| 赵光宇,邸丽娟,孙宏伟,闫平,张建华,佟正灏,范岩.观察靶向药物氯化镭(223RaCl2)外照射剂量[J].中国医学影像技术,2022,38(11):1726~1729 |
| 观察靶向药物氯化镭(223RaCl2)外照射剂量 |
| Observation on external radiation dose of targeted pharmaceuticals 223RaCl2 |
| 投稿时间：2022-05-24 修订日期：2022-07-05 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2022.11.030 |
| 中文关键词: 镭 外照射剂量学 放射防护 |
| 英文关键词:radium external radiation dosimetry radiological protection |
| 基金项目:北京市自然科学基金（Z200018）。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 481 |
| 全文下载次数: 365 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 观察不同防护方案下氯化镭（223RaCl2）的外照射剂量，评估其对核医学工作人员的影响。方法 采用辐射剂量仪测量含有2 775 kBq （75 μCi）223RaCl2注射液的青霉素小瓶在不同距离处（1、30及100 cm）及不同防护方案下（无屏蔽、有机玻璃屏蔽、铅罐屏蔽及有机玻璃+铅罐屏蔽）所产生的外照射当量剂量率（EDR）的差异；比较1及30 cm处铅罐屏蔽下所受223RaCl2 EDR与日常操作18F-FDG及99Tcm-MDP所受外照射剂量的差异。结果 相同距离下，铅罐与有机玻璃+铅罐屏蔽外照射EDR差异无统计学意义（P均>0.05），其他屏蔽方案下外照射EDR差异均有统计学意义（P均<0.05）；在屏蔽距离1、30 cm处，不同屏蔽方案的屏蔽效果差别更为明显；距离100 cm处，虽然不同方案外照射EDR差异有统计学意义（P均<0.05），但均已接近本底，尤以铅罐及有机玻璃+铅罐屏蔽效果最佳。相同方案下，距离30、100 cm处的外照射EDR显著低于距离1 cm处（P均<0.05）；距离100 cm处，无屏蔽及有机玻璃屏蔽的外照射EDR低于距离30 cm处（P均<0.05）。在1、30 cm处，于铅罐屏蔽防护下，操作223RaCl2所产生的外照射EDR均显著低于日常操作18F-FDG和99Tcm-MDP所受外照射剂量（P均<0.05）。结论 223Ra对工作人员外辐射剂量低于国家标准，使用安全；但223RaCl2可发射γ射线，临床操作仍需注意外照射防护并使用铅注射器针套。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe the external radiation dose of 223RaCl2 under different protection schemes, and to estimate its impact on nuclear medical staff. Methods The equivalent dose rate (EDR) of external radiation of penicillin vials containing 2 775 kBq (75 μCi) 223RaCl2 was measured using radiation dosimeter instrument and then compared among different distances (1, 30 and 100 cm) and under different protection schemes (unshielding, organic glass shielding, original lead can shielding, organic glass plus+original lead can shielding). The differences of EDR of 223RaCl2 under original lead can shielding scheme, 18F-FDG and 99Tcm-MDP under daily operation were compared between distance of 1 and 30 cm. Results At the same distance, external exposure EDR was not significantly different between lead and organic glass plus+original lead (both P>0.05), while the differences of external exposure EDR under the rest shielding schemes were all significant (all P<0.05). When the shielding distance was 1 or 30 cm, the shielding effects of different shielding schemes were more obvious. At the distance of 100 cm, although the differences of external exposure EDR of different shielding schemes were significant (all P<0.05), but the results were all closed to the background, and the original lead, organic glass plus+original lead can shielding had the best shielding effects. Under the same scheme, when the distance was 30 or 100 cm, the external irradiation EDR was significantly lower than that at the distance of 1 cm (all P<0.05). When the distance was 100 cm, EDR of unshielding and organic glass shielding external irradiation were all lower than that that of 30 cm (all P<0.05). Under the shielding protection of lead cans at 1 cm or 30 cm, EDR of external radiation produced by 223RaCl2 were all significantly lower than that produced by daily operating 18F-FDG and 99Tcm-MDP (all P<0.05). Conclusion The external radiation dose of 223Ra to staff was lower than the national standard, hence it was safe to use. Since 223Ra can emit γ-rays, lead syringe needle sleeves were recommended during clinical practice for radiological protection. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
