Alternatives to the Effective Dose for Stochastic Risk Assessment in Medical Imaging

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Alternatives to the Effective Dose for Stochastic Risk Assessment in Medical Imaging
Physical Description:
1 online resource (114 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Abadia, Andres F
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Biomedical Engineering
Committee Chair:
Bolch, Wesley E
Committee Members:
Hintenlang, David E
Gilland, David R
Pawel, David

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
cancer -- ct -- pet -- radiation -- risks
Biomedical Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Biomedical Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
In 2005, the BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) Committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published its 7th report on models for estimating risks of cancer incidence and mortality following exposure to low-LET (Linear Energy Transfer) radiation. These models take into account the subject’s sex, age at exposure, dose rate and other factors. In that report, estimates for lifetime attributable risks (LAR) are given for all solid cancers, leukemia, and specific solid cancer sites. The Committee used excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models to project radiogenic cancer risks that are unique to the U.S. population. For most cancer sites, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses BEIR VII models for calculating lifetime attributable risks, but with some modifications and extensions. The latter include models for calculating risks for high-LET radiation exposures, and the inclusion of additional cancer sites not considered in the BEIR VII report. In this study, the revised EPA risk models have been implemented for the purpose of providing age and gender dependent LAR tables needed to better quantify stochastic risk in medical imaging studies such as computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and nuclear medicine. This approach to risk quantification is contrasted, via an FDG PET/CT medical imaging simulation example, to the use of the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) effective dose, a quantity with limited application to medical radiation exposure of individual patients.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Andres F Abadia.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Bolch, Wesley E.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044217:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE EFFECTIVE DOSE FOR STOCHASTIC RISK ASSESSMENT IN MEDICAL IMAGING By ANDRES F. ABADIA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS F OR THE DE GREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 2

PAGE 2

2 201 2 Andres Abadia

PAGE 3

3 To God, for allowing me to fulfill my dreams and giving me the strength to do so, and to my family and wif e who always support and encourage me to give my best in all that I do

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my advisor, Dr. Wesley E. Bolch, for his guidance, support, and encouragement over the last three years of my studies and for his motivation for me to start graduate school. The doors of his office were always open to me and he was always willing to help. I thank him fo r entrusting me with this project and having the patience to guide me through it. I would also like to thank Dr. David Pawel from the US EPA (Radiation Protection Division) for all his support an d around the cl ock help with my thesis project; I thank him for teaching me how to code the models necessary to support this paper and having the patience to explain every detail of such arduous task Finally, I would like to thank Mike Wayson and Daniel L ong from the ALRADS (Advanced Laboratory for Radiation Dosimetry Studies) group of the Biomedical Engineering department at the University of Florida for helping me with the dosimetry for the medical example (simulation) analyzed on this paper.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Stochastic Risks in Medical Imaging ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 Medical Imaging in the Past Two Decades ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Comput ed Tomography Imaging ................................ ................................ .................... 16 Conventional Radiography and Fluoroscopy ................................ ................................ .. 17 Interventional Fluoroscopy ................................ ................................ .............................. 18 Nuclear Medicine ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 20 The Need for Quantifying Stochastic Risks in Medical Imaging ................................ ........... 21 General A ims ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 22 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE DOSE ................................ ...... 25 International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 26 ................................ ... 25 International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 30 ................................ ... 26 International Commission on Radiological Protection Public ation 60 ................................ ... 27 International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 ................................ 29 3 USE AND MISUSE OF THE EFFECTIVE DOSE IN MED ICINE ................................ ..... 35 Principles of Radiological Protection (International Commission on Radiological Protection) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 Applications of Effectiv e Dose to Medical Dosimetry ................................ ........................... 36 Reference Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 37 Misuse of the Effective Dose ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 39 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE EFFECTIVE DOSE ................................ ................................ .. 42 5 LIFETIME ATTRIBUTABLE RISK MODELS ................................ ................................ ... 45 2005 BEIR (Biological Effe cts of Ionizing Radiation) VII Models ................................ ....... 46 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 46

PAGE 6

6 Description of Models ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47 Site specific solid cancers other than breast and thyroid ................................ ......... 47 Breast ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 47 Thyroid ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 48 Leukemia ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 48 General Methodology for Calculating Lifetime Attributable Risks ................................ 49 Risks of cancer incidence ................................ ................................ ......................... 50 Risks of cancer mortality ................................ ................................ .......................... 50 Leukemia ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 51 2011 Envi ronmental Protection Agency Models ................................ ................................ .... 51 Similarities/Differences From BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) VII Models ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 Weighting scheme ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 Breast ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 52 Thyroid ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 53 Additional Site Speci fic Solid Cancers ................................ ................................ ........... 53 Skeletal endosteum (bone) ................................ ................................ ....................... 54 Skin ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 54 Extens ions to the 2011 Environmental Protection Agency Models for Medical Dosimetry Applications ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 55 Oral Cavity, Kidney, Pancreas, Gallbladder, Central Nervous System (CNS), Esophagus, Rectum, and N ew Other Solid (or Remainder) ................................ ........ 56 High LET (Linear Energy Transfer) Radiation ................................ ............................... 56 Lifetime Attributable Risk Tables ................................ ................................ ................... 57 6 MEDICAL IMAGING SIMULATION FDG PET/CT SCANS ................................ ............ 70 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 70 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 72 7 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 80 APPENDIX A LAR MODEL (EPA) FOR BREAST CANCER ................................ ................................ .... 83 B DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL CANCER SITE MODELS NOT IN EPA ................... 87 C DETAILS OF THE 18 F FDG PET/CT SIMULATION ................................ ....................... 90 D SITE SPECIFIC ORGA N DOSES AND EFFECTIVE DOSES OBTAINED FROM THE MEDICAL SIMULATION ................................ ................................ ......................... 100 E CANCER RISKS OBTAINED FROM THE 18 F FDG PET/CT SIMULATION ............. 105 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 114

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 IRCP 26 weighting factors (w T ) for calculating effective dose equivalent (H E ) ............... 32 2 2 ICR[ 60 tissue weighting factors 1 (w T ) for calculating effective dose (E) ........................ 33 2 3 ICRP 103 tissue weighting factors (w T ) for calculating effective dose (E) ....................... 34 5 1 BEIR VII preferred ERR and EAR models for estimating site specific solid canc er incidence and mortality ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 59 5 2 BEIR VII preferred ERR and EAR models for estimating leukemia incidence and mortality ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 60 5 3 E stimated ERR/Gy and effect modifiers for age at exposure and time since exposure (TSE) for thyroid cancer risk calculations ................................ ................................ ......... 61 5 4 LAR of cancer incidence for males using EPA revised models an d additional cancer sites ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 62 5 5 LAR of cancer incidence for females using EPA revised models and additional cancer sites ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 64 5 6 LAR of cancer mortality for males using EPA revised models and additional cancer sites ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 66 5 7 LAR of cancer mortality for females using EPA revised models and additional cancer sites ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 68 A 1 Female breast cancer cases and 5 y relative survival rates by age of diagnosis for 12 SEER areas, 1988 20011 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 B 1 ERR parameter estimates for additional site ................ 88 C 1 UF phantom family voxel dimensions and matrix sizes. ................................ ................... 91 C 2 Target tissues simulated for all phantoms. ................................ ................................ ......... 92 C 3 Biokinetic data for 18 F FDG. ................................ ................................ ............................. 96 C 4 Recommended AAs for pediatric and adul t patients. ................................ ........................ 97 C 5 Calculated AAs for the UF phantom family (MBq). ................................ ......................... 97 C 6 Scan parameters for the CT simulation ................................ ................................ .............. 98

PAGE 8

8 D 1 Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for males from the PET component of the simulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 100 D 2 Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for females from the PET component of the simulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 101 D 3 Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for males from the CT component of the simulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 102 D 4 Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for females from the CT component of the simulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 103 D 5 Effective dose in mSv obtained from the PET simulation ................................ ............... 104 D 6 Effective dose in mSv obtained from the CT simulation ................................ ................. 104 E 1 Cancer incidence and mortality risks obtained by applying the dose s acquired from the PET simulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 108 E 2 Fractional cancer incidence and mortality risks PET simulation ................................ .. 108 E 3 Cancer incid ence and mortality risks obtained by applying the doses acquired from the CT simulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 109 E 4 Fractional cancer incidence and mortality risks CT simulation ................................ .... 109 E 5 Total cancer incidence and mortality risks obtained from the 18 F FDG PET/CT simulation combined ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 110 E 6 Fractional cancer incidence and mortality risks PET/CT simulation ........................... 110

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Number of CT procedures per year in the United State s (millions), 1993 to 2006. Average growth: >10% y 1. (Figure adapted from Figure 4.1 in NCRP 160 Pg. 91) ... 24 2 1 ICRP 103 steps in calculating effective dose (Figure 2 of ICRP 103, pg. 68 ) ................. 31 6 1 Lifetime attributable risks of cancer mortality and radiation detriment from the PET component of the simulation ................................ ................................ .............................. 77 6 2 Lifetime attributable risks of cancer mortality and radiation detriment from the CT component of the simulation ................................ ................................ .............................. 78 6 3 Combined (PET/CT) lifetime attributable risks of cancer mortality an d radiation detriment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 E 1 Lifetime attributable risks of cancer incidence and radiation detriment from the PET component of the simulation ................................ ................................ ............................ 105 E 2 Lifetime attributable risks of cancer incidence and radiation detriment from the CT component of the simulation ................................ ................................ ............................ 106 E 3 Combined (PET/CT) lifetime attributable risk s of cancer incidence and radiation detriment ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 107

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AP Anterior Posterior. When referring to the medical imaging BEIR VII Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiat ion VII C3 Committee 3 CI Confidence Interval CLL Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia CNS Central Nervous System COMB Combined CT Computed Tomography DDREF Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor EAR Excess Absolute Risk. The risk of disease in an exposed popul ation minus the rate of disease in an unexposed population EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERR Excess Relative Risk. The rate of disease in an exposed population divided by the rate of disease in an unexposed population minus 1 FDG Fludeoxyglucose (F 1 8). A radiopharmaceutical used in medical imaging modality PET Gy Gray ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection LAR Lifetime Attributable Risk LET Linear Energy Transfer LSS Life Span Study MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging NCRP National Cou ncil on Radiation Protection and Measurements PA Posterior Anterior. When referring to the medical imaging PET Positron Emission Tomography

PAGE 11

11 RBE Relative Biological Effectiveness SEER Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Sv Sievert TOT Total UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science ALTER NATIVES TO THE EFFECTIVE DOSE FOR STOCHASTIC RISK ASSESSMENT IN MEDICAL IMAGING By Andres Abadia May 2012 Chair: Wesley E. Bolch Major: Biomedical Engineering In 2005, the BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) Committee of the U S National A cademy of Sciences published its 7 th report (BEIR VII) on models for estimating risks of cancer incidence and mortality following exposure to low LET (Linear Energy Transfer) e rate and other factors. In that report, estimates for lifetime attributable risks (LAR) are given for all solid cancers, leukemia, and specific solid cancer sites. The Committee used excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models to pro ject radiogenic cancer risks that are unique to the U.S. population For most cancer sites, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use s BEIR VII models for calculating lifetime attributable risks, but with some modifications and extensions. The latter i nclude models for calculating risks for high LET radiation exposures, and the inclusion of additional cancer sites not considered in the BEIR VII report. In this study, the revised EPA risk models have been implemented for the purpose of providing age and gender dependent LAR tables needed to better quantify stochastic risk in medical imaging studies such as computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and nuclear medicine This approach to risk quantification is contrasted via an FDG PET/CT medical imaging simulatio n example, to the use

PAGE 13

13 of the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) effective dose, a quantity with limited application to medical radiation exposure of individual patients.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Stochastic Risks in Medical Imaging T he U.S. population is exposed to ionizing radiation any radiation displacing electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby producing ions ( 1 ) from a number of different sources. Being exposed to ionizing radiation may lead to cellular damage, which, if no t adequately repaired, may prevent the survival (or reproduction) of the cell or possibly result in a change or mutation. The two outcomes, whether death or mutation of the cell occurs have significantly different implications. These implications can be s ummarized best by two concepts: deterministic effects and stochastic effects. A deterministic effect is a biological effect for which its severity in affected individuals varies with the dose, and for which a dose threshold usually exists Above the dose t hreshold, the severity of the effect increases with increasing dose ( 1 ). A stochastic effect is an effect for which the probability of its occurrence rather than its severity, increases with increasing radiation dose Conservatively, stochastic effects ar e considered to have no dose threshold ( 1 ). Carcinogenesis (initiation of cancer formation) and hereditary effects fall into the category of stochastic effects Consider for the moment a collection of somatic cells any cell othe r than a germ cell that c onstitutes the body of an organism and that possesses a set of multiploid chromosomes ( 1 ) were exposed to ionizing radiation T he probability these exposed cells will initiate cancer formation increases with the radiation dose delivered (without a dose t hreshold) but the severity of the cancer is not related to dose. In other words, carcinogenesis that resulted from exposure to 1 gray ( Gy ) is no worse than one resulting from exposure to 0.1 Gy ; however, the pro bably of induction is increased at the higher dose level If on the other hand, the radiation exposure re sulted in damage to a germ cell, mutations may occur that could cause harmful

PAGE 15

15 effects in future generations since germ cells give rise to gametes which are cells that fuse with another cell durin g fertilization. Again, the severity of hereditary effects is not related to dose but only its probability of occurrence The se situations illustrate why we are concerned about sto chastic risks in medical imaging. Radiation dose s delivered as part of dia gnostic imaging procedures, excluding doses resulting from accidents or interventional procedures typically do not exceed threshold doses that would make the risks from the se procedure d eterministic; the potential harmful effects of diagnostic imaging are thus stochastic (either carcinogenesis or hereditary) in nature. Furthermore, this thesis focuses only on radiogenic (radiation induced) cancer stochastic risk s (from here on referred to simply as risks) and not hereditary bio effects To support this dec ision, the following statement by Dr. David J. Brenner on an article published in the British Journal of Radiology in 2008 is presented reasonable in the context of what was known in the 1970s, our current under standing is that radiation induced hereditary risks are much smaller than the corresponding cancer risks ( 2 ) Dr. Brenner into a single number 2 ) For a mor e detailed analysis refer to the article (on the LIST OF REFERENCES). Medical Imaging in the Past Two Decades As mentioned earlier, the U.S. population is exposed to ionizing radiation from different sources. The sources of interest for this paper are com puted tomography ( CT ) conventional radiography and fluoroscopy interventional fluoroscopy and nuclear medicine Before trying to understand the need to quantify stochastic risk s in medical imaging, it is important to glance at how these procedures have evolved in the past two decades and what role they play society, and how that role affects the risk of radiogenic cancers in the U.S. population.

PAGE 16

16 C omputed T omography Imaging Publicly introduced in 1972, computed tomography ( CT ) has evolved into an essential diagnostic imaging tool that continues to increase in its range of clinical applications. According to the National Council on Radiati on Protection and Measurements R eport No. 160 (NCRP 160), technological advances in CT and the ease of use t hat comes with such advances, have led to an annual increase d use of CT of 8 to 15 % per year over the last 7 to 10 years (to the year 2009 when NCRP 160 was published ) Two of the major advances in CT imaging that have led to this rapid growth are helica l CT, which enables faster acquisition of a volume data set, and multi detector CT (MDCT) which allows for the acquisition of a large number of thin slices during a single rotation of the x ray tube around the patient and also has the ability to scan the e ntire body in less than 30 seconds ( 3 ). Figu re 1 1 ( adapted from Figure 4.1in NCRP 160, pg 91) illustrate s the increase in CT procedures per year from 1993 to 2006, in the United States. NCRP 160 reports an average increase of ~ 10 to 11 % per year durin g those years and that the use of CT technology in the U.S. is likely to continue to increase over the next 10 years. For more details on the trends observed, averages obtained, and databases used to obtain such results, the reader is refer red to NCRP Repo rt No. 160. In an article published by Brenner et al (4) the authors mention that these advances in CT imaging have had a particular effect in pediatric CT examinations; an effect particularly marked in the United States. Even though CT imaging of childre n represents a comparatively small fraction of the overall number of CT examinations, t he authors report that there has been an of helical CT. The article reports an increase of 92%, between 1996 and 1999, in abdominal and pelvic CT

PAGE 17

17 examinations on children less than 15 years old and an increase of 63 % in requests for pediatric CT between 1991 and 1994. The main goal of this was to assess the lifetime cancer mortality risks attri butable to rad iation from pediatric CT The larger doses and increased lifetime radiation risks in children produce a sharp increase, relative to adults, in estimated risk from CT ( 4 ) The authors conclude that he bes t available risk estimates suggest that pediatric CT will result in significantly increased lifetime radiation risk over adult CT 4 ) Th e authors attribute these results to the fact that most facilities employing CT imaging do not adjust technique factor s to take into account patient size. The article reports that several other authors have suggested that pediatric CT exposures could be reduced by 30 50 % or more, relative to adult exposures, to obtain basically the same diagnostic information if patient s ize was taken into account ( 4 ) Conventional Radiography and Fluoroscopy These procedures now comprise the largest number of x ray examinations performed on patients in the U.S. NCRP 160 defines conventional radiography as the use of x ray imaging syst ems such as those using screen film image receptors, computed radiography, digital r adiography, direct exposure x ray film (as used in intraoral radiography) or other type s of system producing two dimensional x ray projection images; conventional fluorosc opy is defined as real time projection imaging used for diagnostic purposes. Even though these procedures are currently the largest contributors to x ray examinations, their collective effective dose is now only a relatively small portion of the total med ical dose in the United States (3). Collect ive effective dose is the product of average per patient effective dose (defined in Chapter 2) and the number of patients exposed.

PAGE 18

18 Out of the different modalities employed, conventional radiography, digital radiog raphy, in cluding computed radiography, are rapidly growing and becoming the more accepted method s for diagnostic imaging Just as with CT, one the main reason s for their growing acceptance is time. Digital radiography offers the ability to bypass chemical proces sing (required with x ray film) making the results available faster ; furthermore, it offers the advantage of enhanc ing the images after exposure potentially eliminating the need for re exposure if the image does not look as desired These images ar e also available for digital transfer, which again res ults in quicker diagnost ic times and staff convenience. NCRP 160 reports that as of 2009 it was the higher volume facilities that were making the transition to digital ra diography most rapidly, but in the future it is expected that the number of facilities employing digital systems will increase ( 3 ) Even though the use of digital radiography has increased over the last decade, its impact on the collective effective dose to the population is expected to be relatively minor From data analyzed in NCRP 160 for 2002 to 2006, the report indicates an increase in the entrance skin exposure of 67 % for a PA (posterior anterior) chest projection and 28 % for an AP (anterior posterior) lumbar spine projection f or digital imaging when compared with screen film imaging; however, they emphasize that it is not clear that these increases in entrance skin exposure to patients are necessary and assert that with experience, the proper adjustment of technical factors may result in equivalent or even lower entrance skin exposures per examination for digital imaging compared with screen film imaging ( 3 ). Interventional Fluoroscopy NCRP 160 defines interventional fluoroscopy as any procedure in which the use or application of a medical device is fluoroscopically guided in the body, and includes procedures that are performed for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes ( 3 ).

PAGE 19

19 The past two decades have witnessed a major increase in high dose fluoroscopically guided interventional pr ocedures in medicine ( 1 ). Interventional fluoroscopy utilizes ionizing radiation to guide small instruments (e.g. catheters) through blood vessels or other pathways in the body. This procedure has found wide acceptance over the past decades, over invasive surgical procedures, because it only requires a very small incision therefore reducing the risk of infection during the procedure; also, due to its less invasive nature, it allows for faster recovery time when compared to surgical procedures. J ust as dis cussed with the previous imaging modalities, every technology has pros and cons. With the growing use of this procedure have also come public health concerns due to the increasing radiation exposure to patients and the personnel in charge of conducting the examinations Because of the high skin doses that can be generated in the course of these interventions, some procedures have resulted in early or late skin reactions, including necrosis in some cases. In all cases of skin reactions, the doses are though t to have been high, and the severity of some reactions has required skin grafts 1 ) In view of the concerns raised by reports of adverse biological effects, attempts have been made to measure and document doses resulting from procedures such as diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization procedures. However, to put things in perspective, considering the hundreds of thousands of patients involved each year in the United States, the problems encountered in cardiac and neurologic intervent ion are exceedingly rare but there is always the potential that they will occur ( 1 ). It is important to note that most patients undergoing interventional fluoroscopy procedures are suffering from life threatening conditions In other words they are likely to die unless

PAGE 20

20 something is done; therefore, when weighting the risk benefit balance, it will be heavily influenced by the immediate benefit that could be achieved ( 1 ). Nuclear Medicine As defined by NCRP 160, nuclear medicine is the medical specialty in which unsealed radionuclides are used for diagnosis and treatment Although nuclear medicine may be used in therapeutic procedures, it is mostly used in diagnostic examinations. Nuclear medicine images are better for examinations of physiologic and metabol ic mechanisms (when compared to radiography); however, they have less spatial or anatomic resolution than do radiographic examinations Nuclear medicine is widely used to assess blood flow, pulmonary ventilation, organ function, cellular metabolism, and ot her in vivo biologic processes ( 3 ). Nuclear medicine was a late starter when compared with radiation therapy and x ray diagnostics. It was not until 1946 that radiopharmaceuticals of adequate quality and consistency were available ( 1 ). Since then, how ever nuclear medicine grew rapidly until it was somewhat slowed down by the arrival of CT and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging); regardless, it continues to grow steadily and it is now an entire field of diagnostic imaging in its own. There has been ongoing de velopment of instrumentation, new radiopharmaceuticals, and competition with other imaging techniques. Radiopharmaceuticals are usually administered by inhalation, orally or most commonly by injection; these then localize in various target organs and tiss ues in the body ( 3 ) Two basic modalities have evolved that characterize nuclear medicine: single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) SPECT emission from radiopharmaceuticals and is u tilized in combination with planar imaging. PET is based on the simultaneous emission of a pair of photons (511 keV each) as a result of positron annihilation and it uses mostly short lived radionuclides.

PAGE 21

21 Just as with any medical exposure to ionizing radia tion from different procedures nuclear medicine carries a small increase of risk of the patient developing cancer in the future, so as with any other imaging modality, the potential risk should be weighed against the apparent benefit. This is perfectly il lustrated by a recently published article (December 2011) by Dr. George Sgouros et al. ( 5 ), which analyzes an approach for balancing diagnostic imaging quality with hospitals showed a large variability in the activity administered for diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging of children. Imaging guidelines, especially for pediatric patients, must balance the risks associated with radiation exposure with the need to obtain the high quality images necessary to derive the benefits of an accurate clinical diagnosis. The authors assert that the goal of every is to obtain the maximum diagnostic information as cost effectively and in as short a period of t Furthermore, they emphasized the importance of applying these considerations to pediatric en tire lifetimes to manifest radiation effects 5 ) The Need for Quantifying Stochastic Risks in Medical Imaging I t is extremely vital to analyze risks to patients resulting from medical diagnostic and interventional procedures because, according to N CRP 160, such procedures contribute significantly to the collective effective dose to the U.S. population ( 3 ). Diagnostic imaging technology has been positively accepted in the medical community due to the services it is able to provide; however, due to th is increased acceptance it is imperative that the radiogenic risks of cancer, resulting from a technology that is being more frequently used are analyzed. Another reason to quantify stochastic risks in medical imaging is that, as mentioned earlier, r adia tion doses employed in diagnostic imaging procedures, excluding doses resulting from

PAGE 22

22 accidents or interventional procedures, typically do not reach or overcome a threshold that would make the risks from the procedure deterministic in nature ; the potential harmful effects of diagnostic imaging are thus stochastic in nature. Based on the previous statement and the fact that radiation doses received by patients in interventional radiology are much higher than from general diagnostic radiology, so much that th ere is risk of deterministic effects, one may ask why then were interventional procedures mentioned ? It is necessary to note that the possible presence of deterministic effects does not translate into the absence of stochastic effects; because the probabil ity of stochastic effects increases with r adiation dose, then the risk of occurrence for such effects is greater in interventional procedures than for diagnostic imaging because the doses are much higher. It is thus important to be able to quantify stochas tic risks from interventional procedures (such as interventional fluoroscopy) Risk quantification is a tool that can be used collectively in optimizing values of exposure, or administered activity, and resulting organ absorbed doses to perhaps minimize t he risk of radiation induced cancer while still obtaining good quality images. General Aims In 2005, the BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) VII Committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published models for estimating risks of cancer incidence and mortality following exposure to low LET (Linear Energy Transfer) radiation. These models take estimates for lifetime attributable risks (LAR) are gi ven for all solid cancers, leukemia, and specific solid cancer sites. The Committee used excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models to project radiogenic cancer risks that are unique to the U.S. population. For most cancer sites, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses BEIR VII models for

PAGE 23

23 calculating lifetime attributable risks, but with some modifications and extensions. The latter include models for calculating risks f or high LET radiation exposures and the inclusion of additi onal cancer sites not considered in the BEIR VII report. In this thesis the BEIR VII models are first presented in brief form, followed by revised EPA risk models Differences between the BEIR VII and EPA models are presented T he research of this thesis explore s the applicability of EPA models to the assessment of cancer risk resulting from medical exposures of individual patients. The EPA models have been implemented for the purpose of providing age and gender dependent LAR tables needed to better quant ify stochastic risk in medical imaging studies such as nuclear medicine, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography. This approach to risk quantification is then contrasted to the use of the ICRP ) effective dose, a quantity with limited application to medical radiation exposure, via an FDG PET/CT medical imaging simulation example. The LAR results for both methods are then analyzed and compared.

PAGE 24

24 Figure 1 1. Number of CT procedures per year in the Unit ed States (millions), 1993 to 2006. Average growth: >10 % y 1. (Figure adapted from Figure 4.1 in NCRP 160 Pg. 91) ( 10 )

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPM ENT OF THE EFFECTIVE DOSE Currently, effective dose (E) is the only dose quantity that is related t o health detriment for stochastic effects from ionizing radiation exposure s However, E is a quantity with limited application to medical radiation exposure and before discussing the reasons behind this declaration it is important to be acquainted with ho w this quantity originated and how it has evolved over time. I nternational Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 26 In 1977 the International Commission on Radiological Protection ( ICRP ) introduced the quantity dose equivalent (H) in Publicatio n 26 The C ommission expressed that the quantity absorbed dose (D) the energy imparted per unit mass by ionizing radiatio n to matter at a specific point with units of joule per kilogram and given the special name gray ( Gy ) ( 1 ) was not sufficient, by it self, to predict either the severity or probability of the deleterious effects on health resulting from exposure to ionizing radiation. Their intention in developing H was to provide a quantity that correlated better with the more important deleterious eff ects of exposure to radiat ion, more particularly with delayed stochastic effects. ICRP 26 then defined H a s the absorbed dose at a point in tissue, weighted by the modifying factors Q and N ( 6 ) : H = DQN (2 1) In E quation 2 1, Q is a quality factor for a specific radiation type defined as a functio n of linear energy transfer ( LET ). M ultiplying D by Q allows H to express, on a common scale for all ionizing radiation, the biological damage to an exposed individual, since some types of radiation are more biologically damaging internally than others ( 7 ). For more information on the derivation of Q and its typical values, the reader is refer red to ICRP P ublication 26. N is the product of all other modifying factors (e.g. absorbed dose rate and frac tionation) specified by the

PAGE 26

26 Commission at the location of interest At the time of publication of ICRP 26, the Commission assigned the value 1 to N The un it of the dose equivalent is the also the joule per kilogram, but given as the special named unit the sievert (Sv) The Commission specified that the dose limitation for stochastic effects should be based on the sum of the weighted dose equivalents to individual tissues of the body by applying a set of tissue weighting factors (w T ) displayed on Table 2 1 and explained below Furthermore ICRP stated that the annual limit for stochastic effects was to be applied to the sum of the external and internal exposures ( 6 ). International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 30 In 1979 ICRP provided an update in Publication 30, to the dosimetry field with a new quantity called the effective dose equivalent (H E ). H E was defined as the summation of dose equivalents to individual tissues or organs modified by the weighting factors (w T ) first introduced in Publication 26 The weighting factors account for the varying radiation sensitivity of tissues to the induction of stochastic effects and can be thought of as relative risks or the proportion of the total stochastic risk resulting from a s pecific tissu e when the whole body is irradiated uniformly ( 6 8 ). The purpose of this new quantity was explained by ICRP when it stated that the principle that the risk should be equal w hether the whole body is irradiated uniformly or whether there is non uniform irradiation 6 ) For example, if variou s tissues or organs received a dose equivalent ( H T ) under conditions of non uniform radiation (e.g. internal exposure following ingestion of an organ seeking radionuclide, or external partial body exposures) then H E would represent the hypothetical uniform, whole body dose equivalent which, if delivered to the individual, would result in the

PAGE 27

27 same total risk of cancer or genetic damage ( 9 ). E ffective dose equivalent is represented by the following equation: H E = T (w T H T ) (2 2) where the subscript T indicates a specific tissue or organ. The unit for the effective dose equivalent is also the joule per kilogram, but expressed via the special named unit the sievert (Sv). Note that both the dose equivalent and the effective dose equivalent both have units of Sv, and thus one must clearly state the quantity being reported, and not give only its value in Sv. Table 2 1 (taken from ICRP 26, paragraph 105, pg. 21) provides the values suggested by ICRP for the weighting factors. The w T value given to the remainder tissue s (0.30) is provided further clarification from the C ommission ; it recommended a value of w T = 0.06 to be applicable to e ach of the five organs or tissues of the remainder receiving the highest dose equivalents, and that the exposure of all other remaining tissues can be neg l ected ( 6 ) The selection criteria for the tissues considered by the Commission were the radiosensitiv ity of the organ, how essential the organ is to the well being of the individual, and the degree to which the damage can be treated. R adiation risks were based upon the estimated likelihood of inducing a fatal malignant disease, deterministic changes, and substantial genetic defects in liveborn descendants ( 9 ). International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 6 0 In 1990 the ICRP, based on a reevaluation of data on radiation risks and dosimetry generated by the Radiation Effects Research Foun dation, recommended new dosimetry quantit ies in Publication 60 ( 9 ) These quantities included the average absorbed dose (D T, R ) in units of Gy, and the equivalent dose (H T ) in units of Sv

PAGE 28

28 D T, R changed the definition of absorbed dose to no longer be dos e at a point in tissue, but averaged across the entire volume of a tissue or organ. H T was defined as D T, R multiplied by a radiation weighting factor (w R ) defined strictly for the type and energy of the radiation R incident on the body or emitted by a sou rce if within the body (basically equivalent to the former average quality factor used in ICRP 26 ) ( 9 10 ) ; radiation weighting factors are independent of the tissue or organ irradiated It is essential to note that the weighted absorbed dose is strictly a dose. The Commission explained that the change of name served to indicate the change from quality factor to radiation weighting factor ( 10 ) The equivalent dose in tissue T is thus given by the following equation: H T = R (w R D T R ) (2 3) Since the radiation s of inter est analyzed on this document are photons and electrons for which w R equals 1 for all energies, v alues for w R are not presented If one is interested in the ir values, the reader is referred to T able 1 of ICRP Publication 6 0 (p g. 6). Another major update to dosimetry introduced in ICRP 60 was the concept of effective dose (E). The weighted equivalent dose was previously called effective dose equivalent in ICRP 30; however, in Publication 60, the Commission decided that the name associated with the change to equivalent dose ( 10 ). Effective dose is defined as the sum of the weighted equivalent doses in all tissues and organs of the body and given by E = T (w T H T ) (2 4) where H T is the equivalent dose in tissue (or organ) T and w T is the tissue weighting factor for that tissue, which represents the relative contribution of that organ or tissue to the total detriment

PAGE 29

29 due to the stochastic ef fects resulting from uniform whole body irradiation The Commission chose the tissue weighting factors to be independent of the type and energy of the radiation incident on the body ( 10 ). It is desirable that a uniform equivalent dose over the whole body should give an effective dose numerically equal to that uniform equivalent dose. This is achieved by normali s ing the sum of the tissue weighting factors to unity ( 10 ) Table 2 2 (Table 2 of ICRP 60, pg. 8) displays the new tissue weighting factors defined by ICRP 60. Both equivalent dose and effective dose are quantities intended for use in radiological protection, including the assessment of risks in general terms. They provide a basis for estimating the probability of stochastic effects only for absorbed doses well below the thresholds for deterministic effects. For the estimation of the likely consequences of an exposure of a known population, it will sometimes be better to use absorbed dose and specific data relating to the relative biological effectiveness of the radiations concerned and the probability coefficients relating to the exposed population 10 ) International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 In 2007 ICRP made updates to the quantities equivalent and effective dose in Publication 103. The use of the quantities remained unchanged; the revisions were made to the methods used in their calculations ( 11 ) Equivalent dose is still defined in this publi cation as in Equation 2 3 and effective dose as per equation 2 4 and both quantities are still expressed in units of Sv under this publication R eview of available data, together with biophysical considerations, led the Commission to make changes to the r adiation weighting factors used for neutrons and protons, with values for neutrons given as a continuous function of neutron energy, and the inclusion of a value for charged pions. Radiation weighting factors w R for the other radiation types remained

PAGE 30

30 unc hanged ( 1 1 ). As mentioned in the previous section, since the radiation of interest analyzed in this document are photons and electrons for which w R still equals 1 for all energies under ICRP 103, values for w R are not presented. The reader is referred to Table 2 of ICRP Publication 103 (pg. 64). Furthermore, due to availability of new epidemiological data on cancer induction, some of the tissue weighting factors, w T were changed under Publication 103 (Table 2 3). Aside from the sex and age averaging, t he steps involved in the development of the tissue weighting system employed by ICRP 103 are more complex and include various stochastic endpoints such as cancer mortality, cancer morbidity, and years of life lost. For more details on the development of this system the reader is referred to page 191 of ICRP Publication 103 It is very important to mention a change made by ICRP to the calculation methodology of doses from external and internal sources. As specified in Publication 103, these doses will be cal culated using r eference computational phantoms of the human body based on tomographic images, replacing the previous use of mathematical models. For adults, equivalent doses will be calculated by sex averaging of values obtained using male and female phan toms. Effective dose will then be calculated using revised age and sex averaged tissue weighting factors, based on updated risk data and intended to apply as rounded values to a population of both sexes and all ages 1 1 ) It is crucial to note that the C Effective dose is calculated for a Reference Person and not for an individual Refer to Figure 2 1 (Figure 2 of ICRP 103, pg. 68) for an illustration of this procedure.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2 1. ICRP 103 steps in calculating effective dose ( F igure 2 of ICRP 103, pg. 68 ) ( 11 )

PAGE 32

32 Table 2 1. IRCP 26 weighting factors (w T ) for calculating effective dose equivalent (H E ) Tissue w T Gonads 0.25 Breast 0.15 Red bone marrow 0.12 Lung 0.12 Thyroid 0.03 Bone surfaces 0.03 Remainder 0.3 Note s : w T = 0.06 applied to the five remaining tissues receiving the highest dose equivalent (H T ); all other tissues are neglected Table taken from ICRP 26, Pg. 21 ( 6 )

PAGE 33

33 Table 2 2. ICR[ 60 tissue weighting factors 1 (w T ) for calculating effective dose (E ) Tis sue or organ Tissue weighting factor, w T Gonads 0.2 0 Bone marrow (red) 0.12 Colon 0.12 Lung 0.12 Stomach 0.12 Bladder 0.05 Breast 0.05 Liver 0.05 Esophagus 0.05 Thyroid 0.05 Skin 0.01 Bone surface 0.01 Remainder 0.05 2, 3 Note: Table taken f rom ICRP 60, pg. 8 ( 10 ) 1 The values have been developed from a reference population of equal numbers of both sexes and a wide range of ages. In the definition of effective dose they apply to workers, to the whole population, and to either sex. 2 For purp oses of calculation, the remainder is composed of the following additional tissues and organs: adrenals, brain, upper large intestine, small intestine, kidney, muscle, pancreas, spleen, thymus and uterus. The list includes organs which are likely to be sel ectively irradiated. Some organs in the list are known to be susceptible to cancer induction. If other tissues and organs subsequently become identified as having a significant risk of induced cancer they will then be included either with a specific w T or in this additional list constituting the remainder. The latter may also include other tissues or organs selectively irradiated. 3 In those exceptional cases in which a single one of the remainder tissues or organs receives an equivalent dose in excess of t he highest dose in any of the twelve organs for which a weighting factor is specified, a weighting factor of 0.025 should be applied to that tissue or organ and a weighting factor of 0.025 to the average dose in the rest of the remainder as defined above.

PAGE 34

34 Table 2 3. ICRP 103 tissue weighting factors (w T ) for calculating effective dose (E) Tissue w T w T Bone marrow (red), Colon, Lung, Stomach, 0.12 0.72 Breast, Remainder tissues Gonads 0.08 0.08 Bladder, esophagus, Liver, Thyroid 0.04 0.16 Bone surface, Brain, Salivary glands, Skin 0.01 0.04 Total 1 Note: Table 3 in ICRP 103, pg. 65 ( 11 ) Remainder tissues: Adrenals, Extrathoracic (ET) region, Gall bladder, Heart, Kidneys, Lymphatic nodes, Muscle, Oral mucosa, Pancreas, Prostate ( ), Small intestine, Spleen, Thymus, Uterus/cervix ( ).

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 USE AND MISUSE OF TH E EFFECTIVE DOSE IN MEDICINE Principles of Radiological Protection (International Commission on Radiological Protection) A good starting point for understand ing ICRP sanctioned proper use of the effective dose in medi cine is to analyze the principles of radiological prot ection given by the Commission. In its 1990 R ecommendations (ICRP Publication 60), the Commission gave principles of protection separately from interv ention situations. In the 2007 R ecommendations (ICRP Publication 103), the Commission continued to consider these principles as essential for the system of protection, and formulated a single set of principles that apply to planned, emergency, and existing exposure situations. These principles are known as justification, optimization of protection and applicat ion of dose limits. Justification and optimization are regarded as source related and apply in all exposure situations; the application of dose limits is individual related and applies in planned exposure situations, except medical exposure of patients ( 11 1 2 ) The Commission states Provided that the medical exposures of patients have been properly justified and that the associated doses are commensurate with the medical purpose, it is not appropriate to apply dose limits or dose constraints to the m edical exposure of patients, because such limits or constraints would often do more harm than good 1 1 ) T he previous paragraph binds effective dose to be used only for justification and optimization in medical exposures since limitation does not apply. S ince the medical example considered in this document (FDG PET/CT simulation) is regarded as a planned medical exposure, the principle of limi tation is not further analyzed; for more details on this principle the reader is refer red to ICRP Publications 103 and 105. Based on the principle of justification any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm. This means that, by introducing a new radiation

PAGE 36

3 6 source, by reducing existing exposure, or by reducing the risk of potential exposure, one should achieve sufficient individual or societal benefit to offset the detriment it causes 1 1 ) However, medical exposure of patients calls for a more detailed approach to the process of justification (refer to ICRP 105) that goes beyond the scope of this document, although the main i dea just be positive 1 1 ) Based on the principle of optimization the likelihood of incurring expos ures, the number of people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual doses should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors 1 1 ) What the Com the level of protection should be the best under the prevailing circumstances, maximising the margin of benefit over harm. In order to avoid severely inequitable outcomes of this optimisation procedure, there should be restrictions on the doses or risks to individuals from a part icular source (dose or risk constraints and reference levels) 1 1 ) Applications of Effective Dose to Medical Dosimetry In Publication 103, ICRP advises how effective doses should be applied to medi cal exposures and extends these recommendations in its P ublication 105. First, it is extremely important to note that ICRP intended effective dose for use as a principal protection quantity for the establishment of protection guidance in radiology be used to assess risks of stoc hastic effects in retrospective situations for exposures in identified individuals, nor should it be used in epidemiological evaluations of human exposure ( 1 2 ) The risks for such stochastic effects are age and sex dependent and this has definite im plications. The Commission derived the effective dose for age and sex distributions of workers and the general population which can be very different from the overall age and sex distribution for patients undergoing specific medical procedures that utili ze ioniz ing radiation; m oreover, the se

PAGE 37

37 distribution s will vary from one medical procedure to another, since the me dical condition being evaluated under such procedures may vary and so will the prevalence of individuals undergoing the different procedures ( 11 1 2 ) For these reasons, risk assessment for medical diagnosis and treatment using ionising radiation is best evaluated using appropriate risk values for the individual tissues at risk and for the age and sex distribution of the individuals undergoing the medical procedures ( 11 1 2 ) As explicitly mentioned by ICRP, effective dose can be of practical importance for comparing the relative doses related to stochastic effects from the following scenarios: different diagnostic examinations and intervention al procedures, the use of similar technologies and procedures in different hospitals and countries, and the use of different technologies for the same medical examination provided that the representative patients or patient populations for which the effect ive doses are derived are sim ilar with regard to age and sex ( 1 1 1 2 ) In many cases, this last condition is clearly not met. For example, any medical procedure used only in children will negate the averaging of radiation detriments across all ages, as is done in establishing the ICRP values of its tissue weighting factors. Reference Conditions As mentioned at the end of Chapter 2, one of the more important updates to the effective dose made by ICRP, in its Publication 103, was the explicit use of reference computational phantoms of the human body (obtained from tomographic images), replacing the previous use of stylized or mathematical models Note the following definitions taken from ICRP 103, pg. 31 which are of importance for the understanding of the r eference conditions: Reference Male and Reference Female (Reference Individual) An idealized male or female with characteristics defined by the Commission for the purpose of radiological protection,

PAGE 38

38 and with the anatomical and physiological characteristi cs defined in the report of the ICRP Task Group on Reference Man Publication 89 ( 1 3 ). Reference Person An idealized person for whom the organ or tissue equivalent doses are calculated by averaging the corresponding doses of the Reference Male and Refer ence Female. The equivalent doses of the Reference Person are used for the calculation of the effective dose by multiplying these doses by the corresponding tissue weighting factors. Reference phantom Voxel phantoms for the human body (male and female vo xel phantoms based on medical imaging data) with the anatomical and physiological characteristics defined in the report of the ICRP Task Group on Reference Man Publication 89 ( 1 3 ). Consistent with the approach taken in Publication 23 ( 1 4 ), the ICRP reite rates in Publication 89 that it is neither feasible nor necessary to specify a reference individual as being representative of a well defined population group. To construct a useful reference individual, it is important to have a full set of consistent re sults so that the sum of the parts adds up to a proper value for the total body 1 3 ) For this reason, and since data on these populations had been well studied (anatomically and physiologically), the Commission chose to use data on Western Europeans and North Americans as the basis for defining ICRP reference values ( 1 3 ) In Publication 89, ICRP states that in order to calculate radiation dose to the human body (from external or internal sources), information about the anatomy and physiology of the expose d individual is required, and that t his information is particularly needed when calculating doses from internally deposited radionuclides to various organs and tissues in the body. However, since the characteristics of an exposed person vary from one indiv idual to another, the Commission deemed important to have a set of reference values to describe various anatomical and physiological attributes of an exposed individual; this allows for consistent and reproducible

PAGE 39

39 radiation protection guidance f or differen reference values for tissues and organs, when summed, define a reference individual. Consideration of an entire reference individual helps to ensure that there will be an internal consistency about how the volume, mass or functional characteristics of various organs or tissues are specified 1 3 ) ICRP Committee 3 (C3) Task Group developed reference biokinetic models (useful in nuclear medicine) that model the different pathways different radiophar maceuticals may take when in the body. Reference values a re derived for radiation protection purposes for adult workers (male and female) and members of the general public. Reference values for the size and composition of organs, as well as reference physi ological information, provide the main design criteria for models (referred to as reference phantoms) of the reference individual features. Reference values for anatomical features refer to, for example, overall height, weight, length of extremities, etc. Physiological information refers to, metabolic, excretion, respiration, and energy expenditure rates just to mention a few For more information and actual values of these reference conditions, the reader is refer red to ICRP Publication 89 ( 1 3 ). Misuse o f the Effective Dose As mentioned in Chapter 2, and stated in ICRP Publication 103, effective dose is derived u sing the average of the equivalent doses for Reference Male and Reference Female and applying to that average tissue weighting factors which are sex and age averaged; effective dose is therefore calculated for a Reference Person and not for a specific individual as intended by ICRP This definition of effective dose results in several implications and limitations to the quantity, when it comes t o medical exposures to ionizing radiation, which makes it prone to being easily misused.

PAGE 40

40 An example of misuse could be seen in cases such as CT or fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, in which the exposure conditions may be patient specific; however, if one is truly calculating an ICRP value of effective dose, then the exposure conditions cannot be patient specific, the y must be reference patient or person (both male and female) since effective dose was defined under those conditions. When t he anatomic model is non reference in any way, such as the use of underweight or overweight computational phantoms for use on specific circumstances, then the quantity reported is technically no longer an effective dose. Another scenario under which report ing dose as effective dose is erroneous is when the biokinetic model for nuclear medicine dosimetry is based upon patient specific imaging data, and not the standardize biokinetic models developed by the C3 Task Group. In other words, if the exposed indivi dual deviates in any way (anatomical, physiological, or biokinetics) from the reference conditions needed to calculate effective dose, then the quantity reported is no longer a value of effective dose as technically defined by ICRP Again, it is important to note that ICRP reference dose coefficients are not aimed at providing a dose for a specific individual but for a Reference Person ( 1 1 ). Furthermore, ICRP clearly states that effective dose is not to be used for detailed specific retrospective investigat ions of individual exposure and risk ( 1 1 ). However, some people still want to report the effective dose and assign it to individual patients, disregarding ICRP recommendations. Effective dose never belongs to an individual patient, just as the effective do se never belongs to an individual worker or member of the general public. The quantity only belongs to the reference person or reference patient. In order to analyze the risk (of cancer incidence or mortality) from medical imaging procedures utilizing th e effective dose, the quantity must be corrected using a detriment adjusted

PAGE 41

41 nominal risk coefficient, obtained from cancer incidence data, which is reported in ICRP 103 as 5.5 x 10 2 Sv 1 ; the Commission states as its policy that the nominal risk coefficie nts do not apply to individuals but rather should be applied to whole population s ( 1 1 ). So me people then report the product of effective dose and the nominal risk coefficient as a risk of cancer incidence to an individual even though the risk coefficients were not designed for individuals. Furthermore, i t must be note d that when these two quantities are multiplied, the resulting value is considered an effective is not s olely a risk of cancer incidence; radiation detriment is defined in ICRP Publication 60 ( 10 ) and Publication 103 ( 1 1 ), and includes various stochastic endpoints such as cancer mortality, cancer morbidity, and years of life lost. intentionally introduced by ICRP to clarify that other subjective judgments have been applied in the establishment of w T values, other than fundamental values of cancer incidence or mortality. medical diagnosis and treatment using ionising radiation is best evaluated using appropriate risk values for the individual tissues at risk and for 11 1 2 ) It is importan stochastic effects because every person is completely different from one another and the variables that can change from one individual to the next are practically infinite (anat omical and physiological) making it in feasible to account for all such changes However, based on the previous discussion, it is evident that the medical community is in need of some indicator of stochastic risk for justification and/or optimization of med ical procedures, involving ionizing radiation, that at the very least takes into account variations with age and sex.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE EFFECTIVE DOSE As mentioned at the end of Chapter 3, there is a growing need of some indicator of stochast ic risk for justification and/or optimization of medical procedures involving ionizing radiation that at least t akes into account variations in age and sex. In 2008, David Brenner proposed an alternative to the effective dose derived risk of radiation det riment that has the potential to allow for dependencies on sex and age when assessing risks of stochastic effects. In his article, Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced ( 2 ), Dr. Brenner proposes the introduction of a new quanti ty called effective risk (R), defined as: R = T (r T H T ) (4 1) where R represents the summation across all tissues, T, of the product between organ specific radiation induced cancer risks (r T ) and equivalent dose (H T ) The effective risk would then be a lifetime radiation attributable cancer risk Equivalent dose would be calculated just as in ICRP Publication 103; the main and major difference arises with the introduction of r T This new factor represents the lifetime radiation attributable tis sue specific cancer risks (per unit equivalent dose to tissue T) ; the effective risk would then be a lifetime radiation attributable risk of cancer incidence resulting from various equivalent doses to the exposed tissues T ( 2 ) Dr. Brenner refers to R as a simple, less confusing, easy to estimate quantity, based on defensible science, which more directly does the job of comparing the risks associated with He pr esents as arguments against the effective dose the fact that tissue weighting factors represent a committee determined subjective balance between the different stochastic endpoints of cancer incidence, cancer mortality, life shortening and hereditary risk in the derivation of their newer values is not so much due to an improvement in o ur knowledge

PAGE 43

43 of radiation risks somewhat differing views on the relative imp ortance of the different endpoints that comprise the Furthermore he defined to be independent of age at exposure, whereas data suggest that attributable radiation risks are often highly age dep endent, and that risks for different endpoints have different age at exposure ed the same units, s ieverts, in which equivalent dose and effective dose are reported, even though they represent completely different quantities ( 2 ) In June 2011, Dr. Xiang Li et al. published an article titled Patient specific Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk for Pediatric Chest C T ( 1 5 ) The p estimate patient specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate factors affecting dose and risk, including patient size, pati ent age, and scanning The authors calculated effective dose for their exposure scenarios as a comparison to their new proposed quantity risk index. The While widely used as a surrogate for population radiation risk, effect ive dose does not reflect individual patient risk since it is based on the sex and age averaged tissue weighting factors. Therefore, to more accurately estimate individual patient risks implemented a metric of risk, termed risk index is define d as: Risk index = T r T (sex, age) H T, (4 2 ) where H T is the equivalent dose for organ or tissue T and r T is the sex age and tissue specific risk coefficient (cases per 100000 exposed to 0.1 Gy) for lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence obtained from the BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) VII report ( 1 6 )

PAGE 44

44 The authors adopted their metric of risk index from the concept of effective risk previously proposed by Dr. Brenner. They, however, use the term risk index as opposed to effective risk to reflect the inherent uncertainties associated with any risk estimation, particularly risks for individual patients, who might have different radiosensitivity due to genetic predispositions or 1 5 ) In both cases, risk index and eff ective risk, are summing the product of organ equivalent doses and lifetime attributable cancer risk incidence. The methods previously proposed are implemented in this document for risk assessment from an FDG PET/CT medical imaging simulation example by ut ilization of li fetime attributable risks (LAR). It is important to note, however, that both of the methods discussed are based on cancer incidence data. These data not only include nonfatal cancers, but also offer diagnostic information that is of higher quality than that based on death certificates, which is especially important when evaluating site 1 6 ) While this allows for more reliable data and a wider range of coverage of individuals, since reportedly there are more cases of cancer incidence than cancer mortality (refer to the BEIR VII report ) basing risk assessm ent solely on cancer incidence data has some disadvantage s; one is that the large differences in the success rates for treatment of different cancer types would be ignored since future developments in cancer treatment are likely to further impact the number of incidence cases. Also, risk assessment should be made for both morbidity and mortality, so one should use both U.S. morbidity and mortality data to be able to determi ne what percentage of radiogenic cancers in the U.S. will be fatal. Moreover, mortality data offer the advantage of covering a longer period (1950 2000) than the incidence data (1958 1998) and of including deaths of LSS (Life Span Study) members who migrat ed from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to other parts of Japan ( 1 6 ). Therefore, both LAR of cancer inci dence and mortality are reported on this document.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 5 L IFETIME ATTRIBUTABLE RISK MODELS As mentioned in the I ntroduction, in 2005 the BEIR (Biological E ffects of Ionizing Radiation) VII C ommittee published models for estimating radiogenic risks of cancer incidence and mortality following exposure to low LET (Linear Energy Transfer) radiation. These models take into account sex age at exposure, dose rate and other factors. For most cancer sites, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses BEIR VII models for calculating lifetime attributable risks (LAR), but with some modifications and extensions as described in the 2011 EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Model s and Projections for the U.S. Population report, also known as the Blue Book ( 1 7 ) The LAR of a premature cancer (or cancer death) is expressed as quantity that approximates the probability an individual will develop (or die from) cancer associated with a n exposure. The Blue Book include s models for calculating risks for high LET radiation exposures and for additional cancer sites not considered in the BEIR VII report. Both organizations use excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) project radiogenic cancer risks for the U.S. population in their LAR calculations. The EPA models were utilized in this document for the risk assessment of an FDG PET/CT medical imaging simulation example and to provide comparison with the effective dose derived risk of radiation detriment presented by ICRP in Publication 103. These risk models were coded using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 ( 1 8 ) Although the risk models used here were mainly derived from the BEIR VII report ( 1 6 ) and the Blue Book ( 1 7 ), it is imp ortant to acknowledge that there are other data sources for calculation of LAR, mainly ICRP Publication 103 ( 1 1 ) and UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) reports ( 1 9 ). For most cancer sites, UNSCEAR and ICRP ERR and EAR risk models were derived from analyses of recent A bomb

PAGE 46

46 surv ivor data. As in BEIR VII, most ICRP models were based on 1958 1998 incidence data, whereas the UNSCEAR models were based on 1950 2000 mortality data. ICRP models were applied to a mix of Euro American and Asian populations; the UNSCEAR models were applied to 5 populations (China, Japan, Puerto Rico, U.S., and United Kingdom). 1 7 ) Since the models from ICRP and UNSCEAR are not the primary focus of this document, the reader is refer red to the respective documents for more details on the ir model development and use The f ollowing is a brief description of the BEIR VII models. The models are described per major cancer site, a general methodology for calculating LARs is then presented, including updates performed by the EPA, and finally LARs based on the updated EPA models are tabulated as number of cases (or deaths) per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 gray (Gy) 2005 BEIR ( Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation ) VII M odels Background These models provide the basis for sex and age specific estimates for exposure scenarios at various ages, which are of significant value when quantifying stochastic risk to individuals from medical imaging procedures. As mentioned earlier these models were primarily based on incidence data. BEIR VII Committee justifies this decision by stating that inc data not only include nonfatal cancers, but also offer diagnostic information that is of higher quality than that based on death ce rtificates, which is especially important when evaluating site specific 1 6 ) BEIR VII uses excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models to project radiogenic cancer risks that are unique to the U.S. population in their LAR ca lculations. As defined by the Committee ERR represents the rate of cancer (incidence or mortality) in a population exposed to low LET radiation divided by the cancer rate in an unexposed population

PAGE 47

47 and subtracting 1 from that result. EAR is defined as the rate of cancer in an exposed population minus the rate of cancer in an unexposed population ( 1 6 ). The Committee provided models for cancers of the stomach, colon, liver, lung, female breast, prostate, uterus, ovary, bladder, and all other solid cancers (w hich are operationally equivalent to the remainder tissue category given in the effective dose as defined by ICRP 103 refer to Table 2 3 in Chapter 2 ). Incidence estimates were also provided for thyroid cancer. Description of Models Site specific solid cancers other than breast and thyroid Models for estimating risk of solid cancers of specific sites other than breast and thyroid are of the form: s (5 1 ) Here, D is the equivalent s is the risk (ERR or EAR) per unit equivalent dose and is also a function of sex. The risk is modified by e, age at exposure in years, e* which is equal to (e parameter The Committee d mortality are shown in Table 5 1 (Table 12 2 in BEIR VII report pg. 272 ). Breast Although BEIR VII calculates LAR estimates based on both the ERR and EAR models, their preferred estimates are based on the EAR model. With that model according to the the estimated m ain effect is more stable because it is based on both LSS and U.S. women In addition, this model includes both age at exposure and attained age as modifying 1 6 ). The EAR model is as follows:

PAGE 48

48 25)/10)] (a / 50) (5 2 ) Thyroid n a pooled analysis of data from seven thyroid cancer incidence studies (refer to the BEIR VII report for more details on such studies). The Committee ERR/Gy = 0.53 exp [ 0.083 (e 30)] for males (5 3 ) and ERR/Gy = 1.0 5 exp [ 0.083 (e 30)] for females. (5 4 ) Leukemia The Committee leukemia mortality data for the period 1950 2000. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was excluded from the base line rates utilized for calculations of risk of leukemia (refer to BEIR VII for analysis on this decision) The Committee (5 5 ) where D is the equivalent dose (Sv), s is sex, and e* is (e 30 (e is age at exposure in years). The parameter dependent on sex, age at exposure, or time since exposure). The parameter S represents the ERR/Sv or the EAR (expressed as excess deaths per 104 PY Sv, where PY = person years). Table 5 2 (Table 12 3 in BEIR VII report, pg. 274) contains the parameter estimates needed for the model. For this thesis, the target tiss ue analyzed for LAR of leukemia (incidence or mortality) is the active bone marrow.

PAGE 49

49 General Methodology for Calculating Lifetime Attributable Risk s This section contains the general methodology utilized by the BEIR VII Committee for calculating LAR s of ca ncer incidence or mortality for site specific solid cancers and for leukemia based on EAR estimates. EAR can be obtained by using EAR models directly or by multiplying the ERR models by a baseline rate ( population ( refer to the section Risks of cancer incidence below ). BEIR VII calculates the LAR for a person exposed to dose D at age e as follows: LAR(D, e) = a M(D, e, a) S(a) / S(e), (5 6 ) where the lifetime risk for a given age of exposure is the summation of risks of developing or dying from cancer at ages a = e + L to l00 Here, a is the attained age (years) and L is a risk free latent period (5 years for solid cancers and 2 for leukemia). The M(D, e, a) is the EAR (either used directly from EAR or indirectly from ERR models), S(a) is the probability of surviving until age a, and S(a) / S(e) is the probability of surviving to age a conditional on survival to age e. The values for S(a) were obta ined from a 1999 life table for the U.S. population ( 20 ). Once LARs have been obtained either using EAR transport directly or ERR transport, the answers from both methods are combined to obtain an LAR as follows: LAR COMB = (LAR ERR ) 0.7 (LAR EAR ) 0.3 (5 7 ) This weighting scheme is performed for sites other than breast, thyroid, and lung. As stated in the BEIR VII report, this choice was made because there is somewhat greater support for relative risk than for absolute risk transport. For lung cancer the weighting scheme is reversed and a weight of 0.7 is used for the EAR estimate and one of 0.3 for the ERR estimate (refer to BEIR VII for the underlying rationale ) This weighting scheme is not implemented for breast cancer

PAGE 50

50 risk estimates for which th e LAR is based on the direct EAR mode l only, nor for thyroid cancer for which only the ERR model is used ( 1 6 ) Once the answers from both transport methods (EAR and ERR) have been combined, a final total LAR can obtained as follows: LAR TOT = LAR COMB / DDR EF (5 8 ) where the DDREF is 1.5 (used to estimate risk for solid tumors) and is the dose and dose rate effectiveness factor needed for extrapolating data from acute high dose rate experiments. To estimate the risks of leukemia (inci dence or mortality), BEIR VII uses a linear quadratic model and therefore does not require a DDREF adjustment ( 1 6 ) Risks of cancer incidence Lifetime risks estimates of cancer incidence obtained using relative risk transport were based on ERR models as fo llows: M(D, e, a) = ERR(D, e, a) I c (a) (5 9 ) where the ERR(D, e, a) was obtained f rom the models shown in Tables 5 1 and 5 I c (a) represents sex and age specific 1995 1999 U.S. cancer incidence rates from Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, where c designates the cancer site or category. Lifetime risk estimates of cancer incidence using absolute risk transport were based on EAR models as follows: M(D, e, a) = EAR(D, e, a) (5 1 0 ) where the EAR(D, e a) was obtained f rom the models shown in Tables 5 1 and 5 2 as well. Risks of cancer mortality Lifetime risks estimates of mortality obtained using relative risk transport were based on ERR models as follows: M(D, e, a) = ERR(D, e, a) M c (a), (5 1 1 )

PAGE 51

51 where the ERR(D, e, a) is the same model used for lifetime risk estimates of cancer incidence and was obtained from the models shown in Tables 5 1 and 5 M c (a) represents sex and age specific 1995 1999 U.S. cancer m ortality rates where c also designates the cancer site or category. Lifetime risk estimates using absolute risk transport were based on EAR models also taken from Tables 5 1 and 5 2; but to estimate site specific cancer mortality, it was necessary to adjus t the EAR(D, e, a) by multiplying by M c I c (a), the ratio of the sex and age specific mortality and incidence rates for the U.S. population. So for site specific mortality, M c I c (a). (5 1 2 ) Leukemia Models for leukemia differ from those for solid cancers in that risk is expressed as a function of age at exposure (e) and time since exposure (t) instead of age at exposure and attained age (a). Time since exposure can then be written as a e. To obtain ERR(D, e, a) or EAR(D, e, a) one simpl y substitute s a e for t in Equation 5 5 Furthermore, for the period 2 5 years after exposure, the EAR (whether used directly or from ERR models) is assumed to be the same as that at 5 years after exposure ( 17 ). In other words, for a = e + 2 to e + 5, M( D, e, a) = M(D, e, e + 5). 2011 E nvironmental Protection Agency Models Similarities/Differences From BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) VII Models For most site specific solid cancers (other than breast and thyroid) and leukemia, the EPA has a pplied the same ERR and EAR models as given in the BEIR VII Report and as described i n Tables 5 1 and 5 2. However, the LAR is calculated as a sum of risks from ages e + L to 110, and v alues for S(a) were obtained from a 2000 life table ( 17 ). as opposed t o the 1999 life table used in BEIR VII ( 16 ) EPA also used more up to date cancer specific incidence and mortality rates ( refer to the 2011 EPA Blue Book for detailed information on such rates) ( 1 7 )

PAGE 52

52 Weighting scheme Another major difference in the calcu lation process of the LAR, is the combination of LAR results obtained from ERR and EAR models. BEIR VII uses a weighted geometric mean approach to the combination of models as illustrated by Equ ation 5 7 EPA has instead employed a weighted arithmetic mean to combine ERR and EAR projections, which they assert has a 1 7 ). The EPA implements the following weighted arithmetic mean approach: LAR (EPA) (D, e) = w* LAR (R) (D,e) + (1 w*) LAR (A) (D,e) (5 1 3 ) where LAR (A) and LAR (R) represent the age and sex specific LARs derived from the EAR and ERR models, respectively. Similar to that in BEIR VII, the weight given to LAR ( R ) is 0.7 (w*=0.7) and thus the one given to LAR (A) is 0.3 (1 w*=0.3). Also as i n BEIR VII, the LAR (EPA) is adjusted down by a DDREF of 1.5 for all cancer sites except leukemia, bone and skin. The 2011 EPA Blue Book ( 1 7 ) has a more detailed examination on the development of this weighting scheme. Breast ing LAR of breast cancer incidence is identical to that used by BEIR VII. For estimates of LAR of breast cancer mortality, however, EPA uses a very different method than that employed by BEIR VII. The methodology is much m ore complex than the one for risk of breast cancer incidence, so for details on its development refer to Appendix A ( taken from the Blue Book pgs. 44 47) The main reason EPA uses a different method for estimating lifetime radiogenic risks for breast cancer mortality, is because BEIR VII 's methods did not take into account the often long time of survival between breast cancer diagnosis (incidence) and death ( 1 7 ) take this into account For cancers such as lung and liver, for example, survival is still very short

PAGE 53

53 so it is not as important to account for this period of time. For some other cancers like breast and prostate, survival times are long. It was deemed by EPA to be not as important for prostate cancer, however, because it does not contribute anywhere near as much to the overall radiogenic r isk, at least for uniform whole body radiation (that is averaged over males and females). Thyroid risk transport (ERR model); however, the is of the following form: (5 14 ) where A(e) and T(t) are multiplicative factors for age at exposure and time since exposure, respectively, given in Table 5 3 ( taken from Table 3 5 in Blue Book, pg.32 ). For ages at exposure > 15 years, the EPA model borrows from the BEIR VII model, which approximates an 8% per year decrease in ERR with age at exposure ( 1 7 ) For calculating LAR of cancer mortality, EPA assumed a simple 5% fatality r ate for all radiogenic thyroid cancers ( refer to the 2011 EPA Blue Book for specific details on this assumption and the model itself ). Additional Site Specific Solid Cancers In addition to the site specific solid cancers for which BEIR VII calculated LARs of incidence and mortalit y, the 2011 EPA models include LARs specific to the following sites: kidney, bone, and skin. However, for this specific study, the kidney was applied a different methodology ( refer to the section Extensions to the 2011 EPA Models for this Study) than that employed by EPA, so following is a description for the bone and skin sites only

PAGE 54

54 Skeletal endosteum (bone) EPA employs an absolute risk model for their estimates of bone cancer, which for small acute doses reduces to the form: ( 5 15 ) 3 Gy 1 D particle radiation; g(e) reflects the variation in risk with age at exposure ( e) ; and h(t) represents the variation with time after exposure ( t). In E quation 5 15 g(e) = exp [ 0.0532 (e 30)], ( 5 16 ) and ( 5 17 ) where t 0 is 12.72 years and is 0.612. Further details on the development of this model are given in the 2011 EPA Blue Book ( 1 7 ) Skin EPA adopted a model based on relative risk transport for their risk estimates of skin cancer incidence of the form: ERR I = 0.2 D (0.88) e 7 ( 5 18 ) where D is dose (Gy) and e is the age at exposure. For skin cancer mortality risk p rojections, the EPA has adopted a simple method which is to force mortality to be 0.03% of the incidence projections ERR M = (0.03/100) ERR I ( 5 19 ) Even though the method is simple, the decision to employ it required in depth analysis of data o n skin This work is documented in the 2011 EPA Blue Book ( 1 7 )

PAGE 55

55 It is important to note further issues regarding skin cancers. In the Blue Book ( 1 7 ) the total risk of cancer incidence includes only fatal skin cancers and does not include non fatal cases t hat could have serious (e.g. disfiguring) consequences For the latter, there ar e no reliable statistics from which to form a valid risk prediction model However, for medical procedures, non fatal skin cancers are important to the overall risk of cancer i nci dence. Also, the values given in the 2011 EPA Blue Book are for whole body irradiation; this presents an issue for estimating risks of radiogenic skin cancer incidence because risks might depend on whether the irradiated portion of the skin is protected from UV (Ultra Violet rays). For nuclear medicine, skin dose could a cceptable. In contrast, however, for CT and definitely for interventional fluoroscopy exposures result in only porti ons of the skin being irradiated. For these reasons, estimates for risks of radiogenic skin cancer incidence have been excluded from the calculation of the overall risk of cancer incidence. However, the estimates for the risk of radiogenic skin cancer mor tality have been included in the calculation of overall risk of cancer mortality since the models for this site are based on fatal skin cancers. Extensions to the 2011 Environmental Protection Agency Models for Medical Dosimetry Applications F or this thesi s additional sites were also included beyond those given in the 2011 EPA Blue Book. These additional sites were added as they were thought to be of importance under the scope of the medical exam simulation s and because of the availability of dose distribu tions to those sites. s mentioned above. The total list of

PAGE 56

56 additi onal sites analyzed on this study for which LAR was calculated, is the following: bone endosteum skin, oral cavity, kidney, pancreas, gallbladder, central nervous system (CNS), esophagus, and rectum. Oral C avit y, K idney, Pancreas, Gallbladder, C entral N ervous S ystem (CNS), E sophagus, R ectum, and N ew O ther S olid (or R emainder) The development of the models for these sites was performed by Dr. David Pawel from the U.S. EPA (Radiation Protection Division) specifica lly for this study. They were then coded into Microsoft Office Excel 2007 ( 1 8 ) by the author as part of the present study As mentioned earlier, the kidney 1 7 ) but using a different model not employed in th is document and it is thus included in this section The following is an excerpt taken from a write up (Appendix B ) provided by David Pawel for these sites The same type of model used in BEIR VII for ERR was fit using data for these 7 specific cancer site s, i.e., ERR depends on dose ( D ), cancer site ( c ), sex( s ), age at exposure( e ), and attained age ( a ): ERR(D, s, e) = c,s D exp [ (e 30)/10] (a/60) (5 2 0 ) ( refer to Appendix B for methods and values). Projections of LAR were calculated using methods very similar to t hose described earlier in the section General Methodology for Calculating Lifetime Attributable Risk s (LAR) though t he ERR were applied to baseline rates of two populations (U.S. and Japan) rather than just one (U.S.) as in BEIR VII or the Blue Book and the results combined ( refer to Appendix B for an an alysis on this procedure) High LET (Linear Energy Transfer) Radiation Since high LET radiation is not considered under the scope of the medical simulation example (to be analyzed later) of this paper,

PAGE 57

57 to site specific risk estimates from low LET in order to account for the relative biological effectiveness, RBE, of high particles). Simply stated, one would just take the LARs calculated for low LET radiation and divide by an RBE value to obtain the LARs for high LET radiation. M ore detailed information is provided in the 2011 EPA Blue Book ( 1 7 ) for high LET radiation particle risk estimates can be obtained by apply ing an RBE of 20 to the risk estimates from low LET radiation for most solid tumors (including breast). The low dose low LET radiation risk estimate for bone cancer can be obtained by dividing the risk per Gy for particles by an RBE of 10. And finally, a n RBE of 2 is used for leukemia ( 1 7 ). Lifetime Attributable Risk Tables From the EPA revisions described above and the addition of models for site specific solid cancers, new LAR tables were developed and reported as number of cases per 100,000 persons ex posed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. The tables are displayed in yearly increments for ages at exposure 0 20 and every 5 y ears for ages at exposure 25 85. Tables 5 4 ( males) and 5 5 (females) display LARs of cancer incidence and Tables 5 6 (males) and 5 7 (fe males) display LARs of cancer mortality. Simply stated, t o calculate the LARs for different exposure scenarios to low LET radiation, one would scale the LARs by a ratio of the doses from the different exposure scenarios (i.e. new dose dived by 0.1 since t he tables were developed with this dose ) This procedure works for all sites except for leukemia, which is based on a linear quadratic model. For leukemia, one would have to calculate the LAR for very small doses and scale up the answer to the desire magni tude since at very low doses the model approaches more linearity. For example, if one was interested in the LAR of leukemia incidence after exposure to 0.2 Gy to the bone

PAGE 58

58 marrow, one would calculate the LAR using the models for leukemia with a dose of 0.00 02 Gy and multiply the answer by 1000.

PAGE 59

59 Table 5 1. BEIR VII preferred ERR and EAR models for estimating site specific solid cancer incidence and mortality ERR Models a EAR Models a Cancer Site No. of Cases M b (95% CI) F b (95% CI) c d M e (95% CI) F e (95% CI) c d Stomach 3602 0.21 (0.11, .40) 0.48 (0.31, 0.73) 0.3 1.4 4.9 (2.7, 8.9) 4.9 (3.2, 7.3) 0.41 2.8 Colon 1165 0.63 (0.37, 1.1) 0.43 (0.19, 0.96) 0.3 1.4 3.2 (1.8, 5.6) 1.6 (0.8, 3.2) 0 .41 2.8 Liver 1146 0.32 (0.16, 0.64) 0.32 (0.10, 1.0) 0.3 1.4 2.2 (1.9, 5.3) 1.0 (0.4, 2.5) 0.41 4.1 (1.9, 6.4) Lung 1344 0.32 (0.15, 0.70) 1.40 (0.94, 2.1) 0.3 1.4 2.3 (1.1, 5.0) 3.4 (2.3, 4.9) 0.41 5.2 (3.8, 6.6) Breast 952 0.51 (0.28, 0.83 ) 0 2.0 9.4 (2.3, 4.9) 0.51 3.5, 1.1 f Prostate 281 0.12 (<0, 0.69) 0.3 1.4 0.11 (<0, 1.0) 0.41 2.8 Uterus 875 0.055 (<0, 0.22) 0.3 1.4 1.2 (<0, 2.6) 0.41 2.8 Ovary 190 0.38 (0.10, 1.4) 0.3 1.4 0.7 (0.2, 2.1) 0.41 2.8 Bladde r 352 0.50 (0.18, 1.4) 1.65 (0.69, 4.0) 0.3 1.4 1.2 (0.4, 3.7) 0.75 (0.3, 1.7) 0.41 6.0 (3.1, 9.0) Other solid cancers 2969 0.27 (0.15, 0.50) 0.45 (0.27, 0.75) 0.3 2.8 6.2 (3.8, 10.0) 4.8 (3.2, 7.3) 0.41 2.8 Thyroid 0.53 (0.14, 2.0) 1.05 (0.28 3.9) 0.83 0 Notes : Estimated parameters with 95% CIs. PY = person years. *Table Table 12 2 in BEIR VII report, pg. 272 ( 16 ) a The ERR or EAR is of the form where D is the dose (Sv), e is age at exposure (years), e* is (e 30) /10 for is still expr essed per decade. b ERR/Sv for exposure at age 30+ at attained age 60. c Per decade increase in age at exposure over the range 0 d e EAR per 104 PY Sv for exposure at age 30+ and attained age 60; these values are for cancer incidence and must be adjusted as described in the text to estimate cancer mortality risks. f The first number is for attained ages less than 50; the second number is for attained ages 50 or greater.

PAGE 60

60 Table 5 2. BE IR VII preferred ERR and EAR models for estimating leukemia incidence and mortality Parameter ERR Model a, b, c EAR Model a, b, c M 1.1 per Sv (0.1, 2.6) 1.62 deaths per 104 PY Sv (0.1, 3.6) F 1.2 per Sv (0.1, 2.9) 0.93 deaths per 104 PY Sv (0.1, 2.0) 0.40 per decade ( 0.78, 0.0) 0.29 per decade (0.0, 0.62) 0.48 ( 1.1, 0.2) 0.0 0.42 (0.0, 0.96) 0.56 (0.31, 0.85) 0.87 per Sv (0.16, 15) 0.88 Sv 1 (0.16, 15) N otes : Estimated parameters with 95% CIs based on likelihood ratio profile. *Table 12 3 in BEIR VII report, pg. 274 ( 16 ) a 2 (t / 25)], where D is the dose to the bone marrow (Sv), e is age at exposure (years), e* is (e 30) /10 for e < 30 and zero for e b Based on analyses of LSS mortality data (1950 2000), with 296 deaths from leuke mia. c These models apply only to the period 5 or more years following exposure.

PAGE 61

61 Table 5 3 Estimated ERR/Gy and effect modifiers for age at exposure and time since exposure (TSE) for thyroid cancer risk calculations EPA Model a ERR/Gy ( ) 10.7 Age at exposure: A(e) <5 1.0 5 9 0.6 10 14 0.2 15 19 0.2 exp[ 0.083(e 15)] 20+ 0.2 exp[ 0.083(e 15)] TSE: T(t) <5 0 5 14 1.15 15 19 1.9 20 24 1.2 25 29 1.6 30 40 0.47 40+ 0.47 Note: taken from Table 3 5 in Blue Book, pg. 32 ( 17 ) a For age at exposure > 15, the ERR per Gy decreases 8% per year (y 1 )

PAGE 62

62 Table 5 4 L AR of cancer incidence for males using EPA revised models and additional cancer sites Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Males) Stomach 167 162 156 150 144 139 133 128 123 118 114 109 105 101 97 93 90 86 83 80 76 Colon 340 331 321 310 300 291 281 272 263 255 247 239 231 223 216 209 203 196 190 184 178 Liver 102 99 95 92 88 85 82 79 76 73 70 68 65 63 61 58 56 54 52 50 48 Lung 318 308 297 286 276 266 256 247 238 229 221 213 205 198 191 184 177 171 165 159 153 Bladder 218 212 206 199 193 186 180 175 169 164 158 153 148 144 139 135 130 126 122 119 115 Thyroid 122 125 127 129 131 107 81 83 84 86 58 29 30 30 31 31 29 28 26 24 22 Bone 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 Skin 1739 1544 1359 1197 1053 927 816 718 632 556 490 431 379 334 294 259 228 201 177 156 137 Oral Cavity 27 27 26 25 25 24 23 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 Kidney 21 21 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 Pancreas 17 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 Gallbladder 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0. 9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 CNS/Brain 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 Esophagus 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 Rectum 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 Prostate 196 192 186 181 1 76 170 133 161 156 151 147 142 138 134 130 126 123 119 116 112 109 Leukemia 193 182 170 160 150 142 134 128 122 117 112 108 105 102 99 97 95 93 92 90 89 Remainder 444 435 422 410 398 386 375 364 353 343 333 323 313 304 295 287 278 270 263 255 248 N ote : Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1.5, except for bone, skin, and leukemia

PAGE 63

63 Table 5 4 Continued Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 (Males) Stomach 63 51 50 48 46 43 39 35 30 24 18 12 7 Colon 151 128 127 125 122 117 108 97 82 66 48 30 16 Liver 40 33 33 32 31 29 27 24 21 17 13 9 6 Lung 128 107 107 107 106 103 98 90 79 65 50 35 22 Bladder 98 84 84 83 83 81 77 70 61 50 37 24 13 Thyroid 16 11 8 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bone 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skin 73 39 20 11 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Oral Cavity 13 11 10 9 7 6 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 Kidney 10 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 Pancreas 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 Gallbladder 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 CNS/Brain 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 Esophagus 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 Rectum 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 Prostate 95 82 82 83 83 80 73 61 45 30 17 9 4 Leukemia 84 78 78 79 80 83 85 88 89 88 80 64 45 Remainder 215 178 171 162 152 140 124 105 85 64 44 26 14 N ote : Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1.5, except for bone, skin, and leukemia.

PAGE 64

64 Table 5 5 LAR of cancer incidence for females using EPA revised models and additional cancer sites Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Females) St omach 211 204 196 189 182 175 168 161 155 149 143 138 133 127 122 118 113 109 105 100 96 Colon 224 219 212 205 198 192 186 180 174 168 163 158 153 148 143 138 134 130 125 121 117 Liver 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 42 40 39 37 36 34 33 32 31 29 28 27 26 Lung 780 758 731 705 680 656 633 611 590 569 549 530 511 493 476 459 443 428 413 399 385 Bladder 220 214 207 201 194 188 182 176 171 165 160 155 150 145 140 136 132 127 123 120 116 Thyroid 382 395 405 415 426 349 269 275 281 288 196 100 102 103 105 106 99 92 85 79 73 Bone 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 Skin 1003 888 782 688 606 533 469 413 364 320 282 248 218 192 169 149 131 115 101 89 79 Oral Cavity 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 Kidney 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 Pancreas 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 Gallbladder 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 CNS/Brain 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 Esophagus 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 Rectum 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 Breast 1254 1199 1140 1083 1030 979 930 884 840 798 759 721 685 650 61 8 587 558 530 503 478 453 Ovary 91 88 85 82 79 77 74 71 69 66 64 62 60 57 55 53 51 50 48 46 44 Uterus 65 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 44 42 41 39 38 36 35 34 32 31 Leukemia 172.5 159 147 136 126 117 110 103 97 92 88 85 82 79 77 75 73 72 71 69 68 Remai nder 761 743 722 701 680 660 641 622 604 586 569 552 536 520 505 490 476 462 448 435 423 Note : Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1.5, except for bone, skin, and leukemi a.

PAGE 65

65 Table 5 5. Continued Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 (Females) Stomach 79 64 63 61 58 55 51 46 40 33 25 18 11 Colon 100 84 83 82 79 76 71 65 56 46 35 23 12 Liver 22 18 18 17 17 16 15 14 12 10 8 6 4 Lung 323 270 269 267 263 254 239 216 185 150 112 77 48 Bladder 98 84 83 82 81 78 73 67 58 47 36 24 14 Thyroid 48 31 19 12 7 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bone 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skin 42 22 12 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oral Cavity 9 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 Kidney 8 6 6 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Pancreas 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 0 Gallbladder 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 CNS/Brain 8 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 Esophagus 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 Rectum 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Breast 348 265 199 147 105 73 50 33 21 13 7 4 2 Ovary 37 31 30 28 26 24 21 17 14 11 7 4 2 Uterus 25 21 20 19 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Leukemia 64 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 65 63 57 47 34 Remainder 365 302 289 274 256 235 210 181 150 117 84 52 28 N ote : Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1.5, except for bone, skin, and leukemia.

PAGE 66

66 Table 5 6 LAR of cancer mortality for males using EPA revised models and additional cancer sites Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Males) Stomach 85 82 79 76 73 70 67 65 62 60 58 55 53 51 49 47 46 4 4 42 40 39 Colon 153 149 144 140 135 131 126 122 118 115 111 107 104 101 97 94 91 88 85 83 80 Liver 78 76 73 70 68 65 63 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 45 43 41 40 38 37 Lung 291 283 272 262 253 244 235 226 218 210 202 195 188 181 174 168 162 156 151 146 140 Bladder 43 42 41 39 38 37 36 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 26 25 24 23 23 Thyroid 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.6 5.3 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 2.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 Bone 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 S kin 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Oral Cavity 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 Kidney 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 Pancreas 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 Gallbladder 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 CNS/Brain 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 Esophagus 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 Rectum 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 Prostate 28 27 26 25 25 24 65 22 22 21 21 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 Leukemia 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 6 4 64 64 63 63 62 62 62 61 61 60 Remainder 203 199 193 187 182 176 171 166 161 157 152 147 143 139 135 131 127 123 120 117 113 N ote : Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1 .5, except for bone, skin, and leukemia.

PAGE 67

67 Table 5 6. Continued Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 (Males) Stomach 32 26 25 25 24 22 21 19 17 14 11 8 5 Colon 68 58 58 57 56 54 51 47 41 35 27 19 12 Liver 31 25 25 25 24 23 22 21 19 16 13 9 6 Lung 117 98 98 98 97 95 91 84 75 63 50 35 22 Bladder 19 16 17 17 17 17 16 16 15 14 12 10 7 Thyroid 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bone 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Skin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oral Cavity 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 Kidney 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 Pancreas 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 Gallbladder 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNS/Brain 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Esophagus 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Rectum 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Prostate 13 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 8 5 Leukemia 59 57 59 61 64 67 71 76 80 81 76 64 46 Remainder 98 84 83 82 80 76 70 62 53 43 32 21 12 NOTE: Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1.5, except for bone, skin, and leukemia.

PAGE 68

68 Table 5 7 LAR of cancer mortality for females using EPA revised models and additional cancer site s Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Females) Stomach 112 108 104 100 96 93 89 86 82 79 76 73 70 68 65 63 60 58 56 53 51 Colon 96 93 90 87 84 82 79 77 74 72 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 54 52 50 Liver 48 47 45 43 41 40 38 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 Lung 638 619 597 576 556 536 517 499 481 464 448 432 417 402 388 374 361 349 337 325 314 Bladder 57 56 54 52 51 49 47 46 44 43 42 40 39 38 37 35 34 33 32 31 30 Thyroid 19 20 20 21 21 17 13 14 14 14 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 Bone 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 Skin 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oral Cavity 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 Kidney 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 Pancreas 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 Gallbladder 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 CNS/Brain 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 Esophagus 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 Rectum 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 Breast 427 409 389 369 351 334 317 301 286 272 259 246 234 222 211 201 190 181 171 162 153 Ovary 56 54 52 51 49 47 46 44 43 41 40 39 38 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 Uterus 17 16 16 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 Leukemia 53 53 52 52 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 Remainder 400 391 380 369 358 347 337 327 318 308 299 290 282 274 265 258 250 243 236 229 222 NOTE: Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF o f 1.5, except for bone, skin, and leukemia.

PAGE 69

69 Tab le 5 7. Continued Age at exposure (years) Cancer Site 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 (Females) Stomach 42 34 33 33 31 30 28 26 23 20 17 13 9 Colon 43 36 36 35 34 33 32 29 27 23 19 14 9 Liver 18 15 15 15 1 5 14 14 13 12 10 8 6 4 Lung 263 220 220 219 215 209 199 182 160 134 106 76 49 Bladder 26 22 22 22 22 21 21 20 19 18 16 12 9 Thyroid 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Skin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oral Cavity 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 Kidney 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 Pancreas 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 Gallbladder 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 CNS/Brai n 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 Esophagus 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 Rectum 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 Breast 115 85 60 42 28 17 10 6 3 2 1 0 0 Ovary 24 21 20 20 19 18 17 15 13 10 7 5 3 Uterus 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 Leukemia 47 46 47 48 50 53 55 57 59 59 56 48 37 Remainder 192 163 160 156 150 142 132 119 103 84 63 41 24 NOTE: Number of cases per 100,000 persons exposed to a single dose of 0.1 Gy. These estimates have been adjusted by a DDREF of 1.5, e xcept for bone, skin, and leukemia.

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 6 MEDICAL IMAGING SIMU LATION FDG PET/CT SCANS The medical example simulated in this study was a typical 18 F FDG PET/CT exam. In this procedure, the patient receives internal exposure from the PET (Positron Emiss ion Tomography) component via the 18 F radionuclide ( with doses from the emitted positrons and the resulting two annihilation photons ), and external exposure from the x rays emitted by the CT (Computed Tomography). The medical scenario was simulated through the use of Monte Carlo radiation transport simulation using the MCNPX code and the UF (University of Florida) series of computational hybrid phantoms. Further details are given in Appendix C for each simulation. The internal dosimetry from the 18 F FDG PET component of the simulation was coded, and provided, by Mike Wayson (Ph.D. candidate Medical Physics ALRADS ) from the University of Florida. The external dosimetry for the CT component of the simulation was coded, and provided, by Daniel Long (MS Student Medical Physics ALRADS ) from the University of Florida. Appendix C provides further details as provided by these authors. The risks from the overall procedure were calculated by utilizing the dosimetry obtained from each component of the simulation, and then adding the risks from the PET component and the CT component. Results LAR models require that the organ doses be provided in units of Sv (unit of organ equivalent doses). The doses obtained from the PET component of the simulatio n were in Sv, so they were readily applied to the LAR models. The doses obtained from the CT component, however, were given in Gy (unit of organ absorbed doses). As mentioned in Chapter 2, the radiation weighting factor for photons and their secondary electrons is unity, and th en the

PAGE 71

71 absorbed dose to organ in Gy is numerically equivalent to the corresponding organ equivalent dose in Sv. Doses obtained from the simul ation can be found in Appendix D (in units of mSv). For the purpose of comparison, risks of can cer incidence and m ortality are displayed separately in this study However, it was deemed more appropriate to analyze only mortality risks in order to obtain a better contrast with the effective dose derived radiation detriment (Chapter 3 ), as a lethality fraction is an int egral part of the ICRP Publication 103 detriment concept among other stochastic endpoints such as cancer mortality, cancer morbidity, and years of life lost In the case illustrated in this work, the LARs for each organ site, calculated from EPA revised mo dels with the organ doses obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations, were summed across all organs to give the overall LAR of cancer (incidence or mortality) for males and females (separately) with ages at exposure of 0 (new born), 1, 5, 10, 15, and 30 yea rs old. To estimate LARs for ages at for older ages was minimal and thus the dose distributions obtained for age 30 w ere further used for simulated patients of ages 30 to 80 years The reader is reminded that, as mentioned in Chapter 5, radiogenic risks of skin cancer incidence were not included in the overall risk of cancer incidence. However risks of skin cancer mortality were included in the overall risk of cancer mortality (refer to Chapte r 5 for details). The previous approach was then compared with an overall risk estimate derived from the effective dose using ICRP Publication 103 tissue weighting factors. In order to be able implement the latter method and compare it with LARs, the ef fective doses obtained (Appendix D ) were corrected using a detriment adjusted nominal risk coefficient for cancer incidence for the whole population that is reported in ICRP Publication 103 as 5.5 x 10 2 Sv 1 ( 1 1 ). This value was multiplied by the effectiv e dose to give an effective dose

PAGE 72

72 must be noted that the answer yielded by the effective dose method is not necessarily a risk, but not to compare these two quantities (LAR and radiation detriment) as if they both represent the same risk values, but rather the opposite; it is the belief of the author that the LAR approach is much more transparent and subject to better interpretation. Furthermore, since effective dose calculations use sex and age averaged tissue weighting factors, the effect of using sex averaged versus sex specific LAR values was also examined. To accomplish this, the following equation from the Blue Book ( 17 ) was util ized: (6 1) where LAR AVG is the sex averaged LAR, LAR MALE and LAR FEMALE are the LARs obtained for males and female respectively. The parameter 1.048 is the ratio of the male to female births. S (e) is the proba bility of surviving until age at exposure e (from birth). The results of all the calculations previously described are given in Appendix E Table E 1 presents the overall (summed across all organs) risk of cancer (incidence and mortality ) for the PET compo nent of the medical simulation ; Table E 3 presents the overall risks of cancer from the CT component. Tables E 2 (PET) and E 4 (CT) present the risks as ratios of all the risks to the risk for the 30 year old adult male (incidence and mortality) for a bett er observation on the effects of sex and age averaging on the values. Table E 5 displays the results of the entire procedure (PET results plus the CT results) and Table E 6 presents those results as ratios as previously described. Discussion As mentioned i n the Results section even though risks of cancer incidence and mortality were displayed, it was deemed more appropriate to only analyze mortality risks in order to obtain

PAGE 73

73 a better c ontrast with the effective dose derived radiation detriment. To better vi sualize the differences between both methodologies (LAR of cancer mortality and radiation detriment calculations), Figures 6 1(results for PET), 6 2 (results for CT), and 6 3 (combined results) were produced from Tables E 1 E 3 and E 5 respectively (from Appendix E ). They display the overall LAR of cancer mortality (as number of excess cases per 100,000 individuals exposed) for males, females, a sex average of these two values (Equation 6 1) and the radiation detriment value obtained by using effective d ose calculations. Figures for LARs of cancer incidence are provided in Appendix E For purposes of risk analysis, ages at exposure 0 through 15 years old will be considered pediatrics while ages 30 through 80 will be considered adults. Although the dose distributions (Appendix D ) from the PET and CT simulations, separately, were very similar for males and females, there are clear differences present when observing the age and sex specific lifetime attribu table risk estimates presented i n the figures. Main ly, larger risks for females than for mal es are observed, indicating a larger overall risk of cancer for females than for males from the entire PET/CT procedure a trend also observed in the LARs for most cancer sites in BEIR VII ( 1 6 ) LARs of cancer mor tality were an average of 1.78 times higher for pediatric females, compared to males, on the PET component of the simulation and an average of 1.38 times for adults. For the CT component of the simulation, LARs of cancer mortality were an aver age of 1.87 times higher for pediatric females, compared to males, and an average of 1.45 times for adults Even though the differences in LAR between sexes are somewhat reduced, as illustrated by the averages, for older ages at exposure, w hat this demonstrate s is th e fact that averaging across sexes is an erroneous approach to risk quantification, resulting, in this specific simulation,

PAGE 74

74 in an overestimation of cancer risk for males, and underestimation of risk for females. The following discussion is for ages at expo sure up to age 30. For the PET component of the simulation, referring to Figure 6 1, differences in age specific risks and radiation detri ment are more emphasized in newborns than the rest of ages at exposure. For the newborn, the estimate for radiation de triment is much lo wer than the LAR for males (2.02 times lower) and females (3.68 times lower) and continues to be lower for older ages at exposure but the difference starts to decrease with increasing age up until age at exposure 30. This implies that fo r the PET part of the imaging procedure, radiation detriment underestimates the overall LAR of cancer mortality in pediatrics and starts to approach LARs for adults up to age 30 Administered activity of the FDG is adjusted by body weight and thus the resu l ting organ equivalent doses, along with the associated risks, vary with age, gender, and body composition. This is illustrated by Figure 6 1 in the different LARs of cancer mortality across ages. In this figure, the overall LARs for pediatrics are higher than the risks for adults; this is because children are generally more radiosensitive and have their entire lifetimes to develop radiation induced effects ( 5 ) For the CT component of the simulation, referring to Figure 6 2, risks of cancer mortality incre ase ste adily up until age at exposure 5 and then begin to decrease for age s at years T composition (e.g. height and weight) ; g enerally, as people get older they ten d to get taller and bigger (at least between the ages 0 15 ) therefore receiving a higher dose from CT imaging. As observed in Figure 6 2, this technique adjustment has a bigger impact in pediatric than in adult patients since the physical changes undergone by pediatrics are more drastic during the time span of 0 15 years than the changes adults could experience from 30 80 years of age ; however,

PAGE 75

75 the difference in doses (Appendix D) resulting from these physical changes are not so high as to eneral tendency for LAR to decrease with increasing ages at exposure and hence the LAR resumes this trend for ages at 2 Just as it was observed with the PET component of the simulation, radiation detriment und erestimates the overall LAR of cancer mortality in pediatrics and starts to approach LAR values up to age 30 for the CT component ; a s an example, it can be observed with the newborns that the estimate for radiation detriment is much lower than the LAR for males ( 1.73 times lower) and females (3. 35 times lower). For ages at exposure above 30 years, a very interesting trend is observed that merits special mention. A s explained earlier in the Results section, the dose distr ibutions obtained for age 30 were us ed for exposure ages 30 through 80 years old. This approach further emphasizes the ineffectiveness of the effective dose derived radiation detriment method for risk analysis as illustrated in Figu res 6 1, 6 2, and 6 3. Since the same dose distributions wer e used for the adults, the radiation detriment method assumes the same risks of cancer mortality across that age group when compared to LAR methodology This in part due to the fact that this quantity does not have a way to account for different fact or s that influence risk such as latency periods (refer to Chapter 5) solid cancers have an average latency period of 5 years and leukemia of 2 or the fact that the older a patient is when exposed, the lower the risk of cancer induction is and mortality from that cancer, since the patient will have less ti me to develop or show a cancer over the rest of their lifetimes The LARs obtained from the EPA revised models portr ay this perfectly as they continue to decrease with age at exposure.

PAGE 76

76 When analyzing the results from both procedures combined (PET/CT), in Figure 6 3, it can be observed that the overall risks for the procedure are dominated by the PET component for pediatric ages at exposure and follow th e general tendency for LAR to decrease with increasing ages at exposure as it was noted with both components PET and CT, separately From this, it can be resolved that, for the entire procedure, radiation detriment underestimates risks of cancer mortality for pediatrics and generally overestimate s the risks for adults From the previous discussion it is evident that radiation detriment is very inconsistent across ages and sexes and is thus an unfit quantity to assess individual risks of cancer for medica l imaging procedures such as nuclear medicine (PET), fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT).

PAGE 77

77 Figure 6 1. Lifetime attributable risks of cancer mortality and radiation detriment from the PET component of the simulation

PAGE 78

78 Figure 6 2. Lifetime attributable risks of cancer mortality and radiation detriment from the CT component of the simulation

PAGE 79

79 Figure 6 3. Combined (PET/CT) lifetime attributable risks of cancer morta lity and radiation detriment

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS Through the use of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) LAR models, which uses BEIR VII models for calculating lifetime attributable risks, but with some modifications and extensions, risks of radi ation induced cancer (incidence and mortality) were calculated for an 18 F FDG PET/CT imaging procedure. The revised EPA risk models were implemented for the purpose of providing age and gender dependent LAR tables needed to better quantify stochastic risk in medical imaging studies. This approach to risk quantification was then contrasted to the use of the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) effective dose derived radiation detriment, a quantity with limited application to medical rad iation exposure. Dose distributions were obtained separately for the PET component of the simulation, and for the CT component. Results were obtained from these components and then combined to provide an overall LAR of cancer (incidence and mortality) for ages at exposure 0, 1, 5, 10, 15, and 30. To estimate LARs for ages at dosimetry for older ages was minimal and thus the dose distributions obtained for age 30 were used for ages 30 through 80 years old. This document only analyzed risks of ca ncer mortality ; this was deemed a more appropriate approach for comparison against radiation detriments since a lethality fraction is part of the ICRP 103 detriment concept, among other stochastic endpoints such as cancer mortality, cancer morbidity, and y ears of life lost. In order to be able implement the radiation detriment method and compare it with EPA derived LARs, the effective doses obtained were corrected using a detriment adjusted nominal risk coefficient for the whole population that is reported in ICRP 103 as 5.5 x 10 2 Sv 1 ( 1 1 ). For both part s of the imaging procedure ( PET and CT separately) radiation detriment underestimates the overall LAR of cancer mortality in pediatrics (< 30 years old) and starts to

PAGE 81

81 approach LARs for adults at age 30 F or exposure ages 30 through 80 years old, radiation detriment consistently overestimates the risk of cancer and erroneously provides the same risk index for all the ages in the adult group From the overall LARs it was observed, for this particular exampl e (PE T/CT combined), that averaging across sexes and ages results in both overestimation for males, and underestimation for females, of risks of cancer induced mortality to individuals ; radiation detriment resulted in an overall risk underestimation for pediatrics and overestimation for adults. Therefore, it is concluded here that sex and age averaging, along with the radiation detriment technique are very inconsistent methods and are thus unfit quantities to assess individual r isks of radiogenic cancer for medical imaging procedures such as nuclear medicine, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography. It is important to note that these trends were observed only for this particular example and more data (simulations and risk calculatio ns) would be needed in order to generalize them to other medical imaging procedures. It is the belief of the author sex and age specific stochastic risk quantification is much more transparent and subject to better interpreta method, which yields radiation detriments and not necessarily ri sks of radiation induced cancer It is important to note once more that the ICRP clearly states in its Publication 103 that effective dose is intende d for use as a protection quantity, mainly used for prospective dose assessment for planning and optimization in radiological protection, and demonstration of compliance with dose limits for regulatory purposes ( 1 1 no t recommended for epidemiological evaluations, nor should it be used for detailed specific 1 1 ). F urthermore, ICRP states that risk assessment for medical diagnosis and treatment using ionising radiation is best evaluated

PAGE 82

82 using appropriate risk values for the individual tissues at risk and for the age and sex distribution 1 1 1 2 ) However, due to the lack of a better quantity, effective dose has been used in the medical community as a method for estimating stochastic risks from medical imaging procedures since it is the only quantity that This paper is not meant to be interpreted as new standards for stochastic risk quantification models have high uncertainties for individual patients, they can be used collectively in optimizing values of exposure (from CT) or ad ministered activity (from PET) and resulting organ doses to perhaps minimize the risk of radiation induced cancer while still obtaining good quality images. Furthermore, it is important to note that the w T from ICRP are for a population of individuals an d not for specific individual patients. Similarly, the LAR values are also population based, but are taken for a subset of populations of persons of one sex and of a given age range. Thus, while this method allows for age and gender dependencies, the fina for the individual patient, but would be a nominal risk for a population of patients of similar gender and age.

PAGE 83

83 APPENDIX A LAR MODEL (EPA) FOR BREAST CANCER As mentioned in Chapter 5, pg. 52, for estimates of LAR of breast ca ncer mortality the EPA uses a very different method than that employed by BEIR VII. The methodology is much more complex than the one for risk of breast cancer incidence and thus the following write up was taken directly from the Blue Book (pgs. 44 47) ( 1 7 ) to explain it. method and compares the results with the BEIR VII method. The only thing s changed in the write up w ere the equation and table numbers to match the format of this paper. Let denote the EA R for incidence at attained age from an exposure at age e If da represents an infinitesimally small age increment, the probability of a radiogenic cancer between ages a I and ( a I + dt ) would be: (A 1 ) For the cancer to result in a death at age the patient would have to survive the interval and then die from the cancer at age This and the concept of the relative survival rate form the basis for the method. The relative survival rate for a breast cancer patient would be the ratio of the survival rate for the patient divided by the expected survival rate (without breast cancer). Assume the relative survival depends only on the length of the time interval and the age of diagnosis. Let and let be the relative survival function. Then the probability of survival with breast cancer for the interval is Suppose the breast cancer mortality rate ( ) among those with breast cancer depends on the age of diagnosis but does not depend on other factors, such as whether the cancer is

PAGE 84

84 radioge nic, or on attained age. Then the proba bility of a radiogenic breast cancer death between ages a M and ( a M + da ) can be shown to equal: ( A 2 ) The LAR for breast cancer mortality for an exposure at age e is: ( A 3 ) and Eq uation A 4 is applied as before to calculate the LAR for the U.S. population. ( A 4 ) For these calculations, we used the 5 y relative survival rates given in Table A 1 ( 2 1 ) and assume d that breast cancer mortality rates (for those with breast cancer) depend only on age at diagnosis and are equal to: ( A 5 ) It should be noted that results from several studies indicate that, for most stages, breast ca ncer mortality rates are not highly dependent on time since diagnosis at least for the first 10 years ( 22 2 3 ). Thus, for these calculations, we assumed that relative survival rates depend on time since diagnosis as in Eq uation A 6 ( A 6 )

PAGE 85

85 Table A 1. Female breast cancer cases and 5 y relative survival rates by age of diagnosis for 12 SEER areas, 1988 20011 Age (y) Cases Relative Survival Rates (%) 20 34 2 6,802 77.8 35 39 12,827 83.5 40 44 24,914 88.0 45 49 33,784 89.5 50 54 34,868 89.5 55 59 32,701 89.6 60 64 32,680 90.1 65 69 34,435 91.0 70 74 32,686 91.8 75 79 27,134 91.4 80 84 17,475 90.7 85+ 12,457 86.6 Total 302,763 89.3 1 Adapted from Table 13.2 in Ries et al. ( 2 1 ) 2 For ages of exposure < 20, 5 y relative survival rate of 77.8% was assumed. Based on the method just outlined, the LAR for breast cancer mortality is 0.95 x10 2 Gy 1 This is about 30% larger than in BEIR VII. Much of the discrepancy between the two sets of results can be att ributed to observed increases in breast cancer incidence rates and declines in mortality rates. From 1980 to 2000, age averaged breast cancer incidence rates (per 100,000 women) increased by about 35% (102.2 to 136.0), whereas the mortality rates declined by about 15% (31.7 to 26.6) ( 2 4 ). To understand the effect these trends in incidence and mortality have on the BEIR VII LAR projection for mortality, recall the BEIR VII formula: M ( D e a ) = ( A 7 ) The underlying ass umptions are that: a) the absolute risk of radiogenic cancer death from an exposure at age e is equal to the absolute risk of a radiation induced cancer multiplied by a lethality ratio (that depends on attained age) and b) lethality ratios can be approxima ted by

PAGE 86

86 current mortality to incidence rate ratios. However, since the time between breast cancer diagnosis and death is relatively long, lethality rates might be better approximated by comparing current mortality rates to incidence rates observed for (much ) earlier time periods. If, as data indicate, current incidence rates are considerably higher than in the past, the BEIR VII denominator is too large, and the estimated lethality ratio is too small. This would result in a downward bias in the BEIR VII proj ection for mortality. Our projection has limitations which must be noted. First, its validity depends on the extent to which estimates of relative survival functions can be used to approximate mortality rates from breast cancer for people with breast cance r. Long term survival rates for breast cancer patients are desirable for constructing valid estimates for this approach, but since these survival rates can change rapidly, there is considerable uncertainty in extrapolating rates for periods beyond 5 10 y. Finally, reduced expected survival among breast cancer patients may be partly attributable to causes other than breast cancer. For example, if some breast cancers are related to obesity, breast cancer patients as a group may be at greater risk of dying fro m cardiovascular disease.

PAGE 87

87 APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF ADDIT IONAL CANCER SITE MO DELS NOT IN EPA The following write up was provided by Dr. David Pawel from the U.S. EPA (Radiation Protection Division) which explains the derivation of the models used for the following sites: oral cavity, kidney, pancreas, gallbladder, central nervous system (CNS), esophagus, rectum, and new other solid (or remainder) mentioned in Chapter 5, pg. 57. As mentioned in Chapter 5, the kidney is included in the Blue Book but u nder a different methodology. The only things changed in the write up were the equation and table numbers to match the format of this paper. mention. The residual cate gory generally includes relatively rare cancers for which data from the LSS cohort or other epidemiological studies was judged to be insufficient for reliable quantification of radiogenic site specific risks. For these sites, the BEIR VII Committee pooled data from the LSS cohort to obtain stable estimates of risk. With only slight modification, the same pooling of However, this approach can be problematic for medical applications, for which doses often depend greatly on cancer site and cancer site specific doses are needed. Here, an approach, very similar to the one described in Pawel, et al. ( 2 5 ), was used to obtain separate estimates of risk for the following 7 cancer sites: brain a nd central nervous system (CNS), esophagus, kidney, gallbladder, oral, pancreas, and rectum. First, data from the lifespan study (LSS) cohort on cancer incidence for about 80,000 the A bomb survivors were analyzed to obtain estimates of ERR for each of these sites. The analysis employed essentially the same Poisson regression techniques, as described in Breslow and Day ( 2 6 ) and the report by Preston et al. ( 2 7 ). The software program Epicure ( 2 8 ) was used for calculations. The same type of model used in BEIR VII for ERR was fit using data for these

PAGE 88

88 7 specific cancer sites, i.e., ERR depends on dose ( D ), cancer site ( c ), sex( s ), age at exposure( e ), and attained age ( a ): ERR(D, s, e) = c,s D exp [ (e 30)/10] (a/60) (B 1) where (B 2) The age at exposure and attained age parameters were assumed to be the same for these sites ( = 0.3, = 4.1), and, for all 7 sites, ERR was assumed to b e about 35% larger for females than males. Finally, empirical Bayes (EB) techniques were used to obtain the parameter estimates for the linear dose response parameters ( ) given in Table B 1 see Pawel et al. ( 2 5 ) for details. Poisson regression techniqu B 1, to obtain the parameter estimates given in the last row of the table. Table B 1. ERR parameter estimates for additional site Cancer Site Age at exposure Attained age CNS 0.132 0.179 0.3 4.1 Esophagus 0.129 0.175 0.3 4.1 Gallbladder 0.033 0.045 0.3 4.1 Kidney 0.119 0.160 0.3 4.1 Oral 0.132 0.179 0.3 4.1 Pancreas 0.125 0.169 0.3 4.1 Rectum 0.065 0.087 0.3 4.1 Other solid 0.479 1.192 0.3 1.4 Note: Parameters developed and provided by Dr. David Pawel from U.S. EPA, Radiation Protection Division Projections of LAR were calculated using methods very similar to those described in the section Gen eral Methodology for Calculating Lifetime Attributable Risks (LAR). The ERR

PAGE 89

89 were calculated using the parameter values given in Table B 1, and then applied both to a) U.S. baseline rates obtained from the SEER program, and b) baseline rates estimated from the Japanese LSS data. Final estimates of LAR were equal to 0.7 times the LAR estimates obtained using U.S. baseline rates and 0.3 times the LAR estimates based in the Japanese baseline rates. The final answer was adjusted down by a DDREF of 1.5.

PAGE 90

90 AP PENDIX C DETAILS OF THE 18 F FDG PET/CT SIMULATIO N The following write up was provided by Mike Wayson (Ph.D. candidate Medical Physics, ALRADS) from the University of Florida for the PET portion of the simulation. The only things changed in the write up we re the equation and table numbers to match the format of this paper. 18 F FDG Internal Dosimetry for the University of Florida Hybrid Computational Phantoms Transport methods Phantom preparation Monte Carlo N Particle eXtended version 2.6 (MCNPX v2.6) w as used for the radiation transport simulations. MCNPX v2.6 cannot directly simulate radiation transport through continuous three dimensional surfaces/volumes. As a result, the UF hybrid NURBS/PM phantoms were each reconstituted as a three dimensional vo xel array using an in house MATLAB TM code with each voxel assigned a unique organ ID. Ideally, voxel resolutions would be isotropic and have dimensions equal to the skin thickness in each phantom. However, resulting phantom binary file sizes become too large to effectively simulate at these resolutions, so anisotropic voxel resolutions were derived. Only the UFH00M and UFH00F phantoms were able to be simulated at isotropic voxel resolutions equal to the skin thickness. Because of this, voxel dimensions were selected to optimize voxel resolution and total voxel matrix size for all other phantoms. The final voxel dimensions and matrix sizes are in Table C 1. Skin and lymphatic nodes are not explicitly modeled in NURBS/PM format, so these structures were added after the voxelization process was complete. Skin was added using an in house MATLAB TM code which replaces the outermost voxel layer with skin voxels. Lymphatic

PAGE 91

91 nodes were placed using a code detailed in Lee et al. ( 2 9 ). The voxelized versions of the UF phantoms were then incorporated into MCNPX by repeated structures syntax. Physical characteristics and descriptions of the UF phantom family can be found in Lee et al. ( 30 ). Table C 1. UF phantom family voxel dimensions and matrix sizes. Voxel Resolution (cm) Number of Voxels Total Matrix Phantom X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction Size ( x 10 7 ) UFH00MF 0.0663 0.0663 0.0663 350 215 720 5.42 UFH01MF 0.0663 0.0663 0.1400 396 253 550 5.51 UF H05MF 0.0850 0.0850 0.1928 416 235 576 5.63 UFH10MF 0.0990 0.0990 0.2425 428 226 580 5.61 UFH15M 0.1250 0.1250 0.2832 414 226 590 5.52 UFH15F 0.1200 0.1200 0.2828 410 238 574 5.60 UFHADM 0.1579 0.1579 0.2207 362 195 796 5.62 UFHADF 0.1260 0.1260 0.2700 390 241 610 5.73 Simulation details The phantoms were described in MCNPX using lattice structures. A lattice file detailing, in raster fashion, the organ/tissue identification numbers of all voxels was accessed during simulat ion. Unique tissue densities and material compositions were assigned to between 153 (UFH15M) and 179 (UFH00M) structures in the phantoms. Internal sources were simulated hous e MATLAB TM code and specify the voxel coordinates of all voxels associated with the source tissue. Sources were simulated as uniformly distributed throughout the source tissue. Source tissues for 18 F FDG were the brain, heart wall, liver, lungs, urinary bladder contents, and a single source tissues, air in the body, and walled organ contents ( 3 1 ).

PAGE 92

92 Energy deposition was tracked during transport for all non skeleta l target tissues of interest, accounting for all photons and electrons generated during the simulation down to a cutoff energy of 1 keV. For the beta particle simulations, energy deposition was also tracked in the spongiosa and medullary cavities to accou nt for primary beta dose to the radiosensitive skeletal tissues. Volume averaged photon fluence was recorded over all spongiosa and medullary cavity sites for application of recently developed skeletal photon dose response functions (DRFs) to account for skeletal dose enhancement from photon interactions in the skeletal microstructure ( 3 2 ). Doses to radiosensitive tissues as identified by ICRP Publication 103 and the BEIR VII report were calculated using the skeletal photon DRFs, and all target tissues ca n be seen in Table C 2. Table C 2. Target tissues simulated for all phantoms. Target Tissues BEIR VII ICRP 103 Active marrow Bladder Bladder Bone marrow (red) Breast (female only) Bone surfaces Central Nervous System and Brain Brain Colon Breast Es ophagus Colon Gall bladder Gonads Ovaries Kidney Gonads Testes Liver Liver Lung Lung Oral Cavity Oesophagus Ovary Remainder Tissues** Pancreas Salivary glands Prostate Skin Rectum Stomach Remainder* Thyroid Skin Stomach Thyroid T otal shallow marrow Uterus **Small intestine, digestive system (organs not already listed), nasal cavity, respiratory system (organs not already listed), thymus, renal pelvis, connective tissue, testes, all other tissues. ** Adrenals, extrathoracic (ET) region, gall bladder, heart, kidneys, lymphatic nodes muscle oral mucosa, pancreas, prostate, small intestine, spleen, thymus, and uterus/cervix.

PAGE 93

93 F 18 is a pure positron emitter, and the decay spectrum was taken from ICRP Publication 107 ( 3 3 ). For direct spectrum sampling, all energies were simulated, and the relative probability of selecting a particular energy was set to the yield at that energy. Annihilation photons were accounted for in a separate simulation. One hundred million particle histo ries were simulated. The Integrated Tiger Series (ITS) style electron energy indexing algorithm was used. S Dosimetry Studies (ALRADS) on a PSSC Labs (Lake Forest, CA) blade cluster running sixty four 2 GHz processors with 2 GB of memory per processor. Internal dose calculation To calculate the radiation absorbed dose to all tissues of interest, the MIRD Pamphlet No. 21 internal dosimetry schema was used and is given in Eq uations C 1 and C 2 ( 3 4 ). ( C 1) ( C 2) where is the time integrated activity or the total number of nuclear transformations occurring in source tissue is the radionuclide S value, defined as the mean absorbed dose rate to target tissue per unit activity in source tissue is the energy of the th radiation, is the yield of the th radiation, is the absorbed fraction (AF) defined as the fraction of radiation energy emitted by the i th radiation from source tissue that is absorbed in target tissue is the mass of the target tissue is the delta value for the th radiation, defined as the product of the energy and the yield of the th radiation, and is the specific absorbed fraction (SAF), defined as the ratio of the AF to the target tiss ue mass.

PAGE 94

94 Measures of energy deposition in the target tissues of interest were given in units of MeV, so the final values of energy deposition calculated by MCNPX were divided by the average initial energy of the radiation simulated and the mass of the ta rget to obtain the SAF for the source target combination of interest. Since the whole spectrum was simulated directly, the summation operator in Equation C 2 disappeared, and Equation C 2 assumed the form of Equation C 3. The direct simulation SAF inhere ntly accounts for all radiation emissions and their relative contributions to the final dose. ( C 3) where is the radionuclide S value, is the average energy of emission for radiation type k Y k is the total yield of radiation type k and is the single SAF value for the direct spectrum simulation of radiation type k For skeletal target tissues, photon contribution to dose was calculated by applying skeletal photon DRFS using Equation C 4. ( C 4 ) where C is a unit conversion constant, is the average energy of emission for radiation type k is the mass fraction of the target tissue in bone site j is th e skeletal photon DRF for target tissue at photon energy is the photon fluence emitted from source tissue incident on the spongiosa/medullary cavity of bone site j for photons of energy f rom radiation type k and is the SAF for target tissue from source tissue for radiation type k. Doses to the radiosensitive tissues in the skeleton from the annihilation photons were completely accounted for by the skeletal photon DRFs since no primary beta particles were

PAGE 95

95 involved. However, the skeletal tissue doses from the primary beta particle simulations were calculated by including contributions from both primary beta particles and photons created during trans port (e.g. bremsstrahlung photons). Since there are no appreciable dose enhancement effects attributed to electron energy deposition in bone, it was assumed that the doses to active marrow and total shallow marrow were equal to the absorbed dose in the sp ongiosa and medullary cavities. Therefore, the energy deposition results from the beta particle simulations in spongiosa and medullary cavities were divided by the average initial energy of the beta spectrum and the mass of the spongiosa or medullary cavi ty site where the energy deposition was tracked. Skeletal averaged dose to these tissues was calculated as the mass weighted average of doses to the individual bone sites. Volume averaged photon fluence was also tracked during beta transport, and skeleta l photon DRFs were subsequently applied. The final dose to the active marrow and total shallow marrow was calculated as the sum of these two dose measure results. Uncertainties for 1584 energy deposition tallies due to annihilation photons ranged from 0% to 45% with an average of 1.4%. Uncertainties for 1656 energy deposition tallies due to beta particles ranged from 0% to 100% with an average of 16.4%. While some of the uncertainties from the beta particle simulations were quite high, the target tissue s displaying these high uncertainties did not receive appreciable dose from the beta particles. Any dose recorded was a result of photon (non annihilation) cross dose resulting from the primary beta particles. Uncertainties associated with primary beta d ose, magnitudes that were comparable to the annihilation photon doses, were generally good (<5%). Biokinetic information was taken from ICRP Publication 106 ( 3 1 ). Residence times per unit administered activity (AA) for 18 F FDG were given in units of hour s for all source tissues

PAGE 96

96 and can be seen in Table C from the urinary bladder contents even though a unique residence time was given for the urinary dependent residence times for the urinary bladder contents. No value was given for the newborn, so the 1 year old urinary bladder contents residence time was assigned to the newborn. Doses to all target tissues per unit administered activity (AA) were calculated using Equation C 1. Typical AAs for pediatric whole body 18 F FDG PET/CT were determined using informa tion from Gelfand et al. ( 3 5 ). Adult guidelines were also given in the study by Gelfand et al. ( 3 5 ). The average adult AA was 555 MBq, so the adult male and female AAs were designed to average to the recommended average AA but reflect the difference in p hantom mass. The recommendations for 18 F FDG are in Table C 4, and the calculated AAs are in Table C 5. Table C 3. Biokinetic data for 18 F FDG Note: taken from ICRP Publication 106 ( 31 )

PAGE 97

97 Table C 4. Recommended AAs fo r pediatric and adult patients Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Total (MBq) Pediatric (MBq/kg) 3.70 5.20 4.45 37 Adult (MBq) 370 740 555 Note: taken from ICRP Publication 107 ( 33 ) Table C 5. Calculated AAs for the UF phantom family (MBq). Newborn 1 year old 5 year old 10 year old 15 year old Adult Male 37.0 51.6 91.8 168.6 297.7 610.3 Female 37.0 51.6 91.8 168.5 275.5 499.7

PAGE 98

98 The following write up was provided by Daniel Long (MS Student Medical Physics, ALRADS) from the University of Florida for the CT portion o f the simulation. Computed Tomography (CT) External Dosimetry for PET/CT Exams Organ doses for the computed tomography (CT) portion of the PET/CT exam were calculated for each hybrid computational phantom using an organ dose database generated using a cu stom Monte Carlo source term within Monte Carlo N Particle extended version 2.6 (MCNPX v2.6). The source term modeled a Siemens Somatom Sensation 16 CT scanner, which provides CT imaging for the Siemens Biograph 16 PET/CT scanner, and was de scribed in a st udy by Lee et al ( 3 6 ). The source term had previously been validated using both CTDI and anthropomorphic phantom measurements, and was used to generate a large set of MCNPX organ doses for individual axial beam slices spanning the entire length of each hyb rid computational phantom. Multiple sets of axial slice organ doses were calculated to account for each beam energy, beam filtration, and computational phantom combination. The age dependent CT scan parameters for these simulated PET/CT exams were taken fr om a p aper, written by Alessio et al ( 3 7 ) regarding whole body PET/CT protoco l s A summary of these scan parameters can be found in Table C 6 Table C 6. Scan parameters for the CT simulation Phantom Scan Parameter Newborn 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Ye ar 30 Year Beam Energy (kVp) 120 120 120 120 120 120 Beam Collimation (cm) 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Effective mAs 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.984 Scan Length (cm) 30.4 44.3 59.5 75.5 94.6 104.7 Notes: Anatomical Landmarks o f Scan: Base of skull to mid thigh To simulate exams, the appropriate single axial slice MCNPX doses were first summed along the entire anatomical scan length (from the base of the skull to the mid thigh for all

PAGE 99

99 phantoms). Since MCNPX provides organ d ose calculation results in dose per simulated photon, the number of photons delivered by the scanner per unit mAs, called the Monte Carlo normalization factor, were multiplied to the MCNPX dose results to obtain organ doses in absolute units. The normaliz ation factors were calculated based on the ratio of pencil ion chamber measurements in free in air (mGy/mAs) to MCNPX simulated free in air ion chamber doses (mGy/photon) that had previously been made. Absolute organ doses for each individual scan could th en be calculated by multiplying the dose in mGy/mAs by the total mAs delivered during the exam. This total axial scan dose was then divided by the specified pitch for the exam to approximate doses from a helical CT scan.

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX D SITE SPECIFIC ORGAN DO SES AND EFFECTIVE DO SES OBTAINED FROM TH E MEDICAL SIMULATION Table D 1. Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for males from the PET component of the simulation Organ Equivalent Doses ( mSv ) (Males) Age at exposure Site Newborn 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 30 Year Stomach 5.91 2.98 2.88 3.10 3.35 7.15 Colon 5.65 2.99 2.94 3.08 3.71 6.95 Liver 8.79 4.54 4.89 6.16 7.27 13.61 Lung 10.28 4.99 4.67 5.39 5.58 11.37 Urinary Bladder 17.30 12.01 10.85 14.25 17.12 33.74 Thyroid 5.31 2.59 2.35 2.38 2.60 5 .01 Bone 4.58 2.34 2.38 2.69 2.95 6.19 Skin 3.64 1.66 1.66 1.71 1.84 3.60 Oral Cavity 5.18 2.49 2.33 2.33 2.51 5.42 Kidney 5.67 2.78 2.80 2.83 3.14 6.43 Pancreas 5.64 2.78 2.84 3.13 3.38 6.77 Gallbladder 6.05 3.07 3.17 3.59 4.18 8.24 CNS/Brain 5.55 2.55 3.42 5.63 8.94 20.79 Esophagus 6.04 2.96 3.13 3.42 3.75 7.81 Rectum 5.81 2.78 3.75 5.00 5.66 7.42 Prostate 7.49 4.65 5.95 7.05 7.04 13.75 Active Marrow 4.59 2.23 2.31 2.90 3.49 7.27 Remainder 5.21 2.48 2.49 2.58 2.74 5.51 Notes: *Doses to the A ctive Marrow are used for calculation of LAR of leukemia *Dose for the 30 Year

PAGE 101

101 Table D 2. Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for females from the PET component of the simulation Organ Equivalent Doses ( mSv ) (Female) Age at exposure Site Newborn 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 30 Year Stomach 5.88 2.97 2.89 3.10 3.31 6.63 Colon 5.57 2.95 2.85 3.02 3.20 6.65 Liver 8.78 4.53 4.89 6.16 6.77 13.58 Lung 10.28 4.98 4.66 5.39 5.88 10.79 Urinary Bladder 17.08 12.41 10.77 14.36 17.68 32.63 Thyroid 5.42 2.54 2.34 2.36 2.55 5.12 Bo ne 4.56 2.34 2.36 2.66 2.99 5.50 Skin 3.63 1.66 1.66 1.71 1.82 3.52 Oral Cavity 5.13 2.30 2.39 2.43 2.57 5.84 Kidney 5.62 2.77 2.80 2.83 2.95 5.62 Pancreas 5.64 2.78 2.84 3.13 3.32 6.52 Gallbladder 6.20 3.13 3.18 3.60 4.22 7.89 CNS/Brain 5.55 2.55 3. 42 5.63 8.93 18.90 Esophagus 6.10 2.98 3.13 3.44 3.54 7.04 Rectum 5.56 2.89 2.97 3.75 5.99 10.42 Breast 4.03 2.25 2.31 2.43 2.72 5.13 Ovary 6.31 4.24 5.40 6.89 8.34 14.23 Uterus 7.76 7.18 6.17 8.31 9.11 14.97 Active Marrow 4.57 2.22 2.28 2.85 3.46 6. 52 Remainder 5.20 2.48 2.47 2.58 2.72 5.33 Notes: *Doses to the Active Marrow are used for calculation of LAR of leukemia

PAGE 102

102 Table D 3. Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for males from the CT component of the simulation Organ Equivalent Doses ( mSv ) (Males) Age at exposure Site Newborn 1 Year 5 Ye ar 10 Year 15 Year 30 Year Stomach 1.45 1.96 2.35 2.54 2.64 2.56 Colon 1.45 1.96 2.51 2.84 2.56 3.15 Liver 1.52 2.10 2.57 2.90 2.37 3.24 Lungs 1.45 2.18 2.64 2.76 2.82 2.97 Urinary Bladder 1.46 2.02 2.59 2.65 3.24 2.84 Thyroid 1.83 2.61 3.69 4.43 3. 99 6.16 Bone 1.18 1.53 2.10 2.14 2.15 1.99 Skin 1.11 1.35 1.44 1.73 1.82 2.04 Oral cavity 1.50 1.78 2.14 2.81 3.36 3.41 Kidney 1.52 2.08 2.66 2.56 3.19 2.27 Pancreas 1.44 1.91 2.34 2.40 2.60 2.17 Gall bladder 1.42 1.94 2.46 2.88 2.27 2.78 CNS/Brain 0.42 0.43 0.59 0.76 0.81 0.89 Esophagus 1.35 2.10 2.54 2.59 2.78 2.58 Rectum 1.29 2.08 2.76 2.73 4.24 2.94 Prostate 1.29 1.92 2.53 2.63 3.55 2.86 Active marrow 1.14 1.49 1.48 1.82 2.33 2.00 Remainder 1.32 1.67 1.98 2.28 2.48 2.67 Notes: *Doses to t he Active Marrow are used for calculation of LAR of leukemia

PAGE 103

103 Table D 4. Organ equivalent doses in mSv obtained for females from the CT component of the simulation Organ Equivalent Doses ( mSv ) (Female) Age at exposure Site Newborn 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 30 Year Stomach 1.45 1.97 2.36 2.56 3.43 3.04 Colon 1.45 1.96 2.52 2.85 3.12 2.76 Liver 1.52 2.10 2.57 2.91 2.65 2.56 Lungs 1.45 2.18 2.64 2.76 2.76 2.91 Urinary Bladder 1.47 2.02 2.60 2.75 2.55 2.59 Thyroid 1.83 2.61 3.68 4.42 5.21 4.88 Bone 1.18 1.53 2.10 2.14 2.10 2.60 Skin 1.11 1.35 1.44 1.73 1.84 2.12 Oral cavity 1.45 1.71 2.07 2.73 3.68 3.29 Kidney 1.52 2.08 2.67 2.57 2.62 3.59 Pancreas 1.44 1.91 2.34 2.40 2.68 3.00 Gall bladder 1.42 1.95 2.46 2.90 2.50 2.43 CNS/Bra in 0.42 0.42 0.59 0.76 0.99 1.07 Esophagus 1.35 2.10 2.54 2.60 2.66 2.79 Rectum 1.29 2.09 2.78 2.71 2.20 2.42 Breast 1.35 1.61 1.91 2.49 2.54 2.11 Ovaries 1.33 1.84 2.30 2.31 2.28 2.23 Uterus 1.30 1.77 2.23 2.23 2.10 2.15 Active marrow 1.14 1.49 1.48 1.82 2.06 2.40 Remainder 1.32 1.67 1.98 2.28 2.32 2.72 Notes: *Doses to the Active Marrow are used for calculation of LAR of leukemia

PAGE 104

104 Table D 5. Effective dose in mSv obtained from the PET simulation Effective Dose (mSv) Age at exposure Newborn 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 30 Year 6.93 3.68 3.75 4.34 5.01 9.46 Note: Effective dose calculated using doses obtained from PET simulation and tissue weighting factors from ICRP 103 Table D 6. Effective dose in mSv obtained from the CT simulation Effective Dose (mSv) Age at exposure Newborn 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 30 Year 1.48 2.04 2.48 2.81 2.90 3.19 Note: Effective dose calculated using doses obtained from CT simulation and tissue weighting factors from ICRP 103

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX E CANCER RISKS OBTAINE D FROM THE 18 F FDG PET/CT SIMULATIO N Figure E 1. Lifetime attributable risks of cancer incidence and radiation detriment from the PET component of the simulation

PAGE 106

106 Figure E 2. Lifetime attributable risks of cancer incidence and radiation detrimen t from the CT component of the simulation

PAGE 107

107 Figure E 3. Combined (PET/CT) lifetime attributable risks of cancer incidence and radiation detriment

PAGE 108

108 Table E 1. Cancer incidence and mortality risks obtained by applying the doses acquired from the PET simulation Cancer Incidence Risk Cancer Mortality Risk Rad. Detriment Age at exposure LAR EPA a LAR EPA LAR AVG b LAR EPA LAR EPA LAR AVG ICRP 103 c (Male) (Female) (Male) (Female) Newborn 168 283 224 77 140 108 38 1 90 149 119 39 71 55 20 5 78 123 100 33 60 46 21 10 77 115 96 33 57 45 24 15 73 107 89 31 53 42 28 30 88 115 101 38 59 49 52 40 86 104 95 38 56 47 52 50 81 92 86 37 52 44 52 60 68 75 72 34 46 40 52 70 47 53 50 28 35 32 52 8 0 24 27 26 17 21 20 52 Note: Number of excess cases for a population of 100,000 persons. Age at exposure in years a Overall sex and age specific lifetime attributable risk of cancer (incidence or mortality) using EPA LAR revised models. LAR of skin ca ncer incidence was not included in the Cancer Incidence Risk estimates b Overall sex and age averaged lifetime attributable risk of cancer (incidence or mortality) using EPA LAR revised models c Radiation detriment calculated from the effective dose as def ined by ICRP 103 ( 10 ) Table E 2 Fractional cancer incidence and mortality risks PET simulation Fractional Risk Cancer Incidence Fractional Risk Cancer Mortality Fractional Rad. Det. Age at exposure LAR EPA L AR EPA LAR AVG LAR EPA LAR EPA LAR AVG ICRP 103 (Male) (Female) (Male) (Female) Newborn 1.9 3.2 2.5 2.0 3.6 2.8 1.0 1 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.4 0.5 5 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.2 0.5 10 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.6 15 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.7 30 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.4 40 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.4 50 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 60 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.4 70 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.4 80 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.4 Note: risks as ratios of each of the risks t o the risk for the 30 year old adult male (from incidence, mortality, and detriment separately). Age at exposure in years

PAGE 109

109 Table E 3 Cancer incidence and mortality risks obtained by applying the doses acquired from the CT simulation Cancer Incidence Ri sk Cancer Mortality Risk Rad. Detriment Age at exposure LAR EPA a LAR EPA LAR AVG b LAR EPA LAR EPA LAR AVG ICRP 103 c (Male) (Female) (Male) (Female) Newborn 31 61 46 14 27 21 8 1 42 79 60 19 36 27 11 5 45 84 64 20 38 29 14 10 40 75 5 7 19 35 27 15 15 36 62 49 17 30 23 16 30 22 34 28 11 18 14 18 40 21 29 25 11 17 14 18 50 20 25 22 10 15 13 18 60 16 20 18 9 13 11 18 70 11 14 12 7 10 9 18 80 6 7 6 5 6 5 18 Note: Number of excess cases for a population of 100,000 persons. Age at exposure in years a Overall sex and age specific lifetime attributable risk of cancer (incidence or mortality) using EPA LAR revised models. LAR of skin cancer incidence was not included in the Cancer Incidence Risk estimates b Overall sex and age averaged lifetime attributable risk of cancer (incidence or mortality) using EPA LAR revised models c Radiation detriment calculated from the effective dose as defined by ICRP 103 (10) Table E 4 Fractional cancer incidence and mortality risks CT simulation Fractional Risk Cancer Incidence Fractional Risk Cancer Mortality Fractional Rad. Det. Age at exposure LAR EPA a LAR EPA LAR S, A b LAR EPA c LAR EPA LAR S, A ICRP 103 d (Male) (Female) (Male) (Fema le) Newborn 1.4 2.7 2.0 1.3 2.5 1.9 0.7 1 1.9 3.5 2.7 1.7 3.3 2.5 1.0 5 2.0 3.7 2.8 1.9 3.4 2.6 1.2 10 1.8 3.4 2.6 1.7 3.2 2.4 1.4 15 1.6 2.8 2.2 1.5 2.7 2.1 1.5 30 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.6 40 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.6 50 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.6 60 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.6 70 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.6 80 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.6 Note: risks as ratios of each of the risks to the risk for the 30 year old adult male (from incidence, mortality, and detrim ent separately). Age at exposure in years

PAGE 110

110 Table E 5 Total cancer incidence and mortality risks obtained from the 18 F FDG PET/CT simulation combined Cancer Incidence Risk Cancer Mortality Risk Rad. Detriment Age at exposure LAR EPA a LAR EPA LAR AV G b LAR EPA LAR EPA LAR AVG ICRP 103 c (Male) (Female) (Male) (Female) Newborn 199 344 270 91 168 129 46 1 132 228 179 58 107 82 31 5 123 207 164 54 97 75 34 10 117 191 153 52 92 71 39 15 109 169 138 48 83 65 43 30 111 148 129 49 77 63 70 40 107 132 120 49 72 61 70 50 101 117 109 47 67 57 70 60 84 95 90 43 59 51 70 70 59 66 63 35 45 40 70 80 29 34 32 22 27 25 70 Note: Number of excess cases for a population of 100,000 persons. Age at exposure in years a Overall sex and age specific lifetime attributable risk of cancer (incidence or mortality) using EPA LAR revised models. LAR of skin cancer incidence was not included in the Cancer Incidence Risk estimates b Overall sex and age averaged lifetime attributable risk of cancer (incidence or mortality) using EPA LAR revised models c Radiation detriment calculated from the effective dose as defined by ICRP 103 (10) Table E 6 Fractional cancer incidence and mortality risks PET/CT simulation Fractional Risk Cancer Incidence Fractional Risk Cancer Mortality Fractional Rad. Det. Age at exposure LAR EPA a LAR EPA LAR S, A b LAR EPA c LAR EPA LAR S, A ICRP 103 d (Male) (Female) (Male) (Female) Newborn 1.8 3.1 2.4 1.8 3.4 2.6 0.9 1 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.2 2.2 1.7 0.6 5 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.1 2.0 1.5 0.7 10 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.9 1.4 0.8 15 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.3 0.9 30 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.4 40 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.4 50 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 60 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.4 70 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.4 80 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.4 Note: risks as ratios of each of the risks to the risk for the 30 year old adult male (from incidence, mortality, and detriment separately). Age at exposure in years

PAGE 111

111 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Hall EJ, and Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. Philadelphia PA : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. 2. Brenner DJ. Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol 2008 ; 81:521 52 3. 3. Nationa l Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States Report No. 160. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; 2009. 4. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, et al. Estimated Risks of Radiation Induced Fatal Ca ncer from Pediatric CT. AJR 2001 ; 176:289 296 5. Sgouros G, Frey EC, Bolch WE, et al. An Approach for Balancing Diagnostic Image Quality with Cancer Risk: Application to Pediatric Diagnostic Imaging of 99m Tc Dimercaptosuccinic Acid. J Nucl Med 2011; 52:19 23 1929. 6. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP Publication 26. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press; 1977. 7. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the Internet 2011. Quality factor 07 Nov. 2011. < http://www.nrc.gov/reading rm/basic ref/glossary/quality factor.html > 8. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30. Oxford, U.K.: IC RP; 1979. 9. Bolch WE. Class Lecture. Radiation Dosimetry. Radiation Dosimetry Quantities & Units. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 06 07 Jan 2010. 10. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Wor kers. ICRP Publication 60. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press ; 1990. 11. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37: 1 332. 12. I nternational Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). Radiological Protection in Medicine. ICRP Publication 105. Ann ICRP 2007 ; 37: 1 63. 13. International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data for Use in Radiolo gical Protection: Reference Values ICRP Publication 89. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press; 2002.

PAGE 112

112 14. International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). Report of the Task Group on Reference Man ICRP Publication 23. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press; 1975. 15. Li X Samei E, Segars WP, et al. Patient specific Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk for Pediatric Chest CT. Radiology 2011 ; 259 (3):862 874. 16. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Health Risks from Exposure t o Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation : BEIR VII Phase2 Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005. 17. U.S EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population. EPA Report 402 R 11 001. 2011. W ashington, DC: U.S. EPA. 18. Microsoft. Microsoft Excel. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft, 2007. Computer Software. 19. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2008. UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly with Scient ific Annexes Volume I Effects of Ionizing Radiation. New York: United Nations. 20. Anderson RN, and DeTurk PB. United States Life Tables. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2002; 50 (6):1 12. < www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_06.pdf > 21. Ries LAG, You ng JL, Keel GE, et al. SEER Survival Monograph: Cancer Survival Among Adults: U.S. SEER Program, 1988 2001, Patient and Tumor Characteristics National Cancer Institute, SEER Program, NIH Pub. No. 07 6215, Bethesda, MD, 2007. 22. Bland KI, Menck HR, Scott Con ner CEH, et al. The national cancer data base 10 year survey of breast carcinoma treatment at hospitals in the United States. Cancer. 1998 ; 83:1262 1273. 23. Cronin K, Feuer E, Wesley M, et al. Current Estimates for 5 and 10 Year Relative Survival. Statistica l Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute. Technical Report #2003 04. 2003. Accessed 10/17/08 at < http://srab.cancer.gov/reports/tech2003.04.pdf> 24. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, DG et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975 2005 Nati onal Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Based on November 2007 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER website, 2008. 25. Pawel D, Preston D, Pierce D, et al. Improved Estimates of Cancer Site Specific Risks for A Bomb S urvivors Radiat Res 2008 ; 169:87 98. 26. Breslow NE, and Day NE. The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1998. Lyon.

PAGE 113

113 27. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1 958 1998. Radiat Res 2007; 168: 1 64. 28. Preston DL, Lubin JH, Pierce DA, et al. Hirosoft, Seattle, 1993. 29. Lee C, Pafundi DH, Kaufman K, et al. An algorithm for lymphatic node placement in hybrid computational phantoms applications to radionuclide therapy dosimetry. Proc IEEE. 2009 ; 97(12):2098 2108. 30. Lee C, Lodwick D, Hurtado J, et al. The UF family of reference hybrid phantoms for computational radiation dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2010 ; 55(2):339 363. 31. International Commission on Ra diation Protection (ICRP). Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals ICRP Publication 106 Ann ICRP 2008 ; 38(1 2):1 198. 32. Johnson PB, Bahadori AA, Eckerman KF, et al. Response functions for computing absorbed dose to skeletal tissues from phot on irradiation an update. Phys Med Biol. 2011 ; 56(8):2347 2365. 33. International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). Nuclear Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations ICRP Publication 107. Ann ICRP 2008 ; 38(3):e1 e26, 1 96. 34. Bolch WE, Eckerman KF, Sgou ros G, et al. MIRD Pamphlet No. 21 A generalized schema for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry: Standardization of nomenclature. J Nucl Med. 2009 ; 50(3):477 484. 35. Gelfand MJ, Parisi MT, Treves ST. Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses: 2010 North American consensus guidelines. J Nucl Med 2011 ; 52(2):318 322. 36. Lee C, Kim KP, Long D, et al. Organ doses for reference adult male and female undergoing computed tomography estimated by Monte Carlo simulations. Med Phys 2011 ; 38:1196 1206. 37. Alessio AM, K inahan PE, Manchanda V, et al. Weight Based, Low Dose Pediatric Whole Body PET/CT Protocols. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50:1570 1578.

PAGE 114

114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mr. Abadia arrived from Colombia to the United States in 2001 and completed his high school education in thi s country. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear e ngineering from the University of Florida on May 2009. He is to receive his Master of Science degree in b iomedical e ngineering with concentration on m edical p hysics at the University of Flor ida o n May 2012 He will begin working on his m edical p hysics PhD soon after graduation He is currently a member of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Health Physics Society (HPS) and has served in the Society of Health and Medical Physics Students (SHMPS) at the University of Florida. His graduate research time has been primarily focused on studying alternative ways of stochastic risk quantification fo r radiogenic cancers from medical imaging procedures such as nuclear medic ine, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography