BACKGROUND:Epidemiologic studies of radiation-exposed populations form the basis for human safety standards. They also help shape public health policy and evidence-based health practices by identifying and quantifying health risks of exposure in defined populations. For more than a century, epidemiologists have studied the consequences of radiation exposures, yet the health effects of low levels delivered at a low-dose rate remain equivocal. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The Million Person Study (MPS) of U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans was designed to examine health effects following chronic exposures in contrast with brief exposures as experienced by the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Radiation associations for rare cancers, intakes of radionuclides, and differences between men and women are being evaluated, as well as noncancers such as cardiovascular disease and conditions such as dementia and cognitive function. The first international symposium, held November 6, 2020, provided a broad overview of the MPS. Representatives from four U.S. government agencies addressed the importance of this research for their respective missions: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The major components of the MPS were discussed and recent findings summarized. The importance of radiation dosimetry, an essential feature of each MPS investigation, was emphasized. RESULTS:The seven components of the MPS are DOE workers, nuclear weapons test participants, nuclear power plant workers, industrial radiographers, medical radiation workers, nuclear submariners, other U.S. Navy personnel, and radium dial painters. The MPS cohorts include tens of thousands of workers with elevated intakes of alpha particle emitters for which organ-specific doses are determined. Findings to date for chronic radiation exposure suggest that leukemia risk is lower than after acute exposure; lung cancer risk is much lower and there is little difference in risks between men and women; an increase in ischemic heart disease is yet to be seen; esophageal cancer is frequently elevated but not myelodysplastic syndrome; and Parkinson's disease may be associated with radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS:The MPS has provided provocative insights into the possible range of health effects following low-level chronic radiation exposure. When the 34 MPS cohorts are completed and combined, a powerful evaluation of radiation-effects will be possible. This final article in the MPS special issue summarizes the findings to date and the possibilities for the future. A National Center for Radiation Epidemiology and Biology is envisioned.

Background Estimates of radiation risks following prolonged exposures at low doses and low-dose rates are uncertain. Medical radiation workers are a major component of the Million Person Study (MPS) of low-dose health effects. Annual personal dose equivalents, H-P(10), for individual workers are available to facilitate dose-response analyses for lung cancer, leukemia, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and other causes of death. Materials and methods The Landauer, Inc. dosimetry database identified 109,019 medical and associated radiation workers first monitored 1965-1994. Vital status and cause of death were determined through 2016. Mean absorbed doses to red bone marrow (RBM), lung, heart, and other organs were estimated by adjusting the recorded H-P(10) for each worker by scaling factors, accounting for exposure geometry, the energy of the incident photon radiation, sex of the worker and whether an apron was worn. There were 4 exposure scenarios: general radiology characterized by low-energy x-ray exposure with no lead apron use, interventional radiologists/cardiologists who wore aprons, nuclear medicine personnel and radiation oncologists exposed to high-energy photon radiation, and other workers. Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) analyses were performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate organ-specific radiation risks. Results Overall, 11,433 deaths occurred (SMR 0.60; 95%CI 0.59,0.61), 126 from leukemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 850 from lung cancer, and 1654 from IHD. The mean duration of monitoring was 23.7 y. The excess relative rate (ERR) per 100 mGy was estimated as 0.10 (95% CI -0.34, 0.54) for leukemia other than CLL, 0.15 (0.02, 0.27) for lung cancer, and -0.10 (-0.27, 0.06) for IHD. The ERR for lung cancer was 0.16 (0.01, 0.32) among the 55,218 male workers and 0.09 (-0.19, 0.36) among the 53,801 female workers; a difference that was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.23). Conclusions Medical radiation workers were at increased risk for lung cancer that was higher among men than women, although this difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, the study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors exposed briefly to radiation in 1945 found females to be nearly 3 times the radiation risk of lung cancer compared with males on a relative scale. For medical workers, there were no statistically significant radiation associations with leukemia excluding CLL, IHD or other specific causes of death. Combining these data with other cohorts within the MPS, such as nuclear power plant workers and nuclear submariners, will enable more precise estimates of radiation risks at relatively low cumulative doses.

BACKGROUND:The aim of the Million Person Study of Low-Dose Health Effects (MPS) is to examine the level of radiation risk for chronic exposures received gradually over time and not acutely as was the case for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Nuclear power plant (NPP) workers comprise nearly 15 percent of the MPS. Leukemia, selected cancers, Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and other causes of death are evaluated. METHODS AND MATERIAL:The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS) and the Landauer, Inc. dosimetry databases identified 135,193 NPP workers first monitored 1957-1984. Annual personal dose equivalents [Hp(10)] were available for each worker. Radiation records from all places of employment were sought. Vital status was determined through 2011. Mean absorbed doses to red bone marrow (RBM), esophagus, lung, colon, brain and heart were estimated by adjusting the recorded Hp(10) for each worker by scaling factors, accounting for exposure geometry and energy of the incident gamma radiation. Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated. Radiation risks were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS:Nearly 50% of workers were employed for more than 20 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 30.2 y. Overall, 29,124 total deaths occurred, 296 from leukemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 3382 from lung cancer, 140 from Parkinson's disease and 5410 from IHD. The mean dose to RBM was 37.9 mGy (maximum 1.0 Gy; percent >100 mGy was 9.2%), 43.2 mGy to lung, 43.7 mGy to colon, 33.2 mGy to brain, and 43.9 mGy to heart. The SMRs (95% CI) were 1.06 (0.94; 1.19) for leukemia other than CLL, 1.10 (1.07; 1.14) for lung cancer, 0.90 (0.76; 1.06) for Parkinson's disease, and 0.80 (0.78; 0.82) for IHD. The excess relative risk (ERR) per 100 mGy for leukemia other than CLL was 0.15 (90% CI -0.001; 0.31). For all solid cancers the ERR per 100 mGy (95% CI) was 0.01 (-0.03; 0.05), for lung cancer -0.04 (-0.11; 0.02), for Parkinson's disease 0.24 (-0.02; 0.50), and for IHD -0.01 (-0.06; 0.04). CONCLUSION:Prolonged exposure to radiation increased the risk of leukemia other than CLL among NPP workers. There was little evidence for a radiation association for all solid cancers, lung cancer or ischemic heart disease. Increased precision will be forthcoming as the different cohorts within the MPS are combined, such as industrial radiographers and medical radiation workers who were assembled and evaluated in like manner.

PURPOSE:To describe the range of occupational badge dose readings and annualized dose records among physicians performing fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures using job title information provided by the same 3 major medical institutions in 2009, 2012, and 2015. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The Radiation Safety Office of selected hospitals was contacted to request assistance with identifying physicians in a large commercial dosimetry database. All entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedure staff were excluded. Monthly and annualized doses were described with univariate statistics and box-and-whisker plots. RESULTS:The dosimetry data set of interventional radiology staff contained 169 annual dose records from 77 different physicians and 698 annual dose records from 455 nonphysicians. The median annualized lens dose equivalent values among physicians (11.9 mSv; interquartile range [IQR], 6.9-20.0 mSv) was nearly 3-fold higher than those among nonphysician medical staff assisting with FGI procedures (4.0 mSv; IQR, 1.8-6.7 mSv) (P < .001). During the study period, without eye protection, 25% (23 of 93) of the physician annualized lens dose equivalent values may have exceeded 20 mSv; for nonphysician medical staff, this value may have been exceeded 3.5% (6 of 173) of the time. However, these values did not account for eye protection. CONCLUSIONS:The findings from this study highlight the importance of mitigating occupational dose to the eyes of medical staff, particularly physicians, performing or assisting with FGI procedures. Training on radiation protection principles, the use of personal protective equipment, and patient radiation dose management can all help ensure that the occupational radiation dose is adequately controlled.

Daphnee Villoing*, R Craig Yoder, Christopher Passmore, Marie-Odile Bernier, Martha Linet, Cari M Kitahara. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA Minor Outlying Islands; Consultant, Weddington, NC, USA Minor Outlying Islands; Landauer, Inc., Glenwood, IL, USA Minor Outlying Islands; Institut de Radioprotection et de Sureté Nucléaire, Fontenay-aux-roses, France

The study of low dose and low-dose rate exposure is of central importance in understanding the possible range of health effects from prolonged exposures to radiation. The One Million Person Study of Radiation Workers and Veterans (MPS) of low-dose health effects was designed to evaluate radiation risks among healthy American workers and veterans. The MPS is evaluating low-dose and dose-rate effects, intakes of radioactive elements, cancer and non-cancer outcomes, as well as differences in risks between women and men. Medical radiation workers make up a large group of individuals occupationally exposed to low doses of radiation from external x-ray/gamma exposures. For the MPS, about 100 000 United States medical radiation workers have been selected for study. The approach to the complex dosimetry circumstances for such workers over three to four decades of occupation were initially and broadly described in National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report No. 178. NCRP Commentary No. 30 provides more detail and describes an optimum approach for using personal monitoring data to estimate lung and other organ doses applicable to the cohort and provides specific precautions/considerations applicable to the dosimetry of medical radiation worker organ doses for use in epidemiologic studies. The use of protective aprons creates dosimetric complexity. It is recommended that dose values from dosimeters worn over a protective apron be reduced by a factor of 20 for estimating mean organ doses to tissues located in the torso and that 15% of the marrow should be assumed to remain unshielded for exposure scenarios when aprons are worn. Conversion coefficients relating personal dose equivalent, H p(10) in mSv, to mean absorbed doses to organs and tissues, D T in mGy, for females and males for six exposure scenarios have been determined and presented for use in the MPS. This Memorandum summarises several key points in NCRP Commentary No. 30.

从事透视引导下介入（FGI）操作的工作人员是医学上辐射暴露最严重的人群之一。然而,有关工作者每月或每年接受辐射剂量（或随时间变化的剂量趋势）的数据有限。

Background The reconstruction of lifetime radiation doses for medical workers presents special challenges not commonly encountered for the other worker cohorts comprising the Million Worker Study. Methods The selection of approximately 175,000 medical radiation workers relies on using estimates of lifetime and annual personal monitoring results collected since 1977. Approaches have been created to adjust the monitoring results so that mean organ absorbed doses can be estimated. Results Changes in medical technology and practices have altered the radiation exposure environments to which a worker may have been exposed during their career. Other temporal factors include shifts in regulatory requirements that influenced the conduct of radiation monitoring and the changes in the measured dose quantities. Conclusions The use of leaded aprons during exposure to lower energy X rays encountered in fluoroscopically based radiology adds complexity to account for the shielding of the organs located in the torso when dosimeters were worn over leaded aprons. Estimating doses to unshielded tissues such as the brain and lens of the eye become less challenging when dosimeters are worn at the collar above the apron. The absence of leaded aprons in the higher energy photon settings lead to a more straightforward process of relating dosimeter results to mean organ doses.

Background: Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-ex-posedgroups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose: To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff per-formingor assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods: Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retro-spectivelycollected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corre-spondingto years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures-staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results: After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P =.96) or those who wore two badges (P =.23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquar-tile range, 4.6211.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P =.18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion: These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. (C) RSNA, 2019

AbstractIn recent publications, such as Publications 117 and 120, the Commission provided practical advice for physicians and other healthcare personnel on measures to protect their patients and themselves during interventional procedures. These measures can only be effective if they are encompassed by a framework of radiological protection elements, and by the availability of professionals with responsibilities in radiological protection. This framework includes a radiological protection programme with a strategy for exposure monitoring, protective garments, education and training, and quality assurance of the programme implementation. Professionals with responsibilities in occupational radiological protection for interventional procedures include: medical physicists; radiological protection specialists; personnel working in dosimetry services; clinical applications support personnel from the suppliers and maintenance companies; staff engaged in training, standardisation of equipment, and procedures; staff responsible for occupational health; hospital administrators responsible for providing financial support; and professional bodies and regulators. This publication addresses these elements and these audiences, and provides advice on specific issues, such as assessment of effective dose from dosimeter readings when an apron is worn, estimation of exposure of the lens of the eye (with and without protective eyewear), extremity monitoring, selection and testing of protective garments, and auditing the interventional procedures when occupational doses are unusually high or low (the latter meaning that the dosimeter may not have been worn).

Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses recorded for a sample of U.S. nuclear medicine technologists. Materials and Methods Nine large U.S. medical institutions identified 208 former and current nuclear medicine technologists certified after 1979 and linked these individuals to historic badge dose records maintained by a commercial dosimetry company (Landauer), yielding a total of 2618 annual dose records. The distributions of annual and cumulative occupational doses were described by using summary statistics. Results Between 1992 and 2015, the median annual personal dose equivalent per nuclear medicine technologist was 2.18 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 1.25-3.47 mSv; mean, 2.69 mSv). Median annual personal dose equivalents remained relatively constant over this period (range, 1.40-3.30 mSv), while maximum values generally increased over time (from 8.00 mSv in 1992 to 13.9 mSv in 2015). The median cumulative personal dose equivalent was 32.9 mSv (IQR, 18.1-65.5 mSv; mean, 51.4 mSv) for 45 technologists who had complete information and remained employed through 2015. Conclusion Occupational radiation doses were well below the established occupational limits and were consistent with those observed for nuclear medicine technologists worldwide and were greater than those observed for nuclear and general medical workers in the United States These results should be informative for radiation monitoring and safety efforts in nuclear medicine departments. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

This work investigates the applicability of using data from personal monitoring dosimeters to assess photon energies to which medical workers were exposed. Such determinations would be important for retrospective assessments of organ doses to be used in occupational radiation epidemiology studies, particularly in the absence of work history or other information regarding the energy of the radiation source. Monthly personal dose equivalents and filter ratios under two different metallic filters contained in the Luxel+® dosimeter were collected from Landauer, Inc. from 19 nuclear medicine (NM) technologists employed by three medical institutions, the institution A only performing traditional NM imaging (primarily using 99mTc) and institutions B and C also performing positron emission tomography (PET, using 18F). Calibration data of the Luxel+® dosimeter for various xray spectra were used to establish ranges of filter ratios from 1.1 to 1.6 for 99mTc and below 1.1 for 18F. Median filter ratios were 1.33 (Interquartile range (IQR), 0.15) for institution A, 1.08 (IQR, 0.16) for institution B, and 1.08 (IQR, 0.14) for institution C. The distributions of these filter ratios were statistically-significantly different between the institution A only performing traditional NM imaging and institutions B and C also performing PET imaging. In this proof-of-concept study, filter ratios from personal monitoring dosimeters were used to assess differences in photon energies to which NM technologists were exposed. Dosimeters from technologists only performing traditional NM procedures mostly showed Al/Cu filter ratios above 1.2, those likely performing only PET in a particular month had filter ratios below 1.1, and those which showed filter ratios between 1.1 and 1.2 likely came from technologists rotating between traditional NM and PET imaging in the same month. These results suggest that it is possible to distinguish technologists who only worked with higher-energy procedures versus those who only worked with other types of NM procedures.

Abstract Purpose Scientific Committee 6–9 was established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), charged to provide guidance in the derivation of organ doses and their uncertainty, and produced a report, NCRP Report No. 178, Deriving Organ Doses and their Uncertainty for Epidemiologic Studies with a focus on the Million Person Study of Low-Dose Radiation Health Effects (MPS). This review summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of NCRP Report No. 178, with a concentration on and overview of the dosimetry and uncertainty approaches for the cohorts in the MPS, along with guidelines regarding the essential approaches used to estimate organ doses and their uncertainties (from external and internal sources) within the framework of an epidemiologic study. Conclusions The success of the MPS is tied to the validity of the dose reconstruction approaches to provide realistic estimates of organ-specific radiation absorbed doses that are as accurate and precise as possible and to properly evaluate their accompanying uncertainties. The dosimetry aspects for the MPS are challenging in that they address diverse exposure scenarios for diverse occupational groups being studied over a period of up to 70 y. Specific dosimetric reconstruction issues differ among the varied exposed populations that are considered: atomic veterans, U.S. Department of Energy workers exposed to both penetrating radiation and intakes of radionuclides, nuclear power plant workers, medical radiation workers, and industrial radiographers. While a major source of radiation exposure to the study population comes from external gamma- or x-ray sources, for some of the study groups, there is also a meaningful component of radionuclide intakes that requires internal radiation dosimetry assessments.

Nuclear medicine techniques developed in the second half of the 20th century have become very sophisticated and have been used extensively in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. A surge of new dedicated radiopharmaceuticals and increased demand has led to a growing interest regarding increasing radiation exposure and possible associated health risks to the nuclear medicine technologists who perform these procedures. However, to date, very limited information has been provided on radiation doses received by nuclear medicine technologists. In this study, we collected annual and lifetime badge dose information for United States technologists certified in nuclear medicine between 1979 and 2015. Nine large US medical institutions from several geographical locations contributed information on 208 nuclear medicine technologists, linked to historical badge dose records maintained by a major commercial dosimetry company, yielding 2618 total dose records. The mean and median annual badge doses per technologist were 2.7 and 2.2 mSv, respectively, and more than 3% of the annual doses exceeded 10 mSv. The mean annual doses substantially increased around the year 2000, consistent with the expanded use of Positron Emission Tomography (PET). Mean and median lifetime doses of 51.4 and 32.9 mSv could be established for 45 technologists. Doses in this sample of nuclear medicine technologists were higher than expected, compared with previously published values for nuclear workers or radiologic technologists. These results suggest that nuclear medicine technologists may be one of the most highly-exposed radiation worker populations currently.

Dosemeter results for ∼81 500 people performing fluoroscopic and interventional radiology procedures were examined to identify differences between groups monitored either by using two dosemeters, one placed at the collar above the apron and a second placed under the apron on the torso (EDE1) or by using one single dosemeter placed at the collar above the apron (EDE2). The median annual HE was 0.17 mSv for those monitored using the EDE1 protocol and 0.26 mSv for the group using the EDE2 protocol. The EDE2 method was used most frequently with the EDE1 method preferred for those more highly exposed. Approximately, 22 % of dosemeter results for EDE1 were inconsistent with expected norms based on over and under apron dosemeter relationships.

In this article, we describe recent methodological enhancements and findings from the dose reconstruction component of a study of health risks among U.S. radiologic technologists. An earlier version of the dosimetry published in 2006 used physical and statistical models, literature-reported exposure measurements for the years before 1960, and archival personnel monitoring badge data from cohort members through 1984. The data and models previously described were used to estimate annual occupational radiation doses for 90,000 radiological technologists, incorporating information about each individual's employment practices based on a baseline survey conducted in the mid-1980s. The dosimetry methods presented here, while using many of the same methods as before, now estimate 2.23 million annual badge doses (personal dose equivalent) for the years 1916-1997 for 110,374 technologists, but with numerous methodological improvements. Every technologist's annual dose is estimated as a probability density function to reflect uncertainty about the true dose. Multiple realizations of the entire cohort distribution were derived to account for shared uncertainties and possible biases in the input data and assumptions used. Major improvements in the dosimetry methods from the earlier version include: A substantial increase in the number of cohort member annual badge dose measurements; Additional information on individual apron usage obtained from surveys conducted in the mid-1990s and mid-2000s; Refined modeling to develop lognormal annual badge dose probability density functions using censored data regression models; Refinements of cohort-based annual badge probability density functions to reflect individual work patterns and practices reported on questionnaires and to more accurately assess minimum detection limits; and Extensive refinements in organ dose conversion coefficients to account for uncertainties in radiographic machine settings for the radiographic techniques employed. For organ dose estimation, we rely on well-researched assumptions about critical exposure-related variables and their changes over the decades, including the peak kilovoltage and filtration typically used in conducting radiographic examinations, and the usual body location for wearing radiation monitoring badges, the latter based on both literature and national recommendations. We have derived organ dose conversion coefficients based on air-kerma weighting of photon fluences from published X-ray spectra and derived energy-dependent transmission factors for protective lead aprons of different thicknesses. Findings are presented on estimated organ doses for 12 organs and tissues: red bone marrow, female breast, thyroid, brain, lung, heart, colon, ovary, testes, skin of trunk, skin of head and neck and arms, and lens of the eye.