification: Any decision that alters the existing radiation exposure
11 situation (e.g., by introducing a new radiation source or by reducing existing
12 exposure) should do more good than harm.
13 • The principle of optimisation of protection: Optimisation of protection should ensure
14 the selection of the best protection option under the prevailing circumstances (e.g.,
15 maximising the margin of good over harm). This procedure should be constrained by
16 restrictions on the doses or risks to individuals (dose or risk constraints). Optimisation
17 involves keeping exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), taking into
18 account economic and societal factors, as well as any inequity in the distribution of
19 doses and benefits amongst those exposed.
20
21 Individual Related
22 • The principle of dose limits in planned situations: The total dose to any individual
23 from all the regulated sources should not exceed the appropriate limits specified by
24 the Commission.
25
26 Provided that the doses have been properly justified and that they are commensurate with
27 the medical purpose, it is not appropriate to apply dose limits or constraints to the
28 medical exposure of patients, because such limits or constraints would often do more
29 harm than good (see Sections 9.2 and 10).
30

17
 1 In its system of radiation of protection in the next Recommendations, the Commission is
2 continuing to use the term ’dose constraint’ in planned situations but is introducing the
3 term ‘reference level’ for existing and emergency situations. However, although the
4 medical exposure of patients is a planned situation, the term ‘dose constraint’ is not
5 applicable (as stated previously) and the ‘diagnostic reference level’ (Section 13) will still
6 be used as the tool for the optimisation of protection in medical exposure of patients.
7
8 The term ‘practices’ requires some attention in the context of medical exposures, and will
9 be discussed in a Section 7 of this document.
10
11 In most situations in medicine, other than radiation therapy, it is not necessary to
12 approach the thresholds for deterministic effects (tissue reactions), even for the most part
13 in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures if the staff is properly educated and
14 trained. The Commission's policy is therefore to limit exposures so as to keep doses
15 below these thresholds. The possibility of stochastic effects cannot be totally eliminated,
16 so the policy is to avoid unnecessary sources of exposure and to take all reasonable steps
17 to reduce the doses from those sources of exposure that are necessary or cannot be
18 avoided.
19
20 In using these principles to develop a practical system of protection that fits smoothly
21 into the conduct of the activity, the Commission uses a division into three types of
22 exposure: medical exposure, which is principally the exposure of persons as part of their
23 diagnosis or treatment and their non-professional comforters and carers, but also includes
24 volunteers in biomedical research; occupational exposure, which is the exposure incurred
25 at work, and principally as a result of work; and public exposure, which comprises all
26 other exposures. In some respects, the system of protection is applied differently to these
27 types of exposure, so it is important to clarify the distinctions. The subject of this
28 document is the distinctions concerning medical exposure to patients, non-professional
29 comforters and carers, and volunteers in biomedical research (as described in Section 2).
30
31 7. Discussion of the Term ‘Practice’

18
 1
2 The Commission previously distinguished between ‘practices’ that added doses and
3 ‘interventions’ that reduced doses (Publication 60) (ICRP, 1991a). Different principles of
4 protection were applied in the two situations. That distinction has caused difficulties and
5 is seen as artificial. The Commission therefore now recommends one set of principles for
6 all the situations to which its recommendations apply namely planned situations,
7 emergency situations and existing situations.
8
9 The term practice has, however, become widely used in radiological protection. The
10 Commission will continue to use this concept, and now defines practice as an endeavor
11 that causes an increase in exposure to radiation or in the risk of exposure to radiation. An
12 endeavor can be a business, trade, industry or any other productive enterprise; it can also
13 be a government undertaking, a charity or some other act of enterprising. It is implicit in
14 the concept of a practice that the radiation sources that it introduces or maintains can be
15 controlled directly by action on the source. The Commission will use the term
16 ‘intervention’ only to describe actions to reduce exposure and not any longer to describe
17 a radiological situation.
18
19 7.1 The Term ‘Practice’ in the Field of Medicine
20
21 In the field of medicine, the term practice typically refers to the medical care that a
22 practitioner provides to patients. In radiation oncology, the term refers to initial
23 consultation with the patient, accurate diagnosis and staging of the cancer, treatment
24 planning, administering a course of treatment and subsequent follow-up.
25
26 Treatment for cancers varies and therefore each type of treatment can be referred to as a
27 practice. For example, palliative treatment for lung cancer would be a practice and
28 treatment of prostate cancer with permanent implants would be another practice. In this
29 way each type of treatment for a specific cancer could be evaluated for efficacy and risks
30 (referred to as justification). Each type of treatment would be adjusted (such as the field

19
 1 size or dose) to the specific patient (referred to as optimisation). This logic is familiar to
2 medical staff and is the way they normally practice.
3
4 7.2 Introduction and Elimination of ‘Practices’ in the Field of Medicine
5
6 It is instructive to examine how medical practices are introduced or eliminated, because
7 there are some significant differences compared to how most other practices are
8 introduced (e.g., commercial nuclear power).
9
10 Introduction of a practice in medicine - Articles in professional journals are a common
11 way for physicians and other members of the medical staff to learn about new uses of
12 established procedures or new techniques (typically new equipment). Usually the initial
13 claims are associated with case reports and tend to be over-optimistic, but as the medical
14 community uses a technique and additional articles of larger randomised studies appear
15 the appropriate place of that technique in the medical armamentarium becomes clearer.
16 Another issue driving implementation of a new technique or use is the medical
17 practitioner’s desire to offer the latest or best technique to the patient with hopes of
18 improving outcomes.
19
20 Although it is rare, a specific use of a procedure may occur as a result of administrative
21 fiat or regulation. Examples of this usually occur as a result of public health measures
22 (e.g., screening chest x-ray procedures for tuberculosis), for compensation or medical
23 monitoring (e.g., assessment after asbestos or silica exposure to identify asbestosis and
24 mesothelioma, or pneumoconiosis), or for insurance purposes.
25
26 Benefit versus risk has clear implications for introduction of a medical practice. Death
27 and other severe complications for a potential new practice are obviously taken into
28 account. Radiation risks are considered but usually in a secondary way. For example, if a
29 practice is being introduced (e.g., specific applications of spiral CT), dose reduction (or
30 management) is usually a secondary matter and is usually treated as ‘optimisation’ rather
31 than during an initial justification phase.

20
 1
2 In addition, to quantify the benefit from a medical practice (often referred to as evidence-
3 based medicine) is an extremely difficult task, especially for diagnostic procedures. Even
4 for simple practices such as the use of a chest x-ray procedure for a patient with
5 suspected pneumonia, the benefit may be more in terms of confidence of the practitioner
6 in their diagnosis than actual changes in outcome, but still of benefit to the patient.
7 Mammography is one of the few areas of diagnostic radiology in which careful studies
8 have been done to allow reasonable cost-benefit analysis. For radiation therapy protocols,
9 randomised trials can provide a measure of benefit (usually in terms of one or five year
10 survival).
11
12 Elimination of a ‘practice’ in medicine - Ineffective or dangerous practices in medicine
13 are rarely eliminated by government or regulatory authorities. Practices that result in an
14 unexpectedly high morbidity or mortality are usually discontinued by the practitioners as
15 a result of experience, information they have received or lawsuits.
16
17 For some less dangerous outcomes, the practitioners themselves discover that one
18 procedure is not as convenient or accurate as another. One example of a non-ionising
19 radiation procedure being replaced by a radiation procedure is the now infrequent use of
20 ultrasound for the diagnosis of appendicitis having been replaced by CT. The CT results
21 are less dependent on the CT operator and much easier to interpret and consequently
22 more accurate.
23
24 Other practices are eliminated as they are replaced by newer and better technology. An
25 example of this is replacement of the radiographic oral cholecystograms by ultrasound for
26 the diagnosis of cholecystitis (an example of evidence-based radiology).
27
28 Finally, some practices are replaced as a result of changes in professional approaches or
29 training. An example of this has been the replacement of nuclear medicine procedures by
30 radiographic procedures or when radiographic procedures are added to formerly single
31 nuclear medicine procedures. For example, traditional ventilation perfusion nuclear

21
 1 medicine lung scans for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism have been largely replaced
2 by CT pulmonary angiography, which is now technically feasible with ultra-fast CT
3 scanners. As another example, PET/CT scanners have made the positron emission scans
4 much easier to interpret because anatomic localisation of pathological foci by positron
5 emission scan has become more precise.
6
7 Radiological protection issues or patient dose play a minor role in the introduction and
8 elimination of medical practices as understood by the medical profession. The term
9 practice, when the Commission is communicating with the medical community regarding
10 the utilisation of ionising radiation in medicine, needs to be presented in a way that is
11 readily understood by the medical community. One option is to use the term ‘radiological
12 practice in medicine’ to differentiate between the usual meaning of the term practice in
13 medicine. This should help the medical profession to better understand the radiological
14 protection concepts of the Commission.
15
16 8. Justification of a Radiological Practice in Medicine
17
18 In principle, the decision to adopt or continue any human activity involves a review of the
19 benefits and disadvantages of the possible options. This review usually provides a
20 number of alternative procedures that will do more good than harm. The more elaborate
21 process of judging which of these options is the ‘best’ (e.g., choosing between the use of
22 x rays or ultrasound) is still necessary and is more complex. The harm, more strictly the
23 detriment, to be considered is not confined to that associated with the radiation; it
24 includes other detriments and the economic and social costs of the practice. Often, the
25 radiation detriment will be only a small part of the total. For these reasons, the
26 Commission limits its use of the term ‘justification’ to the first of the above stages (i.e., it
27 requires only that the net benefit be positive). To search for the best of all the available
28 options is usually a task beyond the responsibility of radiological protection
29 organizations.
30

22
 1 Depending on the system of health care in a country, there may be an influence of
2 commercial interests on referral of patients to radiological examinations, since such
3 examinations may be a major source of income to hospitals, academic medical
4 institutions and clinics with modern radiological departments. Such a situation may create
5 referral incentives for frequent radiological examinations of patients that could exceed the
6 needs of good medical practice. Committee 3 disapproves of such a practice that confers
7 unjustifiable risk on patients, being inconsistent with medical ethics and principles of
8 radiological protection.
9
10 Most of the assessments needed for the justification of a radiological practice in medicine
11 are made on the basis of experience, professional judgment, and common sense, but
12 quantitative decision-aiding techniques are available and, if the necessary data are
13 accessible, they should be considered.
14
15 There are three levels of justification of a radiological practice in medicine.
16 • At the first and most general level, the use of radiation in medicine is accepted as
17 doing more good than harm. Its justification is now taken for granted, and is not
18 discussed here further.
19 • At the second level, a specified procedure with a specified objective is defined and
20 justified (e.g., chest radiographs for patients showing relevant symptoms, or a group
21 at risk to a condition that can be detected and treated). The aim of the second level of
22 justification is to judge whether, the radiological procedure will improve the
23 diagnosis or treatment or will provide necessary information about the exposed
24 individuals.
25 • At the third level, the application of the procedure to an individual patient should be
26 justified (i.e., the particular application should be judged to do more good than harm
27 to the individual patient). Hence all individual medical exposures should be justified
28 in advance, taking into account the specific objectives of the exposure and the
29 characteristics of the individual involved.
30 The second and third levels of justification are discussed below.
31

23
 1 8.1. The Justification of a Defined Radiological Procedure (Level 2)
2
3 The justification of the radiological procedure is a matter for national professional bodies,
4 in conjunction with national health authorities and with national radiological protection
5 regulatory authorities. The total benefits from a medical procedure include not only the
6 direct health benefits to the patient, but also the benefits to the patient’s family and to
7 society.
8
9 It should be noted that the justification of a medical procedure does not necessarily lead
10 to the same choice of the best procedure in all situations. For example, chest fluoroscopy
11 for the diagnosis of serious pulmonary conditions may do more good than harm, but chest
12 radiography is likely to be the procedure of choice in a country with substantial resources,
13 because the ratio of good to harm would be larger. However, fluoroscopy might be the
14 procedure chosen in countries with fewer resources, if it would still produce a net benefit
15 and if no better alternatives were available.
16
17 In a similar manner, the justification for routine radiological screening for
18 some types of cancer will depend on the national incidence and on the availability of
19 effective treatment for detected cases. National variations are to be expected.
20
21 Although the main exposures in medicine are to patients, the exposures to staff and to
22 members of the public who are not connected with the procedures should be considered.
23 The possibility of accidental or unintended exposures should also be considered. The
24 decisions should be reviewed from time to time, as more information becomes available
25 about the risks and effectiveness of the existing procedure and about new procedures.
26
27 The justification of diagnostic investigations for which the benefit to the patient is not the
28 primary objective needs special consideration. In the use of radiography for insurance
29 purposes, the primary benefit usually accrues to the insurer, but there may be some
30 economic benefit for the individual examined. Examinations ordered by physicians as a

24
 1 defense against malpractice claims may have only marginal advantages for the individual
2 patient.
3
4 8.2 The Justification of a Procedure for an Individual Patient (Level 3)
5
6 Beyond checking that the required information is not already available, no additional
7 justification is needed for the application of a simple diagnostic procedure to an
8 individual patient with the symptoms or indications for which the procedure has already
9 been justified in general. For complex diagnostic and fluoroscopically guided
10 interventional procedures (e.g., some cardiac and neurological procedures), the second
11 level of justification may not be sufficient. Individual justification by the practitioner and
12 the referring physician (the third level) is then important and should take account of all
13 the available information. This includes the details of the proposed procedure and of
14 alternative procedures, the characteristics of the individual patient, the expected dose to
15 the patient, and the availability of information on previous or expected examinations or
16 treatment. It will often be possible to speed up the procedure by defining referral criteria
17 and patient categories in advance.
18
19 9. Optimisation of Protection for Patient Doses in Medical Exposures
20
21 9.1 General Approach
22
23 The optimisation of protection in medicine is usually applied at two levels: (1) the design
24 and construction of equipment and installations, and (2) the day-to-day methods of
25 working (i.e., the working procedures). The basic aim of the optimisation of protection is
26 to adjust the protection measures relating to the application of a source of radiation within
27 a practice in such a way that the net benefit is maximised.
28
29 The concepts involved can be set out in simple terms, but their practical application
30 can range from simple common sense to complex quantitative processes. In selecting the

25
 1 provision for protection in relation to a source, there is always a choice of options. The
2 choice of the protection option directly alters the level of exposure of the patient, the
3 staff, and sometimes the public. But the choice also alters the scale of resources applied
4 to protection. These resources may be reflected directly in financial costs, but they may
5 also involve less easily quantified social costs such as other health risks to staff.
6
7 The optimisation of protection means the same as keeping the doses ‘as low as
8 reasonably achievable, economic and societal factors being taken into account,’ and is
9 best described in medical practice as: management of the radiation dose to the patient to
10 be commensurate with the medical purpose.
11
12 9.2. The Use of Constraints
13
14 In the protection of the patient, the detriments and the benefits are received by the
15 same individual, the patient, and the dose to the patient is determined principally by the
16 medical needs. Dose constraints for patients are therefore inappropriate, in contrast to
17 their importance in occupational and public exposure. Nevertheless, management of
18 patient dose is important and often can be achieved by use of a reference level (named the
19 diagnostic reference level) that has no regulatory implications, but rather is a method of
20 evaluating whether the patient dose is commensurate with the medical task.
21
22 In other medical exposures, such as the exposure of families and friends, and in the
23 exposure of volunteers in biomedical research programmes that provide no direct benefit
24 to the volunteers, dose constraints are applicable to limit inequity and because there is no
25 further protection in the form of a dose limit.
26
27 9.3 Management of Medical Exposure
28
29 There is considerable scope for dose reductions in diagnostic radiology. Simple, low-cost
30 measures are available for reducing doses without loss of diagnostic information, but the
31 extent to which these measures are used varies widely.

26
 1
2 The optimisation of protection in medical exposures (as implemented through
3 management of patient dose) does not necessarily mean the reduction of doses to the
4 patient. For example, diagnostic radiographic equipment often uses antiscatter grids to
5 improve the image quality, yet removing the grid would allow a reduction in dose by a
6 factor of 2 to 4. For radiography of the abdomen of adults, where the scattered radiation
7 is important, the net benefit would be reduced by removing the grid because the benefit
8 of the dose reduction would be more than offset by the loss of quality of the image. The
9 optimisation of protection would not call for the removal of the grid. In the radiography
10 of small children, however, the amount of scattered radiation is less and the benefit of the
11 dose reduction resulting from the removal of the grid is not fully offset by the small
12 deterioration of the image. The optimisation of protection then calls for the reduction in
13 dose allowed by the removal of the grid.
14
15 In radiation therapy, it is necessary to differentiate between the dose to the target tissue
16 and the dose to other parts of the body. If the dose to the target tissue is too low, the
17 therapy will be ineffective. The exposures will not have been justified and the
18 optimisation of protection does not arise. However, the protection of tissues outside the
19 target volume is an integral part of dose planning, which can be regarded as including the
20 same aims as the optimisation of protection.
21
22 The exposure (other than occupational) of individuals helping to support and comfort
23 patients also is considered medical exposure. This definition includes the exposures of
24 families and friends of patients discharged from hospital after therapeutic nuclear
25 medicine procedures using unsealed radionuclides or permanently implanted sealed
26 sources. The procedure of optimisation of protection for these groups is no different from
27 that for public exposure, except that the exposures need not be restricted by dose limits,
28 but would include the use of dose constraints.
29
30 10. Individual Dose Limits
31

27
 1 It is not appropriate to apply dose limits to medical exposures, because such limits would
2 often do more harm than good. Often, there are concurrent chronic, severe or even life-
3 threatening medical conditions that are more critical than the radiation exposure. The
4 emphasis is then on justification of the medical procedures and on the optimization of
5 protection.
6
7 Dose limits do apply to occupational and public exposures from medical procedures,
8 although, in most situations, the use of the optimisation of protection now makes them of
9 limited relevance.
10
11 11. Radiological Protection in Emergency Medical Situations with Radioactive
12 Materials
13
14 In medicine, medical intervention is the term applied to the remedial actions taken to
15 reduce doses, or their consequences, resulting from an accident or from the misuse of a
16 radioactive material.
17
18 Accidents and errors may occur with x-ray generators and accelerators, but the
19 termination of the exposures is easy and does not constitute medical intervention. In
20 fractionated radiation therapy, an error in an early fraction can be partly corrected by
21 adjusting further fractions, but this is best thought of as part of dose planning rather than
22 as medical intervention.
23
24 The misadministration of radiopharmaceuticals in diagnostic nuclear medicine does not
25 usually cause a serious health problem but does need to be explained fully to the patient.
26
27 Several examples of medical intervention in emergency situations associated with the use
28 of radioactive materials in medicine are:
29 • The dose from an excessive or erroneous administration of radioiodine in therapy
30 may be reduced by the early administration of stable iodine as potassium iodide or
31 iodate to reduce the uptake of radioiodine by the thyroid.

28
 1 • The dose from a missing brachytherapy source can be reduced by measures to locate
2 the source and warnings to those who may be exposed.
3 • The dose from a major spill of radioactive materials in nuclear medicine may be
4 reduced by the early isolation of the contaminated area and by the controlled
5 evacuation of staff and patients.
6 • The doses resulting from the improper disposal and subsequent damage or
7 mishandling of a teletherapy source may be both serious and widespread. Major
8 countermeasures in the public domain may have to include evacuation, destruction of
9 property, and decontamination of substantial areas. A widespread monitoring program
10 will be indispensable. Guidance on the levels of averted dose that would justify such
11 intervention is given in Publication 63 (ICRP, 1993).
12
13 12. Practical Methods of Protection
14
15 12.1 Occupational Exposure
16
17 The principles for the protection of workers from ionising radiation, including in
18 medicine, are fully discussed in Publication 75 (ICRP, 1997) and these principles apply to
19 staff in x-ray, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy facilities.
20
21 The control of occupational exposure can be simplified and made more
22 effective by the designation of workplaces into two types: controlled areas and supervised
23 areas. In a controlled area, normal working conditions, including the possible occurrence
24 of minor mishaps, require workers to follow well-established procedures and practices
25 aimed specifically at controlling radiation exposures. A supervised area is one in which
26 the working conditions are kept under review, but special procedures are not normally
27 needed. The definitions are best based on operational experience and judgment. In areas
28 where there is no problem of contamination by unsealed radioactive materials, designated
29 areas may sometimes be defined in terms of the dose rate at the boundary.
30

29
 1 Individual monitoring for external radiation is fairly simple and does not require a heavy
2 commitment of resources. In medicine, it should be used for all those who work in
3 controlled areas.
4
5 In several areas of medicine the control of occupational exposures is of particular
6 importance. One of these is the nursing of brachytherapy patients when the sources have
7 been implanted, rather than inserted by after-loading techniques. A second is palpation of
8 patients during diagnostic fluoroscopy. A third is in fluoroscopically guided
9 interventional procedures, as in heart catheterisation. In all these procedures, careful
10 shielding and limitation of time are needed. Individual monitoring with careful scrutiny
11 of the results is also important. In brachytherapy, the frequent and careful accounting for
12 sources is essential.
13
14 The system of protecting the staff from the source (e.g., shielding) should be designed to
15 minimise any sense of isolation experienced by the patient. This is particularly relevant in
16 nuclear medicine and brachytherapy, where the source is within the patient.
17
18 Concerning radiological protection for the embryo and fetus of a pregnant woman who is
19 occupationally exposed, the early part of a pregnancy is covered by the normal protection
20 of workers, which is essentially the same for males and females.
21
22 The Commission recommends that the working conditions of a pregnant worker, after the
23 declaration of pregnancy, should be such as to make it unlikely that the additional
24 equivalent dose to the embryo and fetus will exceed about 1 mSv during the remainder of
25 the pregnancy. In the interpretation of this recommendation, it is important not to create
26 unnecessary discrimination against pregnant women.
27
28 12.2. Public Exposure
29
30 Public access to hospitals and to radiology rooms is not unrestricted, but it is more open
31 than is common in industrial operations. There are no radiological protection grounds for

30
 1 imposing restrictions on the public access to non-designated areas. Because of the
2 limited duration of public access, an access policy can be adopted for supervised areas if
3 this is of benefit to patients or visitors and there are appropriate radiological protection
4 safeguards. Public access to controlled areas, especially to brachytherapy and nuclear
5 medicine areas, should be limited to patients' visitors, who should be advised of any
6 restrictions on their behaviour.
7
8 12.3 Exposure of Volunteers in Biomedical Research
9
10 The use of volunteers in biomedical research makes a substantial contribution to
11 medicine and to human radiobiology. Some of the research studies are of direct value in
12 the investigation of disease; others provide information on the metabolism of
13 pharmaceuticals and of radionuclides that may be absorbed from contamination of the
14 workplace or the environment. Not all these studies take place in medical institutions, but
15 the Commission treats the exposure of all these volunteers as if it were medical exposure.
16
17 The ethical and procedural aspects of the use of volunteers in biomedical research have
18 been addressed by the Commission in Publication 62 (ICRP, 1991b). The key aspects
19 include the need to guarantee a free and informed choice by the volunteers, the adoption
20 of dose constraints linked to the societal worth of the studies, and the use of an ethics
21 committee that can influence the design and conduct of the studies. It is important that the
22 ethics committee should have easy access to radiological protection advice.
23
24 In many countries, radiation exposure of pregnant females in biomedical research is not
25 specifically prohibited. However, their involvement in such research is very rare and
26 should be discouraged unless pregnancy is an integral part of the research. In these cases,
27 strict controls should be placed on the use of radiation for the protection of the fetus.
28
29 12.4 Exposure of Comforters and Carers of Patients
30

31
 1 Friends and relations helping in the support and comfort of patients are also volunteers,
2 but there is a direct benefit both to the patients and to those who care for them. Their
3 exposures are defined as medical exposure, but dose constraints should be established for
4 use in defining the protection policy both for visitors to patients and for families at home
5 when nuclear medicine patients are discharged from hospital. Such groups may include
6 children. The Commission has not previously recommended values for such constraints,
7 but a value of 5 mSv per episode (i.e., for the duration of a given release of a patient after
8 therapy) is likely to be reasonable. This constraint is not to be used rigidly. For example,
9 higher doses may well be appropriate for the parents of very sick children. This topic is
10 covered in further detail in Section 17.7.
11
12 13. Diagnostic Reference Levels
13
14 13.1 Diagnostic Reference Levels (Publications 60 and 73)
15
16 In Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a), reference levels were described as values of measured
17 quantities above which some specified action or decision should be taken. They include
18 recording levels, above which a result should be recorded, lower values being ignored;
19 investigation levels, above which the cause or the implications of the result should be
20 examined; intervention levels, above which some remedial action should be considered;
21 and, more generally, action levels, above which some specified action should be taken.
22 The use of these levels can avoid unnecessary or unproductive work and can help in the
23 effective deployment of resources. They can also be helpful in radiological protection by
24 drawing attention to situations of potentially high risk.
25
26 One particular form of reference level applies to diagnostic radiography and
27 diagnostic nuclear medicine. In Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a), the Commission
28 recommended that consideration should be given to the use of dose constraints, or
29 investigation levels, selected by the appropriate professional organization or regulatory
30 authority, for application in some common diagnostic procedures. They should be applied
31 with flexibility, to allow higher doses where indicated by sound clinical judgment.

32
 1 In Publication 73 (ICRP, 1996), the Commission decoupled the concept of diagnostic
2 reference level from that of a dose constraint, and discussed the concept in more detail, as
3 noted below.
4
5 The Commission now uses the same conceptual approach in the source-related
6 protection, irrespective of the type of source. In the case of exposure from diagnostic and
7 fluoroscopically guided medical procedures, the diagnostic reference level has as its
8 objective the optimisation of protection, but it is not implemented by constraints on
9 individual patient doses. It is a mechanism to manage patient dose to be commensurate
10 with the medical purpose. More discussion of its implementation is given in this section.
11 The important message from the Commission is that the goal of optimisation of
12 protection is applicable, regardless of the type of source or the terminology used.
13
14 The Commission now recommends the use of diagnostic reference levels for patients.
15 These levels, which are a form of investigation level, apply to an easily measured
16 quantity, usually the absorbed dose in air, or in a tissue-equivalent material at the surface
17 of a simple standard phantom or representative patient. In nuclear medicine, the quantity
18 will usually be the administered activity. In both cases, the diagnostic reference level will
19 be intended for use as a simple test for identifying situations where the levels of patient
20 dose or administered activity are unusually high.
21
22 If it is found that procedures are consistently causing the relevant diagnostic reference
23 level to be exceeded, there should be a local review of the procedures and the equipment
24 in order to determine whether the protection has been adequately optimised. If not,
25 measures aimed at reduction of the doses should be taken.
26
27 Diagnostic reference levels are supplements to professional judgment and do not provide
28 a dividing line between good and bad medicine. They contribute to good radiological
29 practice in medicine. The numerical values of diagnostic reference levels are advisory,
30 however, implementation of the diagnostic reference level concept may be required by an

33
 1 authorised body (ICRP, 2001). It is inappropriate to use the numerical values for
2 diagnostic reference levels as regulatory limits or for commercial purposes.
3
4 Diagnostic reference levels apply to radiation exposure of patients resulting from
5 procedures performed for medical diagnostic purposes. They are difficult to apply to
6 fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. They do not apply to radiation therapy,
7 and also do not apply to occupational and public exposure. Diagnostic reference levels have
8 no direct linkage to the numerical values of the Commission's dose limits or dose
9 constraints. Ideally, they should be the result of a generic optimisation of protection. In
10 practice, this is unrealistically difficult and it is simpler to choose the initial values as a
11 percentile point on the observed distribution of doses to patients. The values should be
12 selected by professional medical bodies and reviewed at intervals that represent a
13 compromise between the necessary stability and the long-term changes in the observed
14 dose distributions. The selected values will be specific to a country or region.
15
16 In principle, it might be possible to choose a lower reference level below which the doses
17 would be too low to provide a sufficiently good image quality. However, such reference
18 levels are very difficult to set, because factors other than dose also influence image
19 quality. Nevertheless, if the observed doses or administered activities are consistently
20 well below the diagnostic reference level, there should be a local review of the quality of
21 the images obtained.
22
23 Diagnostic reference levels should be related only to common types of diagnostic
24 examinations and to broadly defined types of equipment. The levels are not intended to
25 be used in a precise manner and a multiplicity of levels will reduce their usefulness.
26
27 13.2 Diagnostic Reference Levels (Supporting Guidance 2)
28
29 More recently, in Supporting Guidance 2 (ICRP, 2001), additional advice was provided,
30 as noted below.
31

34
 1 The objective of a diagnostic reference level is to help avoid radiation dose to the patient
2 that does not contribute to the clinical purpose of a medical imaging task. This is
3 accomplished by comparison between the numerical value of the diagnostic reference
4 level (derived from relevant regional, national or local data) and the mean or other
5 appropriate value observed in practice for a suitable reference group of patients or a
6 suitable reference phantom. A reference group of patients is usually defined within a
7 certain range of physical parameters (e.g., height, weight). If an unselected sample of
8 patients were used as a reference group, it would be difficult to interpret whether the
9 observed value for the sample is higher or lower than the diagnostic reference level. A
10 diagnostic reference level is used for a given medical imaging task or protocol, and is not
11 applied to individual patients.
12
13 A diagnostic reference level can be used:
14 • To improve a regional, national or local distribution of observed results for a general
15 medical imaging task, by reducing the frequency of unjustified high or low values;
16 • To promote attainment of a narrower range of values that represent good practice for
17 a more specific medical imaging task; or
18 • To promote attainment of an optimum range of values for a specified medical
19 imaging protocol.
20 These uses are differentiated by the degree of specification for the clinical and technical
21 conditions selected by the authorised body for a given medical imaging task. Definitions
22 and examples associated with the uses are given in Supporting Guidance 2 (ICRP, 2001).
23
24 Appropriate local review and action is taken when the value observed in practice is
25 consistently outside the selected upper or lower level. This process helps avoid
26 unnecessary tissue doses being received by patients in general and, therefore, helps avoid
27 unnecessary risk for the associated radiation health effects.
28
29 For fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, diagnostic reference levels, in
30 principle, could be used to promote the management of patient doses with regard to
31 avoiding unnecessary stochastic radiation risks. However, the observed distribution of

35
 1 patient doses is very wide, even for a specified protocol, because the duration and
2 complexity of the fluoroscopic exposure for each conduct of a procedure is strongly
3 dependent on the individual clinical circumstances. A potential approach is to take into
4 consideration not only the usual clinical and technical factors, but also the relative
5 ‘complexity’ of the procedure. More than one quantity (i.e., multiple diagnostic reference
6 levels) may be needed to evaluate patient dose and stochastic risk adequately.
7
8 Diagnostic reference levels are not applicable to the management of deterministic effects
9 (tissue reactions) (i.e., radiation-induced skin injuries) from fluoroscopically guided
10 interventional procedures. In this case, the objective is to avoid deterministic effects
11 (tissue reactions) in individual patients undergoing justified, but long and complex
12 procedures. The need here is to monitor in real time whether the threshold doses for
13 deterministic effects (tissue reactions) are being approached or exceeded for the actual
14 procedure as conducted on a particular patient. The relevant risk quantity is absorbed
15 dose in the skin at the site of maximum cumulative skin dose. A helpful approach is to
16 select values for maximum cumulative absorbed dose in the skin at which various clinical
17 actions regarding the patient’s record or care (related to potential radiation-induced skin
18 injuries) are taken (Publication 85) (ICRP, 2000b). Then, during actual procedures,
19 appropriate quantities that can help indicate the maximum cumulative absorbed dose in
20 the skin are monitored.
21
22 Diagnostic reference levels should be used by authorised bodies to help manage the
23 radiation dose to patients so that the dose is commensurate with the clinical purpose.
24
25 The concept of a diagnostic reference level permits flexibility in the choice of quantities,
26 numerical values, and technical or clinical specifications, in order to allow authorised
27 bodies to meet the objectives relevant to their circumstances. The guiding principles for
28 setting a diagnostic reference level are:
29 • The regional, national or local objective is clearly defined, including the degree of
30 specification of clinical and technical conditions for the medical imaging task;

36
 1 • The selected value of the diagnostic reference level is based on relevant regional,
2 national or local data;
3 • The quantity used for the diagnostic reference level can be obtained in a practical
4 way;
5 • The quantity used for the diagnostic reference level is a suitable measure of the
6 relative change in patient tissue doses and, therefore, of the relative change in patient
7 risk for the given medical imaging task; and
8 • The manner in which the diagnostic reference level is to be applied in practice is
9 clearly illustrated.
10
11 Authorised bodies are encouraged to set diagnostic reference levels that best meet their
12 specific needs and that are consistent for the regional, national or local area to which they
13 apply.
14
15 14. Preventing Accidents and Emergencies in Medicine
16
17 Accident prevention should be an integral part of the design of equipment and premises
18 and of the working procedures. A key feature of accident prevention has long been the
19 use of multiple safeguards against the consequences of failures. This approach, now often
20 called 'defense in depth' is aimed at preventing a single failure from having serious
21 consequences. Some defenses are provided by the design of equipment, others by the
22 working procedures.
23
24 Although the main emphasis in accident prevention should be on the equipment and
25 procedures in radiation therapy (Publications 86 and 97) (ICRP, 2000c; 2005a), some
26 attention should be paid to accidents with diagnostic equipment.
27
28 Radiation therapy equipment should be designed to reduce operator errors by
29 automatically rejecting demands outside the design specification or by questioning the
30 validity of the instruction. Enclosures should be designed to exclude staff during
31 exposures, without unduly isolating the patient.

37
 1
2 Radiation therapy equipment should be calibrated after installation and after any
3 modification and should be routinely checked by a standard test procedure that will detect
4 significant changes in performance.
5
6 Working procedures should require key decisions, especially in radiation therapy, to be
7 subject to independent confirmation. The patient's identity and the correct link to the
8 prescribed treatment should be double-checked. In therapeutic nuclear medicine, dual
9 checks should be made on the correctness of the pharmaceutical and its activity. Effective
10 communication between all the staff involved is a vital part of the process.
11
12 Radioactive sources used for therapy can cause very serious exposures if they are mislaid
13 or misused. Brachytherapy sources should be subject to frequent and thorough accounting
14 checks and provision should be made for their eventual disposal. The possible presence
15 of implanted sources or therapeutic activities of radiopharmaceuticals should be taken
16 into account in the handling of deceased patients.
17
18 15. Education and Training
19
20 There should be radiological protection training requirements for physicians and other
21 health professionals who order, conduct or assist in medical procedures that utilise
22 ionising radiation in diagnostic and fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures,
23 nuclear medicine and radiation therapy. The final responsibility for the radiation exposure
24 lies with the physician, who therefore should be aware of the risks and benefits of the
25 procedures involved.
26
27 Education and training should be given at the medical schools, during the residency and
28 in focused specific courses. There should be an evaluation of the training, and appropriate
29 recognition that the individual has successfully completed the training. In addition, there
30 should be corresponding radiological protection training requirements for clinical support
31 personnel that assist physicians in the conduct of procedures utilizing ionizing radiation.

38
 1
2 16. Institutional Arrangements
3
4 In particular, it is important to clarify the separate responsibilities of the referring
5 physicians who request radiological procedures, the radiologists who undertake the
6 procedures, and the administrators who provide the resources.
7
8 One important need is to provide adequate resources for the education and training in
9 radiological protection for future professional and technical staff who request or partake
10 in radiological practices in medicine. The training program should include initial training
11 for all incoming staff and regular updating and retraining.
12
13 Quality assurance programs are essential for maintaining the intended standards in all the
14 functions of the undertaking. Their scope should specifically include radiological
15 protection and safety.
16
17 Any system of verification includes record-keeping. The requirements for recording
18 occupational exposures will usually be determined by the regulatory authorities.
19 Diagnostic exposures rarely need to be measured, but if they are, records should be kept
20 of any comparisons with diagnostic reference levels. In radiation therapy, the data from
21 dose planning, administered activity (in nuclear medicine), and, for radiation therapy
22 patients, the activity at the time of discharge should be included in the patients' records.
23
24 17. Focused Evaluations of Radiological Protection in Medicine
25
26 Committee 3 has produced a number of documents that provide detailed advice related to
27 radiological protection and safety in the medical applications of ionising radiation. Each
28 document focuses on a particular radiation source as applied in a given medical discipline
29 or to a given type of patient. Each document is a compendium of the application of the
30 extant Commission recommendations, as applicable to medical radiation. For the most
31 part, Committee 3 has found no hindrance to these efforts because of the existing

39
 1 recommendations. In brief, the following observations appear to be the predominant ones
2 in regard to radiological protection and safety in medicine.
3 • Communications must be directed to the relevant medical practitioners, in a format in
4 which they are conversant, and channeled to them by an appropriate authoritative or
5 professional body.
6 • In diagnostic and fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, management of
7 the patient dose commensurate with the medical task is the appropriate mechanism to
8 avoid unproductive radiation exposure. Equipment features that allow that to be
9 accomplished, and diagnostic reference levels derived at the appropriate national,
10 regional or local level are likely to be the most effective approaches.
11 In radiation therapy, the avoidance of accidents is the predominate issue. A review of
12 such accidents and advice for preventing them is found in Publication 86 (for external
13 beam and solid brachytherapy sources) (ICRP, 2000c), Publication 97 (additional advice
14 for high-dose-rate brachytherapy sources) (ICRP, 2005a) and Publication 98 (additional
15 advice for permanently implanted sources used in brachytherapy for prostate cancer)
16 (ICRP, 2005b). Brief synopses of these publications are provided below. Each illustrates
17 the aspects of the Commission’s radiological protection framework that are most
18 relevant.
19
20 17.1 Pregnancy and Medical Radiation (Publication 84)
21
22 Thousands of pregnant patients and radiation workers are exposed to ionising radiation
23 each year. Lack of knowledge is responsible for great anxiety and probably unnecessary
24 termination of pregnancies. For many patients, the exposure is appropriate, while for
25 others the exposure may be inappropriate, placing the unborn child at increased risk.
26
27 Before any exposure using ionising radiation, it is important to determine whether a
28 female is, or could be, pregnant. Medical exposures during pregnancy require specific
29 consideration due to the radiation sensitivity of the developing fetus. The manner in
30 which an examination is performed depends on whether the fetus will be in the direct
31 beam and whether the procedure requires a relatively higher dose.

40
 1
2 Prenatal doses from most correctly performed diagnostic procedures present no
3 measurably increased risk of prenatal death, developmental damage including
4 malformation, or impairment of mental development over the background incidence of
5 these entities. Higher doses, such as those involved in using therapeutic procedures Have
6 the potential to result in developmental harm.
7
8 The pregnant patient or worker has a right to know the magnitude and type of potential
9 radiation effects that might result from in utero exposure. Almost always, if a diagnostic
10 radiology examination is medically indicated, the risk to the mother of not doing the
11 procedure is greater than is the risk of potential harm to the embryo or fetus. Most nuclear
12 medicine procedures do not result in high doses to the embryo and fetus. However, some
13 radiopharmaceuticals that are used in nuclear medicine (e.g., radioiodides) can pose
14 increased fetal risks.
15
16 It is essential to ascertain whether a female patient is pregnant prior to radiation therapy.
17 In pregnant patients, cancers that are remote from the pelvis usually can be treated with
18 radiation therapy. This however requires careful planning. Cancers in the pelvis cannot be
19 adequately treated during pregnancy without severe or lethal consequences for the
20 embryo and fetus.
21
22 The basis for the control of the occupational exposure of women who are not pregnant is
23 the same as that for men. However, if a woman is, or may be, pregnant, additional
24 controls have to be considered to protect the unborn child.
25
26 In many countries, radiation exposure of pregnant females in biomedical research is not
27 specifically prohibited. However, their involvement in such research is very rare and
28 should be discouraged unless pregnancy is an integral part of the research. In these cases,
29 strict controls should be placed on the use of radiation for the protection of the fetus.
30
31 Termination of pregnancy is an individual decision affected by many factors. Absorbed

41
 1 doses below 100 mGy to the developing organism should not be considered a reason for
2 terminating a pregnancy. At fetal doses above this level, informed decisions should be
3 made based upon individual circumstances, including the magnitude of the estimated
4 embryonic or fetal dose and the consequent risks of harm to the developing fetus and
5 risks of cancer in later life.
6
7 17.2 Medical Interventional Procedures (Fluoroscopically Guided) (Publication 85)
8
9 Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures are being used by an increasing
10 number of clinicians not adequately trained in radiation safety or radiobiology. Many of
11 these interventionists are not aware of the potential for injury from these procedures or
12 the simple methods for decreasing their incidence. Many patients are not being
13 counselled on the radiation risks, nor followed up when radiation doses from difficult
14 procedures may lead to injury. Some patients are suffering radiation-induced skin injuries
15 and younger patients may face an increased risk of future cancer. Interventionists are
16 having their practice limited or suffering injury, and are exposing their staff to high
17 doses.
18
19 In some of these interventional procedures, skin doses to patients approach those
20 experienced in radiation therapy fractions in the treatment of cancer. Radiation-induced
21 skin injuries are occurring in patients due to the use of inappropriate equipment and, more
22 often, poor operational technique. Injuries to physicians and staff performing these
23 interventional procedures have also been observed. Acute radiation doses (to patients)
24 may cause erythema at 2 Gy, cataract at 2 Gy, permanent epilation at 7 Gy, and delayed
25 skin necrosis at 12 Gy. Protracted (occupational) exposures to the eye may cause
26 cataracts at 4 Gy if the dose is received in less than 3 months, at 5.5 Gy if received over a
27 period exceeding 3 months.
28
29 Practical actions to control dose to the patient and to the staff are available. The absorbed
30 dose to the patient in the area of skin that receives the maximum dose is of priority
31 concern. Each local clinical protocol should include, for each type of fluoroscopically

42
 1 guided interventional procedure, a statement on the cumulative skin doses and skin sites
2 associated with the various parts of the procedure. Interventionists should be trained to
3 use information on skin dose and on practical techniques to control dose. Maximum
4 cumulative absorbed doses that appear to approach or exceed 1 Gy (for procedures that
5 may be repeated) or 3 Gy (for any procedure) should be recorded in the patient record,
6 and there should be a patient follow-up procedure for such cases. Patients should be
7 counselled if there is a significant risk of radiation-induced injury, and the patient’s
8 personal physician should be informed of the possibility of radiation effects. Training in
9 radiological protection for patients and staff should be an integral part of the education
10 for those using these interventional procedures. All interventionists should audit and
11 review the outcomes of their procedures for radiation injury. Risks and benefits,
12 including radiation risks, should be taken into account when new fluoroscopically guided
13 interventional techniques are introduced.
14
15 17.3 Accidental Exposures in Radiation Therapy (Publication 86)
16
17 From the viewpoint of radiation safety, radiation therapy is a very special application of
18 radiation because:
19 • Human beings are directly placed in a very intense radiation beam (external beam
20 therapy), or radiation sources are placed in direct contact with tissue (brachytherapy),
21 to deliver intentionally very high doses (20 to 80 Gy), and
22 • Overdosage as well as under dosage may have severe consequences.
23
24 This publication aims to assist in the prevention of accidental exposures involving
25 patients undergoing treatment from external beam or solid brachytherapy sources. It does
26 not directly deal with radiation therapy involving unsealed sources. The document is
27 addressed to a diverse audience of professionals directly involved in radiation therapy
28 procedures, hospital administrators, and health and regulatory authorities. The approach
29 adopted is to describe illustrative severe accidents, discuss the causes of these events and
30 contributory factors, summarise the sometimes devastating consequences of these events,
31 and provide recommendations on the prevention of such events. The measures discussed

43
 1 include institutional arrangements, staff training, quality assurance programs, adequate
2 supervision, clear definition of responsibilities, and prompt reporting.
3
4 In many of the accidental exposures described in this report, a single cause cannot be
5 identified. Usually, there was a combination of factors contributing to the accident, e.g.,
6 deficient staff training, lack of independent checks, lack of quality control procedures,
7 and absence of overall supervision. Such combinations often point to an overall
8 deficiency in management, allowing patient treatment in the absence of a comprehensive
9 quality assurance program. Factors common to many accidents are identified and
10 discussed in detail, and explicit recommendations on measures to prevent radiation
11 therapy accidents are given with respect to regulations, education, and quality assurance.
12
13 Doses received during radiation therapy are on the upper edge of tolerable doses to
14 normal tissues. As a result, accidental over dosages have often had devastating and
15 sometimes fatal consequences. Accidental exposures involving a 10 percent or more over
16 dosage should be detectable by a well-trained clinician, based upon an unusually high
17 incidence of adverse patient reactions. Under dosage accidents are difficult to detect
18 clinically and may only be manifest as poor tumor control.
19
20 Radiation therapy is increasing worldwide and accidents may be expected to increase in
21 frequency, if measures for prevention are not taken. While a number of serious and fatal
22 radiation therapy accidents are reported, it is likely that many more have occurred but
23 were either not recognised or reported to regulatory authorities or published in the
24 literature.
25
26 The complex equipment and techniques used in radiation therapy mandate that for
27 accident prevention, there must be sound and risk-informed regulations, managerial
28 commitment at the hospital level, an adequate number of trained staff, adequate
29 resources, a functional implemented quality assurance program, good communication,
30 and continuing education.
31

44
 1 There is a danger in not fully appreciating that modern equipment and new technologies
2 require more quality assurance and highly qualified maintenance. Persons in charge of
3 radiation therapy facilities should ensure that there is proper commissioning of new
4 equipment and proper decommissioning of old equipment and sources.
5
6 17.4 Computed Tomography (Publication 87)
7
8 Computed tomography (CT) examinations can involve relatively high doses to patients.
9 The absorbed doses to tissues from computed tomography (10 to 100 mGy) can often
10 approach or exceed the levels known from epidemiological studies to increase the
11 probability of cancer. The frequency of CT examinations is increasing worldwide and the
12 types of examinations using CT are also becoming more numerous. However, in contrast
13 to the common trend in diagnostic radiology, the rapid developments in CT have not led
14 in general to a reduction of patient doses for a given type of application.
15
16 Therefore, management of patient dose is crucial. The referring physician should evaluate
17 whether the result of each examination will affect patient management. The radiologist
18 should concur that the procedure is justified. The operator should be aware of the
19 possibilities to reduce patient doses by adapting technical parameters to each patient and
20 the examination at hand, with special attention being paid to pediatric and young patients.
21 More than a 50 percent reduction in patient dose is possible by an appropriate choice of
22 technical parameters, attention to quality control, and the application of diagnostic
23 reference levels in co-operation with a medical physicist. Further improvements in CT
24 equipment could help the operator to reduce unnecessary patient doses substantially. The
25 most important of these features will be anatomically based on-line adjustment of
26 exposure factors and new image reconstruction approaches associated with multi-slice
27 computed tomography.
28
29 17.5 Guide for General Practitioners (Supporting Guidance 2)
30
31 This didactic text is devoted to the protection of patients against unnecessary exposure to

45
 1 ionising radiation. It is organised in a questions-and-answers format.
2
3 There are obvious benefits to health from medical uses of radiation, in x-ray diagnostics,
4 fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, nuclear medicine, and radiation
5 therapy. However, there are well-established risks from high doses of radiation (radiation
6 therapy, fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures), particularly if improperly
7 applied, and possible deleterious effects from small radiation doses (such as those used in
8 diagnostics). Appropriate use of large doses in radiation therapy prevents serious harm,
9 but even low doses carry a risk that cannot be eliminated entirely. Diagnostic use of
10 radiation requires therefore such methodology that would secure high diagnostic gains
11 while minimising the possible harm.
12
13 The text provides ample information on opportunities to minimise doses, and therefore
14 the risk from diagnostic uses of radiation. This objective may be reached by avoiding
15 unnecessary (unjustified) examinations, and by optimising the procedures applied both
16 from the standpoint of diagnostic quality and in terms of reduction of the excessive doses
17 to patients.
18
19 Optimisation of patient protection in radiation therapy must depend on maintaining
20 sufficiently high doses to irradiated tumors, securing a high cure rate, while protecting the
21 healthy tissues to the largest extent possible.
22
23 Problems related to special protection of the embryo and fetus in the course of diagnostic
24 and therapeutic uses of radiation are presented and practical solutions are recommended.
25
26 17.6 Digital Radiology (Publication 93)
27
28 Digital techniques have the potential to improve the practice of radiology but they also
29 risk the overuse of radiation. The main advantages of digital imaging (i.e., wide dynamic
30 range, post processing, multiple viewing options, and electronic transfer and archiving
31 possibilities) are clear but overexposures can occur without an adverse impact on image

46
 1 quality. In conventional radiography, excessive exposure produces a ‘black’ film. In
2 digital systems, good images are obtained for a large range of doses. It is very easy to
3 obtain (and delete) images with digital fluoroscopy systems, and there may be a tendency
4 to obtain more images than necessary.
5
6 In digital radiology, higher patient dose usually means improved image quality, so a ten-
7 dency to use higher patient doses than necessary could occur. Different medical imaging
8 tasks require different levels of image quality, and doses that have no additional benefit
9 for the clinical purpose should be avoided.
10
11 Image quality can be compromised by inappropriate levels of data compression and/or
12 post processing techniques. All these new challenges should be part of the optimisation
13 process and should be included in clinical and technical protocols.
14
15 Local diagnostic reference levels should be re-evaluated for digital imaging, and patient
16 dose parameters should be displayed at the operator console. Frequent patient dose audits
17 should occur when digital techniques are introduced. Training in the management of
18 image quality and patient dose in digital radiology is necessary. Digital radiology will
19 involve new regulations and invoke new challenges for practitioners. As digital images
20 are easier to obtain and transmit, the justification criteria should be reinforced.
21
22 Commissioning of digital systems should involve clinical specialists, medical physicists,
23 and radiographers to ensure that imaging capability and radiation dose management are
24 integrated. Quality control requires new procedures and protocols (visualisation,
25 transmission, and archiving of the images).
26
27 Industry should promote tools to inform radiologists, radiographers, and medical
28 physicists about the exposure parameters and the resultant patient doses associated with
29 digital systems. The exposure parameters and the resultant patient doses should be
30 standardised, displayed, and recorded.
31

47
 1 17.7 Unsealed Radionuclides (Release after Therapy) (Publication 94)
2
3 After some therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures with unsealed radionuclides,
4 precautions may be needed to limit doses to other people, but this is rarely the case after
5 diagnostic procedures. Iodine-131 results in the largest dose to medical staff, the public,
6 caregivers, and relatives. Other radionuclides used in therapy are usually simple beta
7 emitters (e.g., phosphorus-32, strontiuin-89, and yttrium-90) that pose much less risk.
8 Dose limits apply to exposure of the public and medical staff from patients.
9
10 Previously, the Commission recommended that a source-related dose constraint of a few
11 mSv per episode applies to relatives, visitors, and caregivers at home, rather than a dose
12 limit (Publication 73) (ICRP, 1996). A dose constraint of 5 mSv per episode (i.e., for the
13 duration of a given release of a patient after therapy) is likely to be reasonable (see
14 Section 12.4).
15
16 Publication 94 (ICRP, 2004) recommends that young children and infants, as well as
17 visitors not engaged in direct care or comforting, should be treated as members of the
18 public (i.e., be subject to the public dose limit of 1 mSv/year).
19
20 The modes of exposure to other people are: external exposure; internal exposure due to
21 contamination; and environmental pathways. Dose to adults from patients is mainly due
22 to external exposure. Contamination of infants and children with saliva from a patient
23 could result in significant doses to the child’s thyroid. It is important to avoid
24 contamination of children and pregnant women. After radioiodine therapy, mothers must
25 cease breastfeeding immediately. Many types of therapy with unsealed radionuclides are
26 contraindicated in pregnant females. Women should not become pregnant for some time
27 after radionuclide therapy.
28
29 Technetium-99m dominates discharges to the environment from excreta of nuclear
30 medicine patients, but its short half-life limits its importance. The second largest
31 discharges, iodine-131, can be detected in the environment after medical uses but with no

48
 1 measurable environmental impact. Storing patients’ urine after radionuclide therapy
2 appears to have minimal benefit. Radionuclides released into modern sewage systems are
3 likely to result in doses to sewer workers and the public that are well below public dose
4 limits.
5
6 The decision to hospitalise or release a patient should be determined on an individual
7 basis. In addition to residual activity in the patient, the decision should take many other
8 factors into account. Hospitalisation will reduce exposure to the public and relatives, but
9 will increase exposure to hospital staff. Hospitalisation often involves a significant
10 psychological burden as well as monetary and other costs that should be analyzed and
11 justified. Patients traveling after radioiodine therapy rarely present a hazard to other
12 passengers if travel times are limited to a few hours.
13
14 Environmental or other radiation-detection devices are able to detect patients who have
15 had radioiodine therapy for several weeks after treatment. Personnel operating such
16 detectors should be specifically trained to identify and deal with nuclear medicine
17 patients. Records of the specifics of therapy with unsealed radionuclides should be
18 maintained at the hospital and given to the patient along with written precautionary
19 instructions. In the case of death of a patient who has had therapy with unsealed
20 radionuclides in the last few months, special precautions may be required.
21
22 17.8 High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (Accidents) (Publication 97)
23
24 High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is a rapidly growing technique that has been
25 replacing low-dose-rate (LDR) procedures over the last few years in both industrialised
26 and developing countries. It is estimated that about 500,000 procedures (administrations
27 of treatment) are performed by HDR units annually. LDR equipment has been
28 discontinued by many manufacturers, leaving HDR brachytherapy as the major
29 alternative.
30
31 HDR brachytherapy techniques deliver a very high dose, of the order of 1.6 to 5.0 Gy per

49
 1 minute, so mistakes can lead to under- or overdosage with the potential for clinical
2 adverse effects. More than 500 HDR accidents (including one death) have been reported
3 along the entire chain of procedures from source packing to delivery of dose. Human
4 error has been the prime cause of radiation events. In the present report, the International
5 Commission on Radiological Protection concludes that many accidents could have been
6 prevented if staff had had functional monitoring equipment and paid attention to the
7 results.
8
9 Since iridium has a relatively short half-life, the HDR sources need to be replaced
10 approximately every 4 months. Over 10,000 HDR sources are transported annually, with
11 the resultant potential for accidents; therefore, appropriate procedures and regulations
12 must be observed.
13
14 A number of specific recommendations on procedures and equipment are given in this
15 report. The need for an emergency plan and for practicing emergency procedures is
16 stressed. The possibility of loss or theft of sources must be kept in mind.
17
18 A collaborating team of specifically trained personnel following quality assurance (QA)
19 procedures is necessary to prevent accidents. Maintenance is an indispensable component
20 of QA; external audits of procedures reinforce good and safe practice, and identify
21 potential causes of accidents. QA should include peer review of cases. Accidents and
22 incidents should be reported and the lessons learned should be shared with other users to
23 prevent similar mistakes.
24
25 17.9 Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer with Permanent Sources (Radiation Safety)
26 (Publication 98)
27
28 The use of permanent radioactive implants (125I or 103Pd seeds) to treat selected localised
29 prostate cancer patients has been increasing rapidly all over the world for the last 15
30 years. It is estimated that more than 50,000 patients receive this treatment annually
31 worldwide, and this number is anticipated to increase in the near future.

50
 1
2 Although no accidents or adverse effects involving medical staff and members of the
3 patient’s family have been reported to date, this brachytherapy technique raises a number
4 of radiation safety issues.
5
6 All data concerning the dose received by people approaching patients after implantation
7 have been reviewed. Those doses have been either measured directly or calculated. The
8 available data show that, in the vast majority of cases, the dose to comforters and carers is
9 well below a value of 1 mSv/year. Only the (rare) case where the patient’s partner is
10 pregnant at the time of implantation may need specific precautions.
11
12 Expulsion of sources through urine, semen, or the gastrointestinal tract is rare. Specific
13 recommendations should be given to patients to allow them to deal adequately with this
14 event. Of note, due to the low activity of an isolated seed and its low photon energy, no
15 incident or accident linked to seed loss has ever been recorded.
16
17 The cremation of bodies (frequent in some countries) in the first few months after
18 implantation raises several issues related to: (1) the activity that remains in the patient’s
19 ashes; and (2) the airborne dose, potentially inhaled by crematorium staff or members of
20 the public. Review of available data shows that cremation can be allowed if 12 months
21 have elapsed since implantation with 125I (3 months for 103Pd). If the patient dies before
22 this delay has elapsed, specific measures must be undertaken.
23
24 Specific recommendations have to be given to the patient to warn his surgeon in case of
25 subsequent pelvic or abdominal surgery. A ‘wallet card’ with all relevant information
26 about the implant is useful.
27
28 In most cases, brachytherapy does make the patient infertile. However, although the
29 therapy-related modifications of the semen reduce fertility, patients must be aware of the
30 possibility of fathering children after such a permanent implantation, with a limited risk
31 of genetic effects for the child.

51
 1
2 Patients with permanent implants must be aware of the possibility of triggering certain
3 types of security radiation monitors. The ‘wallet card’ including the main information
4 about the implant (see above) may prove to be helpful in such a case.
5
6 Considering the available experience after brachytherapy and external irradiation of pros-
7 tate cancer, the risk of radio-induced secondary tumors appears to be extremely low. The
8 demonstrated benefit of brachytherapy clearly outweighs, by far, the very limited (mainly
9 theoretical) increase in the radiation-induced cancer risk.
10
11 References
12
13 ICRP, 1985. Protection of the patient in radiation therapy. ICRP Publication 44. Ann
14 ICRP 15 (2).
15 ICRP, 1991a. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
16 Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP 21 (1-3).
17 ICRP, 1991b. Radiological protection in biomedical research. ICRP Publication 62. Ann
18 ICRP 22 (3).
19 ICRP, 1993. Principles for intervention for protection of the public in a radiological
20 emergency. ICRP Publication 63. Ann ICRP 22 (4).
21 ICRP, 1996. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Ann
22 ICRP 26 (2).
23 ICRP, 1997. General principles for the radiation protection of workers. ICRP Publication
24 75, Ann ICRP 27 (1).
25 ICRP, 1999a. Genetic susceptibility to cancer. ICRP Publication 79. Ann ICRP 28 (1-2).
26 ICRP, 1999b. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceutical. Addendum to ICRP
27 53. Also, includes Addendum 1 to ICRP Publication 72. ICRP Publication 80. Ann
28 ICRP 28 (3).
29 ICRP, 2000a. Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP Publication 84. Ann ICRP 30 (1).
30 ICRP, 2000b. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures.
31 ICRP Publication 85. Ann. ICRP 30 (2).

52
 1 ICRP, 2000c. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation
2 therapy. ICRP Publication 86. Ann. ICRP 30 (3).
3 ICRP, 2000d. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. ICRP Publication 87.
4 Ann. ICRP 30 (4).
5 ICRP, 2001. Radiation and your patient: A guide for medical practitioners. Also includes:
6 Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging - review and additional advice. ICRP
7 Supporting Guidance 2, Ann. ICRP 31(4).
8 ICRP, 2003a. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann.
9 ICRP 34 (1).
10 ICRP, 2003b. Biological effects after prenatal irradiation (embryo and fetus). ICRP
11 Publication 90. Ann ICRP 33 (1/2).
12 ICRP, 2003c. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation
13 weighting factor (wR). ICRP Publication 92. Ann ICRP 33 (4).
14 ICRP, 2004. Release of patients after therapy with unsealed sources. ICRP Publication
15 94. Ann ICRP 34 (2).
16 ICRP, 2005a. Prevention of high-dose-rate brachytherapy accidents. ICRP Publication
17 97. Ann. ICRP 35 (2).
18 ICRP, 2005b. Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy for prostate cancer using
19 permanently implanted sources. ICRP Publication 98. Ann. ICRP 35 (3).
20 ICRP, 2006a. Biological and epidemiological information on health risks attributable to
21 ionising radiation: A summary of judgements for the purposes of radiological
22 protection of humans. Annex A to draft recommendations.
23 ICRP, 2006b. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. ICRP Publication
24 99. Ann. ICRP 35 (4).
25 ICRP, 2006c. Basis for dosimetric quantities used in radiological protection. Annex B to
26 draft recommendations.
27 ICRP, 2007. Radiological protection in medicine. Committee 3 document. In preparation.
28 ICRU, 2005. Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging. ICRU Report 74. J.
29 ICRU 5 (2).

53
1 UNSCEAR, 2000. Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation. United Nations Scientific
2 Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with
3 Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York, NY.
4
5

54