Is there a harmful level of radiation exposure in interventional radiology?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

theWUbear

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
61
I don't really know much about the field but have the following questions for someone who may know more.

I happened to stumble upon an article or two stating that current radiation safety standards may not be sufficient for IR doctors over the long run (many years of practice). Is this something to consider in IR? Might there be higher levels of cancer in IR doctors because of long term exposure?

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SIR/13266
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9626442
www.zgrav.com/1.pdf

Three random sources that say random things
 
Yes there is a harmful level of exposure, but you do wear a cool (well... it's cool until you realize that you stand in it from 7 to 7) 10 lbs lead suit.
 
You probably will get to wear one of those badges that people wear that can help determine you level of radiation exposure.
 
If I do IR, I'm sticking with MR.
 
Yes there is a harmful level of exposure, but you do wear a cool (well... it's cool until you realize that you stand in it from 7 to 7) 10 lbs lead suit.

That stuff is so heavy and stuffy. You wouldn't think that it would make that much of a difference...
 
If I understand IR correctly, and I probably don't, you do procedures while in the imaging field. It seems that you would have increased exposure to radiation and increased complications secondary to exposure.
 
Yes there is a harmful level of exposure, but you do wear a cool (well... it's cool until you realize that you stand in it from 7 to 7) 10 lbs lead suit.

Technically, they have some that only weight 5-ish pounds...Same cool factor, less protection :laugh:
 
I don't think so. Your thorax and abdomen are pretty well shielded and you wear a dosimeter. Because of the inverse square law you're not likely to get a lot of face/head exposure (and even if you do, the thing you're probably most worried about are cataracts way down the road). Your hands and feet probably get a fairly high dose, but there's not much there that's radiation sensitive.

Honestly, you have DNA repair enzymes and radical scavengers for a reason. In the past, people who did do imaging did have much higher radiation toxicity rates than others. Now, I doubt there's much of a difference.
 
fluoroscopy and x-rays are widely used by proceduralists... IR, cards, neurosurg, vascular, ortho, etc. I doubt there is or will be any definitive data on cancer rate due to exposure.

I think I read in the IR forums once about alternating your exposure days... ie doing fluoroscopy 1-2 days, ultrasound or w/e some other days, etc. so you're not doing fluoro 5 days/wk.
 
I don't think so. Your thorax and abdomen are pretty well shielded and you wear a dosimeter. Because of the inverse square law you're not likely to get a lot of face/head exposure (and even if you do, the thing you're probably most worried about are cataracts way down the road). Your hands and feet probably get a fairly high dose, but there's not much there that's radiation sensitive.

Honestly, you have DNA repair enzymes and radical scavengers for a reason. In the past, people who did do imaging did have much higher radiation toxicity rates than others. Now, I doubt there's much of a difference.

Just to add to your point- they have "leaded" protective eyewear that you can wear as well. I have some experience with this industry, and have always been amazed by the number of people who pay no attention to their eyes when it comes to radiation. That and the number of doctors who think they do not need a thyroid shield with their aprons. If I was going to wear just one item, it would be the thyroid collar.
 
I was a physics/nuclear engineering major.

I didn't actually read what the dose equivalent exposure was (in REMS) I assume it's low.

Currently there is a large debate about low levels of radiation and its impact on the body. As you know, below a certain threshold radiation exposure has stochastic health effects (random). Things like developing cancer. We don't know when/how intense your cancer will develop, but we do know that radiation exposure increases your risk of it, and so we label it a "random" process or stochastic process.

There are two predominant theories as to what radiation does to you at low levels. Some people draw a linear line, that is to say that even slight exposures to radiation will have some increase in risk for health defects.

Whereas another popular theory is that of a threshold. One must be exposed to a certain amount of radiation before increased risks begin to develop. That anything below this threshold amount, the body has built in mechanisms to repair and so won't damage you.

America's view is that of the threshold theory, whereas European scientists tend to lean more towards the linear theory.

My own personal view? You're getting exposed to radiation right now, in the air you breath, in the light that travels through you, and in the food/water you drink. Biological systems have probably adapted to this constant exposure in radiation such that there are built in mechanisms to repair low level damage to D.N.A... therefore I subscribe to the threshold view

and that the radiation you're likely to encounter in the radiology field is low, you shouldn't worry.
 
Yea, I don't think it is a worrying matter (or that important) with the right protection. Always use protection.
 
I used to shadow an interventional radiologist. His particular hospital had very strict rules about limiting radiation exposure, so whenever possible, he would set everything up for an image and then step outside of the room while a tech actually took the images. The doctor would watch from an outside screen, form a new plan of action, and then go back into the procedure room.
 
I used to shadow an interventional radiologist. His particular hospital had very strict rules about limiting radiation exposure, so whenever possible, he would set everything up for an image and then step outside of the room while a tech actually took the images. The doctor would watch from an outside screen, form a new plan of action, and then go back into the procedure room.
:laugh: Taking one for the team!
 
I was a physics/nuclear engineering major.

I didn't actually read what the dose equivalent exposure was (in REMS) I assume it's low.

Currently there is a large debate about low levels of radiation and its impact on the body. As you know, below a certain threshold radiation exposure has stochastic health effects (random). Things like developing cancer. We don't know when/how intense your cancer will develop, but we do know that radiation exposure increases your risk of it, and so we label it a "random" process or stochastic process.

There are two predominant theories as to what radiation does to you at low levels. Some people draw a linear line, that is to say that even slight exposures to radiation will have some increase in risk for health defects.

Whereas another popular theory is that of a threshold. One must be exposed to a certain amount of radiation before increased risks begin to develop. That anything below this threshold amount, the body has built in mechanisms to repair and so won't damage you.

America's view is that of the threshold theory, whereas European scientists tend to lean more towards the linear theory.

My own personal view? You're getting exposed to radiation right now, in the air you breath, in the light that travels through you, and in the food/water you drink. Biological systems have probably adapted to this constant exposure in radiation such that there are built in mechanisms to repair low level damage to D.N.A... therefore I subscribe to the threshold view

and that the radiation you're likely to encounter in the radiology field is low, you shouldn't worry.

Dunno when you graduated, but in my environmental health class, we were told we use the linear model in the US for carcinogenic substances, including radiation. But this is just an intro course, so you certainly have more background than me, open to correction
 
I used to shadow an interventional radiologist. His particular hospital had very strict rules about limiting radiation exposure, so whenever possible, he would set everything up for an image and then step outside of the room while a tech actually took the images. The doctor would watch from an outside screen, form a new plan of action, and then go back into the procedure room.
Yeah, that wouldn't even work for a lot of procedures, if not most of them. Sounds pretty dumb.

Yeah, there aren't a whole heck of a lot of MR-guided procedures (yet).
There are a few, but you have to hold onto the guidewire pretty firmly.
 
Thanks for the responses. I would love to hear someone in rads residency, fellowship, attendings, or at least med students who've done time in rads give futher opinions if possible
 
Thanks for the responses. I would love to hear someone in rads residency, fellowship, attendings, or at least med students who've done time in rads give futher opinions if possible

I did a rads elective during year two med school and I was in on some interventional procedures and my lab does large animal models (and often uses fluoroscopy to do procedures that I've participated in). I have lectured to the radiology residents as a PhD student (I do rad onc-related research) about radiation biology when they're prepping for their boards and I lecture about cancer and radiation to biomedical engineering students. I also took a graduate-engineering-level medical imaging class where we a good portion of the class talking about medical imaging and radiation dosimetry. I'm still not worried.
 
I did a rads elective during year two when I was in on some interventional procedures and my lab does large animal models (and often uses fluoroscopy to do procedures). I have also lectured to the radiology residents as a PhD student (I do rad onc-related research) about radiation biology when they're prepping for their boards and I lecture about cancer and radiation to biomedical engineering students. I also took a graduate-engineering-level medical imaging class where we a good portion of the class talking about medical imaging and radiation dosimetry. I'm still not worried.

Thanks - hope it didn't sound like I was discrediting you and others who already posted. Just stimulating conversation on the topic. It does seem like you are very well versed on the topic; I'm glad you chimed in.
 
If you feel that there are no additional risks of constantly performing fluoroscopic procedures, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The most likely adverse event to the physician is actually from eye exposure, which can lead to cataracts. The relative risk varies, but it has been proven on multiple occasions that you are more likely to get cataracts. Most people who perform IR procedures on a regular basis use eye protection to limit this risk. However, it is likely still elevated.

Of course you wear lead aprons and thyroid shields to minimize your body radiation dose. Additional precautions, like using the lowest available frame rate, using tight collimation, planning your runs carefully, always using the face shield, keeping the table height high and the detector close to the patient, and taking your foot off the fluoro pedal can limit the dose. You also refrain from fluoro while your hands are in the x-ray field. When possible, you perform high dose runs when outside of the room. And contrary to how the post above makes it sound, the tech performing the run is also outside the room. Some runs, however, are performed in the room by necessity (for instance, you cannot use a power injector).

I don't know if there is a proven higher risk of cancer for interventionalists, but in all likelihood it is somewhat higher for general cancers that are increased by radiation dose, such as leukemia and lymphoma. Moreover, areas that are unprotected, such as the skin, may have a slightly increased risk. If studies have not shown an increased risk, it is possible that the sample sizes are too small (as there are not that many IR docs anyway, let alone IR docs getting skin cancer). This is something to consider if becoming and IR physician, but although the added of cancer risk is real it is likely not that high.

As for those who have pointed out the possibility of using ultrasound and MR, this can limit some of your radiation dose. However, the majority of procedures in an IR practice (dialysis access work, line placements, IVC filters, LPs, angiograms, etc) can be performed only with x-rays at this time. Some procedures, such as biopsies, can be done with ultrasound. CT guided procedures typically are done with the doctor outside the room while scanning, so there is essentially 0 dose, unless using CT fluoroscopy. Overall, probably 60-80% of IR cases in many practices require fluoro. Don't fool yourself into thinking you could completely avoid it.
 
Shifty B: Thanks for all that information. For people that finish a diagnostic radiology residency and IR fellowship, is it reasonable to find a job where you do half and half reading and procedures - to vary your work and also decrease your exposure to radiation? or do most IR doctors get put in posts where they are doing just procedures?
 
Shifty B: Thanks for all that information. For people that finish a diagnostic radiology residency and IR fellowship, is it reasonable to find a job where you do half and half reading and procedures - to vary your work and also decrease your exposure to radiation? or do most IR doctors get put in posts where they are doing just procedures?

In private practice this is quite common for people to do procedures only part of the time and read out studies the rest of the time. I think it is more to promote variety and give the practice flexibility than it is to reduce your radiation exposure. In academics, it is more common to do all IR.

Let me clarify one thing though. Even if you do IR fluoro procedures every day of your career, the added risk is pretty small. But it is there.
 
I don't know if there is a proven higher risk of cancer for interventionalists, but in all likelihood it is somewhat higher for general cancers that are increased by radiation dose, such as leukemia and lymphoma. Moreover, areas that are unprotected, such as the skin, may have a slightly increased risk...

I'm pretty sure none of this is proven. Most radiation exposure literature is based on extrapolation of Hiroshima data, not actual clinical study. And it's tough to adjust for the percentage of folks who would get cancer, cataracts, etc even without exposure.

FWIW xray and fluoro are being used in the OR by an enormous number of fields, not just IR, so odds are that if you do anything procedural, you are going to have more radiation exposure than the nonprocedural folks. I'm willing to bet more folks
 
Yes there is a harmful level of exposure, but you do wear a cool (well... it's cool until you realize that you stand in it from 7 to 7) 10 lbs lead suit.

I shadowed an IR, and found the procedures incredibly fascinating. That suit however sucks. I'm a relatively big guy (6'1, 200lbs), and it was still tough for me. Mostly that it made breathing more laborious. Definitely a career I'd consider though. Thanks for the input from the residents 👍.
 
Top