Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2020
Keywords:
Action 7 - Radiation protection of children, Nuclear medicine, Paediatric, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, SPECT, Diagnostic procedure, Dosimetric comparison, Not applicable, Diagnostic or prognostic study, Performed at one institution
Authors:
F. Coppe , L. Santos , J. C. Hermida , O. Alonso
DOI:
10.26044/esi2020/ESI-08375
Description of activity and work performed
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Patient population: In this study, 327 consecutive pediatric patients (age 0-17 years old) were included between October 2017 and December 2019. Children attended our centre for diagnostic studies are mentioned in Table 1.
Radiopharmaceutical |
N°Studies |
99mTc-DMSA |
194 |
99mTc-DTPA |
62 |
99mTc-MAA |
3 |
99mTc-MDP |
56 |
99mTc-SestaMIBI (Cancer seeking agent) |
3 |
99mTc-Pertechnetate (Thyroid) |
9 |
Table 1. Number and type of scintigraphy scans performed in CMNIM of the Clinical Hospital
Patients for cystography were excluded because we adopted a fixed activity of 33.3 MBq, not related to the child's weight.
To compare the diagnosis quality of the images data was collected from a retrospective sample of 50 patients who performed scintigraphy scans before 2017.
To select the studies for comparison it was taken into account the weight and age of the children as well as the type of scintigraphy and gamma camera in which it was acquired.
Data Collection: The syringes with activities were measured with two different Dose Calibrator: 1- Atomlab 100 2- Capintec CRC 55tR.
The scans were performed using the following gamma cameras: 1- A rectangular single head camera Sophy DSX. 2- Mediso, Anyscan Sc-SPECT/CT, double detector equipped with a 16-slice CT. 3- Mediso, Nucline Spirit, double detector.
Data Analysis: After the acquisition and processing of the images, three observers did a comparison between the two groups of images. A Nuclear Medicine technologist evaluated the technical quality and two Nuclear Medicine physicians decided in each particular study the acceptability for clinical use.
The effective dose(E) and absorbed dose(D) to the bladder walls of two cohorts of patients were estimated. Two groups were selected at random among patients who were performed bone scintigraphy with 99mTc-MDP. It was used RADAR (Radiation Dose Assessment Resource) from Image Gently page (3), as a dosimetric system.