• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.2783-2787
• /
• 2013

To assess the risk of cancer incidence after medical radiation exposure for coronary artery disease (CAD), a retrospective cohort study was conducted based on Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Patients with CAD were identified according to the International Classification of Diseases code, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), and their records of medical radiation procedures were collected from 1997 to 2010. A total of 18,697 subjects with radiation exposure from cardiac imaging or therapeutic procedures for CAD were enrolled, and 19,109 subjects receiving cardiac diagnostic procedures without radiation were adopted as the control group. The distributions of age and gender were similar between the two populations. Cancer risks were evaluated by age-adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) and association with cumulative exposure were further evaluated with relative risks by Poisson regression analysis. A total of 954 and 885 subjects with various types of cancers in both cohorts after following up for over 10 years were found, with incidences of 409.8 and 388.0 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The risk of breast cancer (aIRR=1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-3.00) was significantly elevated in the exposed female subjects, but no significant cancer risk was found in the exposed males. In addition, cancer risks of the breast and lung were increased with the exposure level. The study suggests that radiation exposure from cardiac imaging or therapeutic procedures for CAD may be associated with the increased risk of breast and lung cancers in CAD patients.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.78-84
• /
• 1997

The specific purpose of this study is to develop the numerical guide for the cost-benefit analysis of ORE ($/person-Sv reduction) to meet the criterion of ALARA in the design stage of the KNGR. In deriving the guide, the risk factor which is defined by the risk to unit collective radiation exposure dose (deaths/person-Sv) and the monetary value of human life ($/death) are required. The risk factor has been estimated from various clinical data accumulated for a number of years and continuously modified. And the monetary value of human life is usually quantified using the human capital approach. In this study, the risk to radiation exposure perceived by a group of people is investigated through an extensive poll survey conducted among university students in order to modify the existing risk factor for radiation exposure. And in evaluating the monetary value of human life, the QOL factor is introduced in order to incorporate the degree of public welfare or quality of life. As a result of study, a value within the range of 151, 000~172, 000 dollars per person-Sv reduction is recommended as the appropriate interim numerical guide for cost-benefit analysis of ORE to meet the criterion of ALARA in the design stage of the KNGR. A poll survey was also conducted in order to see whether the public acceptance cost of nuclear power should be incorporated in developing the guide, and the result of study shooed that such a cost does not need to be considered.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.11
• /
• pp.4699-4704
• /
• 2015

Medical diagnostic X-ray workers are one occupational group that expose to the long-term low-dose external radiation over their working lifetime, and they may under risk of different cancers. This study aims to determine the relationship between the occupational X-ray radiation exposure and cancer risk among these workers in Jiangsu, China. We conducted Nested case-control study to investigate the occupational X-ray radiation exposure and cancer risk. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaire, which includes but not limits to demographic data, personal behaviors and family history of cancer. Retrospective dose reconstruction was conducted to estimate the cumulative doses of the x-ray workers. Inferential statistics, t-test and 2 tests were used to compare the differences between each group. We used the logistic regression model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of cancer by adjusting the age, gender. All 34 breast cancer cases and 45 esophageal cancer cases that detected in a cohort conducted among health workers between 1950~2011 were included in this presented study, and 158 cancer-free controls were selected by frequency-matched (1:2). Our study found that the occupational radiation exposure was associated with a significantly increased cancer risk compared with the control, especially in breast cancer and esophageal cancer (adjusted OR=2.90, 95% CI: 1.19-7.04 for breast cancer; OR=4.19, 95% CI: 1.87-9.38 for esophageal cancer, and OR=3.43, 95% CI: 1.92-6.12 for total cancer, respectively). The occupational X-ray radiation exposure was associated with increasing cancer risk, which indicates that proper intervention and prevention strategies may be needed in order to bring down the occupational cancer risk.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.543-548
• /
• 2010

Objectives: The objective of this study was to calculate sample size and power in an ongoing cohort, Korea radiation effect and epidemiology cohort (KREEC). Method: Sample size calculation was performed using PASS 2002 based on Cox regression and Poisson regression models. Person-year was calculated by using data from '1993-1997 Total cancer incidence by sex and age, Seoul' and Korean statistical informative service. Results: With the assumption of relative risk=1.3, exposure:non-exposure=1:2 and power=0.8, sample size calculation was 405 events based on a Cox regression model. When the relative risk was assumed to be 1.5 then number of events was 170. Based on a Poisson regression model, relative risk=1.3, exposure:non-exposure=1:2 and power=0.8 rendered 385 events. Relative risk of 1.5 resulted in a total of 157 events. We calculated person-years (PY) with event numbers and cancer incidence rate in the nonexposure group. Based on a Cox regression model, with relative risk=1.3, exposure:non-exposure=1:2 and power=0.8, 136 245PY was needed to secure the power. In a Poisson regression model, with relative risk=1.3, exposure:non-exposure=1:2 and power=0.8, person-year needed was 129517PY. A total of 1939 cases were identified in KREEC until December 2007. Conclusions: A retrospective power calculation in an ongoing study might be biased by the data. Prospective power calculation should be carried out based on various assumptions prior to the study.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.249-255
• /
• 2023

In this study, radiation exposure doses were measured in the course of clinical practice of radiation workers, radiological technologists in the radiation-related worker group, and preliminary-radiological technologists who were classified as frequent visitors. Radiological technologists who worked in the radiation area of C University Hospital in Incheon for a year from January 2021 and 121 students who completed clinical practice at the same medical institution from July 1 to August 31 were the subjects of the study. The nominal risk factor based on ICRP 103 was used to evaluate the probability of side effects due to the exposure dose to the lungs, which are organs at risk of damage due to radiation exposure dose. During the clinical practice period, radiology students, who were classified as frequent visitors, had a surface dose of 0.98 ± 0.14 mSv and a deep dose of 0.93 ± 0.14 mSv. In other words, 6.7 per 1,000,000 for shallow dose and 6.4 per 1,000,000 for deep dose were found to have side effects due to exposure to the lungs. This is a value in terms of exposure dose in one year. Considering that the radiation (science) education course is 3 or 4 years, systematic management and attention to prospective radiation workers who are going to clinical practice are required, and the stochastic effect of radiation In relation to this, it is considered that it will be used as basic data for radiation safety management.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.7-12
• /
• 2024

Medical institutions wishing to install and operate diagnostic radiation generators must complete appointment training within one year of appointment based on the 「Medical Act」 and the 「Rules on Safety Management of Diagnostic Radiation Generator Devices」 which will come into effect on January 1, 2024. Additionally, You must receive supplementary education every three years from the date you received it. The strengthening of safety management for diagnostic radiation generators used in medical institutions means that although the radiation exposure that may occur when using diagnostic radiation generators is low, the risk of carcinogenesis may be higher than previously evaluated. In addition, safety management of diagnostic radiation generators can be said to be an essential requirement because it has been reported that the incidence of leukemia and other diseases is increasing in diagnostic radiation tests. However, the safety management training targets and programs for radiation exposure management operated by other organizations other than diagnostic radiation generators are significantly different. In addition, since the public institutions that are responsible for radiation safety management are divided, there is a risk of duplicative, excessive, and under-administrative application to medical institutions and educational institutions that install and operate diagnostic radiation generators. Therefore, we would like to determine their consistency by comparing domestic and foreign related cases and the provisions of the 「Medical Act」 and the 「Nuclear Safety Act」.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.37-50
• /
• 1987

The exposure of the population in the United States to ionizing radiation has recently been evaluated by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). This was done by constituting six organizational groups to address various phases of the work and the results of this work are summarized in this article. The article is based on the report, by the same title, which is scheduled for publication by the NCRP in September, 1987. The six organizational groups are titled Radiation Exposure from Consumer Products, Natural Background Radiation, Radiation Associated with Medical Examinations, Radiation Received by Radiation Employees, Public Exposure from Nuclear Power, and Exposure from Miscellaneous Environmental Sources. These titles are descriptive of the subject areas covered by each of these separate groups. The data evaluated are for the years 1977-1984 with the majority of the data being for the period 1980-1982. Summary information is presented and discussed for the number of people exposed to given sources, the effective dose equivalent, the average effective dose equivalent to the U.S. population, and the genetically significant dose equivalent. The average annual effective dose equivalent from all sources to the U.S. population is approximately 3.6 mSv (360 mrem). Exposures to natural sources make the largest contribution to this total. Radon and radon decay products contribute 2.0 mSv (200 mrem) whereas the other naturally occurring radionuclides contribute 1.0 mSv (100 mrem). Among man-made or enhanced sources, medical exposures make the largest additional contributions, namely 0.39 mSv (39 mrem) for diagnosis and 0.14 mSv (14 mrem) for nuclear medicine. It was not possible to evaluate exposures for therapy. Most of the other sources of population exposure, including nuclear power and consumer products, are minor. A possible exception would be the use of tobacco products. These exposures are discussed in relation to a negligible individual risk level of $10{\mu}Sv/y$ (1 mrem/y). The NCRP considers exposures below the negligible individual risk level as trivial and as such should be dismissed.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.11 no.7
• /
• pp.555-564
• /
• 2017

The current radiation risk assessment for occupational exposure is based on the measured exposure dose and health checkups of workers. This people-centered risk assessment may occur errors because absence of using personal dosimeter or unrelated health symptoms of individuals lead to difficulties in obtaining accurate data from workers. In addition, although the established legal upper dose limit was used as a reference for the assessment, it does not imply that this limit is the optimal dose of radiation workers should get; ALARA principle should always be appreciated. Therefore, a new risk assessment model that can take account of all the important factors and implement optimization of radiation protection is required at the national level. In this paper, based on the KOSHA Risk Assessment, we studied on the workplace-centered risk assessment model for radiation field rather than the people-centered. The result of the study derived a right model for radiation field through the analysis of the risk assessment methods in various fields and also found data acquisition methods and procedures for applying to the model. Multidimensional model centering on the workplace will enables more accurate radiation risk assessment by using a risk index and radar plot, and consequently contribute to the efficient worker management, preemptive worker protection and implementation of optimization of radiation protection.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.55 no.2
• /
• pp.725-733
• /
• 2023

The Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences has started a radiation epidemiological study, titled "Korean Radiation Worker Study," to evaluate the health effects of occupational exposure to radiation. As a part of this study, we investigated the methodologies and results of reconstructing organ-specific absorbed doses based on personal dose equivalent, H_p(10), reported from 1984 to 2019 for 20,605 Korean radiation workers. For the organ dose reconstruction, representative exposure scenarios (i.e., radiation energy and exposure geometry) were first determined according to occupational groups, and dose coefficients for converting H_p(10) to organ absorbed doses were then appropriately taken based on the exposure scenarios. Individual annual doses and individual cumulative doses were reconstructed for 27 organs, and the highest values were observed in the thyroid doses (on average 0.77 mGy/y and 10.47 mGy, respectively). Mean values of individual cumulative absorbed doses for the red bone marrow, colon, and lungs were 7.83, 8.78, and 8.43 mSv, respectively. Most of the organ doses were maximum for industrial radiographers, followed by nuclear power plant workers, medical workers, and other facility workers. The organ dose database established in this study will be utilized for organ-specific risk estimation in the Korean Radiation Worker Study.

• Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.259-279
• /
• 2009

Radioiodine ablation therapy has been considered to be a standard treatment for patient with differentiated thyroid cancer after total thyroidectomy. Patients may need to be hospitalized to reduce radiation exposure of other people and relatives from radioactive patients receiving radioiodine therapy. Medical staffs, nursing staffs and technologists sometimes hesitate to contact patients in radioiodine therapy ward. The purpose of this paper is to introduce radiation dosimetry, estimate radiation dose from patients and emphasize the safety of radiation exposure from patients treated with high dose radioiodine in therapy ward. The major component of radiation dose from patient is external exposure. However external radiation dose from these patients treated with typical therapeutic dose of 4 to 8 GBq have a very low risk of cancer induction compared with other various risks occurring in daily life. The typical annual radiation dose without shielding received by patient is estimated to be 5 to 10 mSv, which is comparable with 100 to 200 times effective dose received by chest PA examination. Therefore, when we should keep in mind the general principle of radiation protection, the risks of radiation exposure from patients are low and the medical personnel are considered to be safe from radiation exposure.