Whole-Body PET/CT Scanning: Estimation of Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk

Purpose: To estimate the radiation dose from whole-body fluorine 18 (18F)-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomographic (PET)/computed tomographic (CT) studies and to evaluate the induced cancer risk to U.S. and Hong Kong populations.

Materials and Methods: Fluorine 18–FDG PET/CT studies obtained by using a 64-detector CT unit and one of three CT protocols were evaluated. CT protocol A consisted of 120 kV; rotation time, 0.5 second; pitch, 0.984; 100–300 mA; and noise level, 20. CT protocol B was the same as A, except for a fixed tube current of 250 mA. CT protocol C consisted of 140 kV; rotation time, 0.5 second; pitch, 0.984; 150–350 mA; and noise level, 3.5. CT doses were measured in a humanoid phantom equipped with thermoluminescent dosimeters. Doses from 18F-FDG PET scanning were estimated by multiplying the 18F-FDG radioactivity (370 MBq) with dose coefficients. Effective doses were calculated according to International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103. Lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence was estimated according to the National Academies' Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Report.

Results: Effective doses with protocols A, B, and C, respectively, were 13.45, 24.79, and 31.91 mSv for female patients and 13.65, 24.80, and 32.18 mSv for male patients. The LAR of cancer incidence associated with the dose was higher in the Hong Kong population than in the U.S. population. For 20-year-old U.S. women, LARs of cancer incidence were between 0.231% and 0.514%, and for 20-year-old U.S. men, LARs of cancer incidence were between 0.163% and 0.323%; LARs were 5.5%–20.9% higher for the Hong Kong population. The induced cancer risks decreased when age at exposure increased.

Conclusion: Whole-body PET/CT scanning is accompanied by substantial radiation dose and cancer risk. Thus, examinations should be clinically justified, and measures should be taken to reduce the dose.

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2511081300/DC1

© RSNA, 2009

References

  • 1 Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 2007; 242(2): 360–385. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33(3):166–179. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 2004;45(suppl 1):4S–14S. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991;21(1–3):1–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006. Google Scholar
  • 6 Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007;298(3):317–323. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jung H. Assessment of usefulness and risk of mammography screening with exclusive attention to radiation risk [in German]. Radiologe 2001;41(4):385–395. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bedetti G, Pizzi C, Gavaruzzi G, Lugaresi F, Cicognani A, Picano E. Suboptimal awareness of radiologic dose among patients undergoing cardiac stress scintigraphy. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5(2):126–131. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (addendum 2 to ICRP publication 53). Ann ICRP 1998;28(3):1–126. Google Scholar
  • 10 The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37(2–4):1–332. Google Scholar
  • 11 International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Conversion coefficients for use in radiological protection against external radiation. ICRU publication 57. Bethesda, Md: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1998. Google Scholar
  • 12 Medical Devices Agency. ImPACT CT patient dosimetry calculator, version (0.99X). London, England: ImPACT, 2006. Google Scholar
  • 13 Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al, eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2005. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/. Published November 2007. Accessed July 10, 2008. Google Scholar
  • 14 U.S. Disaster Center. U.S. Life Table 2005. http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/LifeTable2005.html. Updated January 16, 2008. Accessed July 10, 2008. Google Scholar
  • 15 Hong Kong Cancer Registry, Hospital Authority of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Cancer Statistics 2005. http://www3.ha.org.hk/cancereg/eng/annual/a.asp. Accessed October 10, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 16 Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong S.A.R. Hong Kong Life Table (1971–2006). http://www.statistics.gov.hk/stat_table/population/D5320184BXXXXXXXXB.xls. Accessed October 10, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 17 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly, With Scientific Annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 18 Groves AM, Owen KE, Courtney HM, et al. 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. Br J Radiol 2004;77(920):662–665. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ghotbi N, Iwanaga M, Ohtsuru A, Ogawa Y, Yamashita S. Cancer screening with whole-body PET/CT for healthy asymptomatic people in Japan: re-evaluation of its test validity and radiation exposure. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2007;8(1):93–97. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 2005;46(4):608–613. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ, et al. Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(1):38–43. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004;232(3):735–738. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277–2284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Diederich S, Lenzen H. Radiation exposure associated with imaging of the chest: comparison of different radiographic and computed tomography techniques. Cancer 2000;89(11 suppl):2457–2460. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Einstein AJ, Sanz J, Dellegrottaglie S, et al. Radiation dose and cancer risk estimates in 16-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15(2):232–240. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mazonakis M, Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N. Thyroid dose from common head and neck CT examinations in children: is there an excess risk for thyroid cancer induction? Eur Radiol 2007;17(5):1352–1357. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wagner GS, Batey SE, Mosleh-Shirazi MA. Directionality of extruded lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosemeters in a cobalt-60 beam. Br J Radiol 2000;73(873):1007–1009. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Upton AC, Adelstein SJ, Brenner DJ, et al. Evaluation of the linear-nonthreshold dose-response model for ionizing radiation. Report No. 136. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2001. Google Scholar
  • 29 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, With Scientific Annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 30 National Institutes of Health. Report of the NCI-CDC Working Group to Revise the 1985 NIH Radioepidemiological Tables. NIH Publication No. 03–5387. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 31 Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR V. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990. Google Scholar
  • 32 Tubiana M, Nagataki S, Feinendegen LE, et al. Computed tomography and radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2008;358(8):850–853. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 2000;154(2):178–186. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Valentin J. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation related cancer risk. Ann ICRP 2005;35(4):1–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100(24):13761–13766. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008;49(3):480–508. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(13):2155–2161. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2009