Validation of ELDO approaches for retrospective assessment of cumulative eye lens doses of interventional cardiologists—results from DoReMi project

Lara Struelens, Joanna Domienik-Andrzejewska, Jad Farah

    Research outputpeer-review

    Abstract

    The first validation results of the two approaches developed in the ELDO project for retrospective assessment of eye lens doses for interventional cardiologists (ICs) are presented in this paper. The first approach (a) is based on both the readings from the routine whole body dosimeter worn above the lead apron and procedure-dependent conversion coefficients, while the second approach (b) is based on detailed information related to the occupational exposure history of the ICs declared in a questionnaire and eye lens dose records obtained from the relevant literature. The latter approach makes use of various published eye lens doses per procedure as well as the appropriate correction factors which account for the use of radiation protective tools designed to protect the eye lens. To validate both methodologies, comprehensive measurements were performed in several Polish clinics among recruited physicians. Two dosimeters measuring whole body and eye lens doses were worn by every physician for at least two mont hs. The estimated cumulative eye lens doses, calculated from both approaches, were then compared against the measured eye lens dose value for every physician separately. Both approaches results in comparable estimates of eye lens doses and tend to overestimate rather than underestimate the eye lens doses. The measured and estimated doses do not differ, on average, by a factor higher than 2.0 in 85% and 62% of the cases used to validate approach (a) and (b), respectively. In specific cases, however, the estimated doses differ from the measured ones by as much as a factor of 2.7 and 5.1 for method (a) and (b), respectively. As such, the two approaches can be considered accurate when retrospectively estimating the eye lens doses for ICs and will be of great benefit for ongoing epidemiological studies.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)736-745
    Number of pages10
    JournalJournal of Radiological protection
    Volume36
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 1 Dec 2016

    Cite this