Icrp 105

Annals of the ICRP
ICRP PUBLICATION 105
2 Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy for
OF
prostate cancer using permanently implanted
sources
Radiological Protection in Medicine
PRO
ICRP Publication 98
6
7 Abstract–The use of permanent radioactive implants (125I or 103Pd seeds) to treat selected
8 localised prostate cancer patients has been increasing rapidly all over the world for the last
9 15 years. It is estimated that more than Editor
50,000 patients are treated this way every year in
ED
10 the world, and this number is anticipated to increase in the near future.
J. VALENTIN
11 Although no accidents or adverse effects involving medical staff and/or members of the
12 patientÕs family have been reported to date, this brachytherapy technique raises a number
13 of radiation safety issues that need specific recommendations from the ICRP.
14 All data concerning the dose received by people approaching patients after implantation
ECT
15 have been reviewed. Those doses have been either been measured directly or calculated. The
16 available data show that, in the vast majority of cases, the dose to comforters and carers
17 remains well below the recommended limit of 1 mSv/year. Only the (rare) case where the
18 patientÕs partner is pregnant at the time of implantation may need specific precautions.
19 Expulsion of sources through urine, semen, or the gastro-intestinal tract is rare. Specific rec-
20 ommendations should be given to patients to allow them to deal adequately with this event. Of
note, due to the low activity of an PUBLISHED
isolated seed and itsFOR
ORR
21 low photon energy, no incident/accident

22 linked to seed loss has ever been recorded.
23 WhenThe International
performed Commission
in the first few on Radiological
months after implantation, cremation Protection
of bodies (frequent in
24 some countries) raises several issues related to: (1) the activity that remains in the patientÕs
25 ashes; and (2) the airborne dose, potentially byinhaled by crematorium staff or members of
26 the public. Review of available data shows that cremation can be allowed if 12 months have
27 elapsed since implantation with 125I (3 months for 103Pd). If the patient dies before this delay
28 has elapsed, specific measures must be undertaken.
UNC
29 Specific recommendations have to be given to the patient to warn his surgeon in case of
30 subsequent pelvic or abdominal surgery. A Ôwallet cardÕ with all relevant information about
31 the implant is useful.
32 In most cases, brachytherapy does make the patient infertile. However, although the
33 therapy-related modifications of the semen reduce fertility, patients must be aware of the
34 possibility of fathering children after such a permanent implantation, with a limited risk of
35 genetic effects for the child.
ICRP Publication 105
Radiation Protection in Medicine

Approved by the Commission in October 2007
Abstract—This report was prepared to underpin the Commission’s 2007 Recommendations

with regard to the medical exposure of patients, including their comforters and carers, and
volunteers in biomedical research. It addresses the proper application of the fundamental
principles (justification, optimisation of protection, and application of dose limits) of the
Commission’s 2007 Recommendations to these individuals.
With regard to medical exposure of patients, it is not appropriate to apply dose limits or dose
constraints, because such limits would often do more harm than good. Often, there are
concurrent chronic, severe, or even life-threatening medical conditions that are more critical
than the radiation exposure. The emphasis is then on justification of the medical procedures
and on the optimisation of radiological protection. In diagnostic and interventional
procedures, justification of procedures (for a defined purpose and for an individual patient),
and management of the patient dose commensurate with the medical task, are the appropriate
mechanisms to avoid unnecessary or unproductive radiation exposure. Equipment features that
facilitate patient dose management, and diagnostic reference levels derived at the appropriate
national, regional, or local level, are likely to be the most effective approaches. In radiation
therapy, the avoidance of accidents is a predominant issue. With regard to comforters and
carers, and volunteers in biomedical research, dose constraints are appropriate.
Over the last decade, the Commission has published a number of documents that provided
detailed advice related to radiological protection and safety in the medical applications of
ionising radiation. Each of the publications addressed a specific topic defined by the type of
radiation source and the medical discipline in which the source is applied, and was written with
the intent of communicating directly with the relevant medical practitioners and supporting
medical staff. This report consolidates that advice.
Ó 2008 ICRP. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights Reserved.
Keywords: Radiological protection; Justification; Optimisation; Patient dose; Dose management
1
Editorial
FOUNDATIONS AND FUNDAMENTALS
This space is used, of course, to comment on each new report at the time of its
release, and at the same time it provides an opportunity to highlight topical issues
and news from the Commission. After some words on the present report, I will come
back to some aspects of the Commission’s views on tritium below.
Medical exposure IS unique. This report is one of the ‘Foundation Documents’
underpinning the Commission’s 2007 Recommendations (ICRP, 2007). However,
while Foundation Documents comprising detailed explanations of the biological
and physical considerations underlying the Recommendations were published as An-
nexes A and B of the actual Recommendations, we thought that this summary would
fare better as a stand-alone document, particularly for those readers who are directly
concerned with medical uses of radiation and want detailed information about med-
ical exposure protection policy.
The main message in the present report is that medical exposure of patients has
unique considerations that affect how the fundamental principles are applied. Dose
limits are not at all relevant, since ionising radiation, used at the appropriate level of
dose for the particular medical purpose, is an essential tool that will cause more good
than harm.
Justification in radiological protection of patients is different from justification of
other radiation applications, in that generally the very same person enjoys the ben-
efits and suffers the risks associated with a procedure. (There may be other consid-
erations: attendant occupational exposures could be correlated with patient doses
or sometimes there can be a trade-off; screening programmes may benefit the popu-
lation rather than every screened person. But usually, risks and benefits accrue to the
same person). And, a very important aspect in daily medical practice: the fact that a
method or procedure can be regarded as justified as such does not necessarily mean
that its application to the particular patient being considered is justified.
Optimisation of protection for patients is also unique. In the first place, radiation
therapy is entirely different from anything else in that the dose to a human being is
intentional and its potentially cell-killing properties the very purpose of the treat-
ment. In such cases, optimisation becomes an exercise in minimising doses (and/or
their deleterious effects) to surrounding tissues without compromising the pre-deter-
mined and intentionally lethal dose and effect to the target volume.
In optimisation of protection of the patient in diagnostic procedures, again the
same person gets the benefit and suffers the risk, and again individual restrictions
3
on patient dose could be counterproductive to the medical purpose of the procedure.

Therefore, source-related individual dose constraints are not relevant. Instead, Diag-
nostic Reference Levels (DRLs) for a particular procedure, which apply to groups of
similar patients rather than individuals, are used to ensure that doses do not deviate
significantly from those achieved at peer departments for that procedure unless there
is a known, relevant, and acceptable reason for the deviation. This is in contrast to
the Commission’s usual balancing of utilitarian protection policies based on collec-
tive doses against deontological safeguards using dose constraints for the individual.
The policy for radiological protection in medicine is that the radiation exposure be
commensurate with the medical purpose.
These various considerations are discussed in some detail in the present report,
and in addition, the report includes an overview of the advice provided in the Com-
mission’s recent series of topical reports on current issues in medical radiological
protection.
The current wR for tritium IS sufficient. It is implicit in the above that calculation
and application of protection quantities and radiation and tissue weighting factors
need careful thought in the medical context. They are, of course, fundamental con-
siderations in all exposure situations, and sometimes the source of heated debate.
Recently the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of beta radiation from tritium
and the radiation weighting factor (wR) to be applied for tritium in routine radiolog-
ical protection have been the subject of much discussion. To cut a long story short,
there is some evidence that at least under some circumstances, an RBE value of 2 for
tritium, relative to gamma rays, might be appropriate for cancer induction at low
doses, and this in turn has prompted questions as to why ICRP continues to recom-
mend a wR of 1 for tritium.
Basically, the answer is that for planned exposures, appropriate levels of protec-
tion are determined by constrained optimisation, resulting in doses that will be typ-
ically a small fraction of the relevant dose limit. There are many uncertainties in the
estimation of, e.g., the RBE of tritium radiation, and many intentional simplifica-
tions in the assumptions underpinning effective doses which are defined for reference
persons and evaluated using reference phantoms. Increased complexity in the calcu-
lation of equivalent and effective dose would not improve protection and might sug-
gest a degree of precision in the calculations that is unwarranted.
For a more thorough understanding of the topic, a review of the methodology
used in the estimation of doses and risks from internal emitters is provided by Har-
rison and Day (2008) in the Journal of Radiological Protection. The Commission’s
position is explained in detail in an invited editorial by Cox (Commission Vice-
Chair), Menzel (Committee 2 Chair), and Preston (Committee 1 Chair) in the same
issue of that journal. These papers, both of which can be downloaded cost-free from
www.iop.org/EJ/journal/JRP, constitute highly recommended reading for those con-
cerned with radiological protection policy issues in relation to internal emitters, par-
ticularly tritium.
JACK VALENTIN
4
References
Cox, R., Menzel, H.-G., Preston, J., 2008. Internal dosimetry and tritium – the ICRP position. J. Radiol.
Prot. 28, 131–135.
Harrison, J.D., Day, P., 2008. Radiation doses and risks from internal emitters. J. Radiol. Prot. 28, 137–
159.
ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2–4).
5
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 1
EDITORIAL........................................................................................................................ 3
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 7
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................... 9
1. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 11
1.1. References ........................................................................................................... 12
2. USE OF IONISING RADIATION IN MEDICINE .............................................. 15

2.1. References ........................................................................................................... 16
3. BRIEF SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RADIOLOGICAL

PROTECTION .............................................................................................................. 17
3.1. Deterministic effects (tissue reactions) ................................................................ 17
3.2. Stochastic effects (cancer and heritable effects) .................................................. 17
3.3. Effects of in-utero irradiation ............................................................................. 18
3.4. References ........................................................................................................... 19
4. DOSIMETRIC QUANTITIES ................................................................................. 21

4.1. References ........................................................................................................... 22
5. FRAMEWORK OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN THE 2007

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 23
5.1. Source-related principles ..................................................................................... 23
5.2. Individual-related principle ................................................................................. 23
5.3. References ........................................................................................................... 24
6. UNIQUE ASPECTS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN MEDICINE FOR

PATIENTS.................................................................................................................... 25
6.1. Deliberate exposure............................................................................................. 25
6.2. Voluntary exposure ............................................................................................. 25
6.3. Medical screening of asymptomatic patients ...................................................... 25
6.4. Radiation therapy ............................................................................................... 26
6.5. Management of radiation dose ........................................................................... 26
6.6. Demographics of the patient population ............................................................ 26
6.7. Range of detriments from radiation uses in medicine ........................................ 27
6.8. References ........................................................................................................... 28
7. DISCUSSION OF THE TERM ‘PRACTICE’............................................................. 29

7.1. Reference............................................................................................................. 29
8. JUSTIFICATION OF A RADIOLOGICAL PRACTICE IN MEDICINE ........... 31

8.1. Justification of a defined radiological procedure (Level 2) ................................ 32
8.2. Justification of a procedure for an individual patient (Level 3)......................... 32
7
9. OPTIMISATION OF PROTECTION FOR PATIENTS IN MEDICAL

EXPOSURES............................................................................................................... 33
9.1. General approach.............................................................................................. 33
9.2. Use of diagnostic reference levels and dose constraints ................................... 33
9.3. Management of medical exposures ................................................................... 33
10. DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS .................................................................... 35

10.1. Diagnostic reference levels (Publications 60 and 73) ....................................... 35
10.2. Diagnostic reference levels (Supporting Guidance 2)........................................ 36
10.3. References ........................................................................................................ 38
11. INDIVIDUAL DOSE LIMITS ................................................................................... 39
12. PREVENTING ACCIDENTS IN RADIATION THERAPY .................................. 41

12.1. References ........................................................................................................ 41
13. MANAGING INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE

MATERIALS ........................................................................................................ 43
13.1. References....................................................................................................... 43
14. EDUCATION AND TRAINING .............................................................................. 45
15. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.................................................................... 47
16. PRACTICAL METHODS OF PROTECTION OTHER THAN FOR PATIENTS 49

16.1. Occupational exposure..................................................................................... 49
16.2. Public exposure ................................................................................................ 50
16.3. Exposure of volunteers in biomedical research ............................................... 50
16.4. Exposure of comforters and carers of patients................................................ 50
16.5. References ........................................................................................................ 51
ANNEX A. FOCUSED EVALUATIONS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN

MEDICINE.................................................................................................................. 53
A.1. Pregnancy and medical radiation (Publication 84)........................................... 53
A.2. Interventional procedures (fluoroscopically guided) (Publication 85).............. 54
A.3. Accidental exposures in radiation therapy (Publication 86)............................. 55
A.4. Computed tomography (Publication 87) .......................................................... 56
A.5. Guide for general practitioners (Supporting Guidance 2)................................ 57
A.6. Digital radiology (Publication 93) .................................................................... 57
A.7. Unsealed radionuclides (release after therapy) (Publication 94) ...................... 58
A.8. High-dose-rate brachytherapy (accidents) (Publication 97).............................. 59
A.9. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer with permanent sources (radiation safety)
(Publication 98)................................................................................................. 60
A.10. Multi-detector computed tomography (Publication 102) ............................... 61
A.11. References ....................................................................................................... 62
ALL REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 63
8
PREFACE
Over the years, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP),

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’, has issued many reports providing
advice on radiological protection and safety in medicine. Publication 73 was a gen-
eral overview of this area.
In recent years, the Commission has also addressed some specific situations where
difficulties have been observed, trying to produce such topical reports in a style that
is accessible to those who may be directly concerned in their daily work, and taking
every effort to ensure wide circulation of such reports.
When the 2007 Recommendations were outlined, the Commission concluded that
a new general overview report on radiological protection and safety in medicine
would be warranted in support of the Recommendations and as an update and
amendment to Publication 73.
For this particular purpose, the Commission did not launch its usual type of Task
Group. Instead, Committee 3 acted as a Task Group in its entirety, but with no out-
side members. A core group, corresponding to the Full Members of conventional
Task Groups, comprised:
C. Cousins M. Rosenstein (Task Group Chair) E. Vañó
The other Committee 3 Members, who acted as Corresponding Task Group Mem-
bers during the preparation of the report, were:
J.-M. Cosset I. Gusev Y. Li
J. Liniecki P. Ortiz López S. Mattsson
L.V. Pinillos-Ashton M.M. Rehani H. Ringertz
C. Sharp (–2006) Y. Yonekura
C. Cousins was the Chair of Committee 3, J.-M. Cosset was the Vice-Chair, and
E. Vañó was the Committee Secretary.
The report was approved for publication through postal ballot by the Commission
in October 2007.
9
1. BACKGROUND
(1) Publication 73 (ICRP, 1996), entitled ‘Radiological protection and safety in

medicine’, was published to expand on the application in medicine of the 1990
Recommendations of the Commission (ICRP, 1991a). The current document was
prepared by ICRP Committee 3 to augment Publication 73 and underpin the
Commission’s 2007 Recommendations (ICRP, 2007d) with regard to the medical
exposure of patients, including their comforters and carers, and volunteers in bio-
medical research.
(2) Over the last decade, the Commission has published a number of docu-
ments, prepared by Committee 3, that provide detailed advice related to radio-
logical protection and safety in the medical applications of ionising radiation.
Each of these publications addresses a specific topic defined by the type of radi-
ation source and the medical discipline in which the source is applied, and was
written with the intent of communicating directly with the relevant medical
practitioners and other clinical staff. These publications (in chronological order)
are:
Publication 84. Pregnancy and medical radiation (ICRP, 2000a).
Publication 85. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical intervention proce-
dures (ICRP, 2000b).
Publication 86. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radia-
tion therapy (ICRP, 2000c).
Publication 87. Managing patient dose in computed tomography (ICRP,
2000d).
Supporting Guidance 2. Radiation and your patient: a guide for medical practitio-
ners (ICRP, 2001).
Supporting Guidance 2. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging – review
and additional advice (ICRP, 2001).
Publication 93. Managing patient dose in digital radiology (ICRP, 2003a).
Publication 94. Release of patients after therapy with unsealed radionuclides
(ICRP, 2004).
Publication 97. Prevention of high-dose-rate brachytherapy accidents (ICRP,
2005a).
Publication 98. Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy for prostate cancer
using permanently implanted sources (ICRP, 2005b).
Publication 102. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography
(ICRP, 2007c).
(3) Also, in 1999, the Commission published Publication 80, entitled ‘Radiation
dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals’ (ICRP, 1999b); a joint document of
Committees 2 and 3 that presented biokinetic and dosimetric data on 10 new radio-
pharmaceuticals not published previously, and updated the similar data presented in
the series of earlier ICRP publications on this subject.
(4) In preparation of the present document, Committee 3:
11
reviewed the main topics covered in Publication 73;

augmented that review with the additional advice provided in the documents
(listed above) published since Publication 73; and
consulted the draft of the Commission’s 2007 Recommendations.
(5) The Commission uses Task Groups and Working Parties to deal with specific
areas. Task Groups are appointed by the Commission to perform a defined task, and
usually contain a majority of specialists from outside the Commission’s structure.
Working Parties are set up by Committees with the approval of the Commission
to develop ideas for the Committee, sometimes leading to a Task Group. The mem-
bership is usually limited to Committee Members. Currently, Committee 3 has a
number of similar documents in preparation addressing the following topics:
radiological protection for cardiologists performing fluoroscopically guided pro-
cedures (Task Group);
evaluation and management of secondary cancer risk in radiation therapy (Joint
Task Group with International Commission on Radiation Units and
Measurements);
radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (Joint Task Group with
Committee 2);
protecting children: diagnostic techniques involving ionising radiation (Working
Party);
doses to the hands of radiopharmacists (Working Party);
radiological protection training for diagnostic and fluoroscopically guided inter-
ventional procedures (Working Party);
medical examinations and follow-up of persons accidentally or occupationally
exposed to ionising radiation (Working Party); and
medical screening of asymptomatic persons using ionising radiation (Working
Party).
(6) Additional advice from ICRP Committee 3 concerning radiological protection
in medicine will be forthcoming as these documents are completed.
(7) In the current report, the term ‘exposure’ is used to express the act of being
exposed to ionising radiation. The terms ‘dose’ or ‘radiation dose’ are used when
the context is not specific to a particular radiation dose quantity. When the context
is specific, the name of the quantity is used (e.g. absorbed dose, equivalent dose,
effective dose).
1.1. References
ICRP, 1991a. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP
Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21(1–3).
ICRP, 1996. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Ann. ICRP 26(2).
ICRP, 1999b. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum to ICRP Publication 53.
Also includes Addendum 1 to ICRP Publication 72. ICRP Publication 80. Ann. ICRP 28(3).
ICRP, 2000a. Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP Publication 84. Ann. ICRP 30(1).
12
ICRP, 2000b. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. ICRP Publication
85. Ann. ICRP 30(2).
ICRP, 2000c. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation therapy. ICRP
Publication 86. Ann. ICRP 30(3).
ICRP, 2000d. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. ICRP Publication 87. Ann. ICRP 30(4).
ICRP, 2001. Radiation and your patient: a guide for medical practitioners. Also includes: Diagnostic
reference levels in medical imaging – review and additional advice. ICRP Supporting Guidance 2. Ann.
ICRP 31(4).
ICRP, 2003a. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann. ICRP 34(1).
ICRP, 2004. Release of patients after therapy with unsealed radionuclides. ICRP Publication 94. Ann.
ICRP 34(2).
ICRP, 2005a. Prevention of high-dose-rate brachytherapy accidents. ICRP Publication 97. Ann. ICRP
35(2).
ICRP, 2005b. Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy for prostate cancer using permanently implanted
sources. ICRP Publication 98. Ann. ICRP 35(3).
ICRP, 2007c. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography. ICRP Publication 102.
Ann. ICRP 37(1).
ICRP, 2007d. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37(2–4).
13
2. USE OF IONISING RADIATION IN MEDICINE
(8) More people are exposed to ionising radiation from medical practice than from
any other human activity, and in many cases, the individual doses are higher. In
countries with advanced healthcare systems, the annual number of radiological diag-
nostic procedures approaches or exceeds 1 for every member of the population
(UNSCEAR, 2000). Furthermore, doses to patients for the same type of examina-
tion differ widely between centres, suggesting that there is considerable scope for
management of patient dose (UNSCEAR, 2000).
(9) Radiation exposures in medicine are predominantly to individuals undergoing
diagnostic examinations, interventional procedures, or radiation therapy. Diagnostic
examinations include those for medical and dental purposes. Interventional proce-
dures are predominantly fluoroscopically guided, but computed tomography guided
techniques are also being developed and utilised. However, staff, and other individ-
uals helping to support and comfort patients, are also exposed to radiation. The
other individuals include parents holding children during diagnostic procedures,
and family or close friends who may come close to patients following the adminis-
tration of radiopharmaceuticals or during brachytherapy. Exposure to members of
the general public resulting from the use of radiation in medicine also occurs, but
it is almost always at very low levels. Other Commission documents cover radiolog-
ical protection for workers in medicine (occupational exposure), and radiological
protection for members of the general public associated with medicine (public expo-
sure), but some brief comments on these topics are given in Sections 16.1 and 16.2.
The rest of this document concentrates on medical exposure of patients, their com-
forters and carers, and volunteers in biomedical research, as described below.
The exposure of individuals for diagnostic, interventional, and therapeutic pur-
poses, including exposure of the embryo/fetus or infant during medical exposure
of patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding.
Exposures (other than occupational) incurred knowingly and willingly by individ-
uals, such as family and close friends (or other comforters), helping either in hos-
pital or at home in the support and comfort of patients undergoing diagnosis or
treatment.
Exposures incurred by volunteers as part of a programme of biomedical research
that provides no direct benefit to the volunteers.
(10) The use of radiation for medical exposure of patients contributes over 95% of
man-made radiation exposure and is only exceeded world-wide by natural back-
ground as a source of exposure (UNSCEAR, 2000). In a preliminary analysis for
2006 in the United States, the contribution of medical exposure of patients is ex-
pected to be similar in magnitude to natural background as a source of exposure
to the U.S. population (Mettler et al., 2008).
(11) UNSCEAR (2000) compared estimates of the 1985–1990 and 1991–1996 peri-
ods, and concluded that the worldwide annual per caput effective dose from medical
exposure of patients increased by 35% and the collective dose increased by 50%,
while the population increased by only 10%. It was also estimated that, worldwide,
15
there were approximately 2000 million x-ray studies, 32 million nuclear medicine
studies, and over 6 million radiation therapy patients treated annually. These num-
bers are expected to increase in future years.
(12) Overall, medical exposure has increased since the UNSCEAR (2000) evalua-
tion, largely due to the rapid increase in the utilisation of computed tomography
(CT), both in industrialised and in developing countries (ICRP, 2000d; ICRP,
2007c).
(13) Worldwide, the estimated number of medical and dental radiographic ma-
chines is approximately 2 million. While it is difficult to estimate the number of occu-
pationally exposed medical workers, UNSCEAR (2000) estimated that there are
more than 2.3 million monitored medical radiation workers.
2.1. References
Ann. ICRP 37(1).
Mettler, F.A., Thomadsen, B.R., Bhargavan, M., et al., 2008. Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. 2006:
Preliminary results. 43rd Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements: Advances in Radiation Protection in Medicine. Health Phys. 95, in press.
UNSCEAR, 2000. Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. United Nations,
New York, NY.
16
3. BRIEF SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RADIOLOGICAL
PROTECTION
(14) The biological effects of radiation can be grouped into two types: determinis-
tic effects (tissue reactions) and stochastic effects (cancer and heritable effects). These
effects are noted briefly here; the biological basis for radiological protection is cov-
ered in depth in the 2007 Recommendations and other Commission documents.
3.1. Deterministic effects (tissue reactions)
(15) If the effect only results when many cells in an organ or tissue are killed, the
effect will only be clinically observable if the radiation dose is above some threshold.
The magnitude of this threshold will depend on the dose rate (i.e. dose per unit time)
and linear energy transfer of the radiation, the organ or tissue irradiated, the volume
of the irradiated part of the organ or tissue, and the clinical effect of interest. With
increasing doses above the threshold, the probability of occurrence will rise steeply to
l00% (i.e. every exposed person will show the effect), and the severity of the effect will
increase with dose. The Commission calls these effects ‘deterministic’ (tissue reac-
tions), and a detailed discussion and information on deterministic effects (tissue reac-
tions) is found in ICRP (2007a). Such effects can occur in the application of ionising
radiation in radiation therapy, and in interventional procedures, particularly when
fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures are complex and require longer
fluoroscopy times or acquisition of numerous images.
3.2. Stochastic effects (cancer and heritable effects)
(16) There is good evidence from cellular and molecular biology that radiation
damage to the DNA in a single cell can lead to a transformed cell that is still capable
of reproduction. Despite the body’s defences, which are normally very effective, there
is a small probability that this type of damage, promoted by the influence of other
agents not necessarily associated with radiation, can lead to a malignant condition
(somatic effect). As the probability is low, this will only occur in a few of those
exposed. If the initial damage is to the germ cells in the gonads, heritable effects
may occur.
(17) The probability of a stochastic effect attributable to the radiation increases
with dose and is probably proportional to dose at low doses. At higher doses and
dose rates, the probability often increases with dose more markedly than simple pro-
portion. At even higher doses, close to the thresholds of deterministic effects (tissue
reactions), the probability increases more slowly, and may begin to decrease, because
of the competing effect of cell killing. These effects, both somatic and heritable, are
called ‘stochastic’. The probability of such effects is increased when ionising radia-
tion is used in medical procedures.
(18) Although a single radiological examination only leads to a small increase in
the probability of cancer induction in a patient, in industrialised countries each
17
member of the population undergoes, on average, one such examination each year;
therefore, the cumulative risk increases accordingly. Calculations performed on the
assumption of a linear non-threshold model of radiation action estimate that the
proportion of cancer deaths in a general population that could be attributed to
exposure from radiological procedures may reach a level from a fraction of one
to a few percent of that cancer mortality (NAS/NRC, 2006). In addition, the risk
is non-uniformly distributed in a population. Some groups of patients are examined
much more frequently due to their health status. Also, some groups show higher
than average sensitivity for cancer induction (e.g. embryo/fetus, infants, young chil-
dren, those with genetic susceptibility). Moreover, cancers occurring early in life
result in much higher lifetime loss than cancers that become manifest late in life.
All these circumstances indicate that proper justification of radiation use and opti-
misation of radiation protection in medicine are indispensable principles of radio-
logical protection.
(19) A detailed discussion and information on somatic and heritable effects is
found in ICRP (2007a), and the Commission’s view on cancer risk at low doses
is presented in Publication 99 (ICRP, 2005c). It is not feasible to determine on
epidemiological grounds alone that there is, or is not, an increased risk of can-
cer for members of the public associated with absorbed doses of the order of
100 mGy or below. The linear non-threshold model remains a prudent basis
for the practical purposes of radiological protection at low doses and low dose
rates.
(20) The Commission has also reviewed the topic of individuals with genet-
ic susceptibility to cancer, and expressed its preliminary view in Publication 79
(ICRP, 1999a) that the information available is insufficient to provide a
meaningful quantitative judgement on this issue. The Commission will con-
tinue to monitor this subject with regard to its implications for radiological
protection.
3.3. Effects of in-utero irradiation
(21) There are radiation-related risks to the embryo/fetus during pregnancy that
are related to the stage of pregnancy and the absorbed dose to the embryo/fetus.
These are noted below briefly under the topics of lethal effects, malformations, cen-
tral nervous system effects, and leukaemia and childhood cancer. The Commission
has evaluated the effects of prenatal irradiation in detail in Publication 90 (ICRP,
2003b).
3.3.1. Lethal effects
(22) There is embryonic sensitivity to the lethal effects of irradiation in the pre-
implantation period of embryonic development. At doses below 100 mGy, such
lethal effects will be very infrequent and there is no reason to believe that significant
risks to health will express after birth.
18
3.3.2. Malformations
(23) During the period of major organogenesis, conventionally taken to be from

the third to the eighth week after conception, malformations may be caused, partic-
ularly in the organs under development at the time of exposure. These effects have a
threshold of approximately 100 mGy.
3.3.3. Central nervous system
(24) From 8 to 25 weeks after conception, the central nervous system is particu-
larly sensitive to radiation. A reduction in intelligence quotient cannot be identified
clinically at fetal doses below 100 mGy. During the same time period, fetal doses in
the range of 1 Gy result in a high probability of severe mental retardation. The sen-
sitivity is highest from 8 to 15 weeks after conception, and lower from 16 to 25 weeks
of gestational age.
3.3.4. Leukaemia and childhood cancer
(25) Radiation has been shown to increase the probability of leukaemia and many
types of cancer in both adults and children. Throughout most of pregnancy, the
embryo/fetus is assumed to be at approximately the same risk for potential carcino-
genic effects as children (i.e., about three times that of the population as a whole).
(26) Consideration of the effects listed above is important when pregnant patients
undergo diagnostic examinations, interventional procedures, and radiation therapy
using ionising radiation. A balance must be attained between the health care of
the patient and the potential for detrimental health effects to the embryo/fetus that
accompanies the specific radiological procedure.
3.4. References
ICRP, 1999a. Genetic susceptibility to cancer. ICRP Publication 79. Ann. ICRP 28(1/2).
ICRP, 2003b. Biological effects after prenatal irradiation (embryo and fetus). ICRP Publication 90. Ann.
ICRP 33(1/2).
ICRP, 2005c. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. ICRP Publication 99. Ann. ICRP
35(4).
ICRP, 2007a. Biological and epidemiological information on health risks attributable to ionising
radiation: a summary of judgements for the purposes of radiological protection of humans. Annex A to
2007 Recommendations.
NAS/NRC, 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionising Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2.
Board on Radiation Effects Research. National Research Council of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C.
19
4. DOSIMETRIC QUANTITIES
(27) The basic physical quantity used in radiological protection for stochastic ef-
fects is the absorbed dose averaged over an organ or tissue (i.e. mean absorbed dose;
the energy deposited in the organ divided by the mass of that organ or tissue). For
deterministic effects (tissue reactions), the absorbed dose is averaged over the highly
irradiated portion of the tissue, such as the volume of irradiated skin in the direct
radiation field. The SI unit for absorbed dose is joule per kilogramme (J/kg) and
its special name is ‘gray’ (Gy).
(28) During medical imaging procedures using x rays, absorbed doses in organs or
tissues of the patient undergoing diagnostic or interventional procedures cannot usu-
ally be measured directly. Therefore, measurable quantities that characterise the
external radiation field are used to assist in managing the patient dose. These include
simple quantities such as absorbed dose in a tissue-equivalent material at the surface
of a body or in a phantom, but also a number of other quantities of varying com-
plexity, depending on the nature of the x-ray equipment [e.g. for CT, see ICRP
(2000d, 2007c)]. Significant progress has been achieved in recent years in providing
methods to derive absorbed doses in tissues and organs from a number of practical
measurements, and a considerable body of data is available, in particular that found
in ICRU Report 74, ‘Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging’ (ICRU,
2005). In nuclear medicine, administered activity [in becquerels (Bq)] is the measur-
able quantity used.
(29) Some radiations are more effective than others in causing stochastic effects. To
allow for this, a quantity equivalent dose (the average absorbed dose in an organ or
tissue multiplied by a dimensionless radiation weighting factor) has been introduced.
For all the principal radiations used in medicine (photons and electrons), the radia-
tion weighting factor is assigned a value of 1, so the absorbed dose and the equiva-
lent dose are numerically equal. For alpha particles and heavy ions, the radiation
weighting factor is 20, for protons, the radiation weighting factor is 2, and for neu-
trons, the radiation weighting factor is a continuous function of the neutron energy
incident on the body. The special name for the unit of equivalent dose is sievert (Sv).
A detailed discussion on radiation weighting factors is provided in Publication 92
(ICRP, 2003c).
(30) Radiation exposure of the different organs and tissues in the body results in
different probabilities of harm and different severities. The Commission calls the
combination of probability and severity of harm ‘detriment’, meaning health detri-
ment. To reflect the combined detriment from stochastic effects due to the equivalent
doses in all the organs and tissues of the body, the equivalent dose in each organ and
tissue is multiplied by a tissue weighting factor, and the results are summed over the
whole body to give the effective dose. The special name for the unit of effective dose
is also sievert (Sv). The tissue weighting factors in the 2007 Recommendations are
those recommended in ICRP (2007b).
(31) The Commission intended effective dose for use as a principal protection
quantity for the establishment of radiological protection guidance. It should not
be used to assess risks of stochastic effects in retrospective situations for exposures
21
in identified individuals, nor should it be used in epidemiological evaluations of hu-
man exposure, because the Commission has made judgements on the relative severity
of various components of the radiation risks in the derivation of ‘detriment’ for the
purpose of defining tissue weighting factors. Such risks for stochastic effects are
dependent on age and sex. The age and sex distributions of workers and the general
population (for which the effective dose is derived) can be quite different from the
overall age and sex distribution for the population undergoing medical procedures
using ionising radiation, and will also differ from one type of medical procedure
to another, depending on the prevalence of the individuals for the medical condition
being evaluated. For these reasons, risk assessment for medical uses of ionising radi-
ation 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.
(32) Effective dose can be of practical value for comparing the relative doses re-
lated to stochastic effects from:
different diagnostic examinations and interventional 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 effec-
tive doses are derived are similar with regard to age and sex. However, comparisons
of effective doses derived as given in Section 4.3.5 of the Commission’s 2007 Recom-
mendations (ICRP, 2007d) are inappropriate when there are significant dissimilari-
ties between the age and sex distributions of the representative patients or patient
populations being compared (e.g., children, all females, elderly patients) and the
Commission’s reference distribution of both sexes and all ages. This is a consequence
of the fact that the magnitudes of risk for stochastic effects are dependent on age and
sex.
4.1. References
ICRP, 2003c. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor
(wR). ICRP Publication 92. Ann. ICRP 33(4).
ICRP, 2007b. Quantities used in radiological protection. Annex B to 2007 Recommendations.
Ann. ICRP 37(1).
ICRU, 2005. Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging. ICRU Report 74. J. ICRU 5(2).
22
5. FRAMEWORK OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN THE 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS
(33) The primary aim of radiological protection is to provide an appropriate stan-

dard of protection for people and the environment without unduly limiting the ben-
eficial practices giving rise to radiation exposure. As noted before, medical radiation
sources are used deliberately in the health care of patients and are designed for use in
a controlled manner.
(34) In its 2007 Recommendations (ICRP, 2007d), the Commission has formu-
lated a set of principles that apply equally to planned, emergency, and existing situ-
ations, and clarifies how the fundamental principles (justification, optimisation of
protection, and application of dose limits) apply to radiation sources and to the indi-
vidual, as well as how the source-related principles (justification and optimisation of
protection) apply to all exposure situations.
5.1. Source-related principles
(35) The following two source-related principles apply in all exposure situations.
The principle of justification: any decision that alters the existing radiation expo-
sure situation (e.g. by introducing a new radiation source or by reducing existing
exposure) should do more good than harm. This means that by introducing a new
radiation source, by reducing existing exposure, or by reducing the risk of poten-
tial exposure, one should achieve sufficient individual or societal benefit to offset
the detriment it causes.
The principle of optimisation of protection: the likelihood of incurring exposures,
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. This means that 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 the individuals from a particular
source (dose or risk constraints and reference levels).
The Commission uses ‘dose constraint’ in planned exposure situations and ‘refer-
ence level’ for existing and emergency exposure situations. However, although the
medical exposure of patients is a planned situation, the dose constraint is not appli-
cable and the diagnostic reference level (Section 10) is used as a tool for the optimi-
sation of protection in medical exposure of patients.
5.2. Individual-related principle
(36) This principle applies in planned exposure situations, except medical exposure
of patients.
23
The principle of application of dose limits in planned situations: the total dose to
any individual from all the regulated sources in planned situations other than
medical exposure of patients should not exceed the appropriate limits recom-
mended by the Commission.
(37) 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 medical exposure
of patients, because such limits or constraints would often do more harm than good
(see Sections 9.2 and 11).
(38) In most situations in medicine, other than radiation therapy, it is not neces-
sary to approach the thresholds for deterministic effects (tissue reactions), even for
the most part in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, if the staff are
properly educated and trained. The Commission’s policy is therefore to limit expo-
sures so as to keep doses below these thresholds. The possibility of stochastic effects
cannot be eliminated totally, so the policy is to avoid unnecessary sources of expo-
sure and to take all reasonable steps to reduce the doses from those sources of expo-
sure that are necessary or cannot be avoided.
(39) In using these principles to develop a practical system of radiological protec-
tion that fits smoothly into the conduct of the activity, the Commission uses a divi-
sion into three types of exposure: medical exposure, which is principally the exposure
of persons as part of their diagnosis or treatment (or exposure of a patient’s embryo/
fetus or breast-feeding infant) and their comforters and carers (other than occupa-
tional), but also includes volunteers in biomedical research; occupational exposure,
which is exposure incurred at work and principally as a result of work; and public
exposure, which comprises all other exposures. In some respects, the system of pro-
tection is applied differently to these types of exposure, so it is important to clarify
the distinctions. The distinctions concerning medical exposure to patients, comfort-
ers and carers (other than occupational), and volunteers in biomedical research (as
described in Section 2) are covered in this document.
5.3. Reference
24
6. UNIQUE ASPECTS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN MEDICINE
FOR PATIENTS
(40) Several features of radiation exposure in medicine for patients require an ap-
proach to radiological protection that is somewhat different from that for other types
of radiation exposure.
6.1. Deliberate exposure
(41) The exposure of patients is deliberate. Except in radiation therapy, it is not

the aim to deliver radiation dose, but rather to use the radiation to provide diagnos-
tic information or to conduct an interventional procedure. Nevertheless, the dose is
given deliberately and cannot be reduced indefinitely without prejudicing the in-
tended outcome.
6.2. Voluntary exposure
(42) Medical uses of radiation for patients are voluntary in nature, combined with
the expectation of direct individual health benefit to the patient. The voluntary deci-
sion is made with varying degrees of informed consent that includes not only the ex-
pected benefit but also the potential risks (including radiation). The amount of
information provided in order to obtain informed consent varies based on the expo-
sure level (e.g. whether diagnostic, interventional, or therapeutic) and the possible
emergent medical circumstances that may be attributable to radiation exposure.
Generally, little informed consent is obtained for low-risk procedures (such as a
chest x-ray procedure), more informed consent is obtained for interventional proce-
dures, and a high level (typically written) of consent is often obtained before most
radiation therapy.
(43) The exception to the concept of a voluntary exposure leading to a direct indi-
vidual medical benefit is the use of radiation in biomedical research. In these circum-
stances, the voluntary exposure usually accrues to a societal benefit rather than an
individual benefit. Informed consent is always needed.
6.3. Medical screening of asymptomatic patients
(44) Screening is performed with the aim of identifying a disease process that has
not become manifest clinically. The aim is that earlier diagnosis will lead to earlier
and more effective treatment and a better outcome in terms of quality of life and sur-
vival. For example, current screening practices using ionising radiation (e.g. mam-
mography) appear to be valid and are recommended for certain populations. On
the other hand, there is increasing use of CT (including self-referral) and positron
emission tomography in screening for disease in asymptomatic individuals, and most
of these screening applications have not been justified on the basis of current scien-
tific literature.
25
(45) Patients undergoing screening should be fully informed of the potential ben-
efits and risks, including the radiation risks. Each application of ionising radiation
for screening of asymptomatic individuals should be evaluated and justified with re-
gard to its clinical merit.
6.4. Radiation therapy
(46) In radiation therapy, the aim is to eradicate the neoplastic target tissue or to
palliate the patient’s symptoms. Some deterministic damage (tissue reactions) to sur-
rounding tissue and some risk of stochastic effects in exposed non-target tissues are
inevitable, but the goal of all radiation therapy is to optimise the relationship be-
tween the probability of tumour control and normal tissue complications.
6.5. Management of radiation dose
(47) In medicine, the requirement is to manage the radiation dose to the patient to
be commensurate with the medical purpose. The goal is to use the appropriate dose
to obtain the desired image or desired therapy. In this regard, the Commission intro-
duced the use of diagnostic reference levels for imaging procedures, which will be dis-
cussed in more detail later in this report.
6.6. Demographics of the patient population
(48) Risk estimates developed by the Commission apply to either the working pop-
ulation or the whole population, and were derived for age- and sex-averaged popu-
lations for the purpose of establishing radiological protection guidance (see Section
4). The risks for various age groups differ depending on the age at exposure and the
organs and tissues exposed. For the exposure of young children, the attributable life-
time risk of death (total cancers) would be higher, perhaps by a factor of 2 or 3
(ICRP, 1991a). For many common types of diagnostic examination, the higher risk
per unit dose may be offset by the reduction in dose relative to the dose received by
an adult. For an age at exposure of approximately 60 years, the risk would be lower,
perhaps by a factor of 3. At higher ages at exposure, the risks are even lower (ICRP,
1991a).
(49) It is difficult to apply the concept of effective dose to compare doses from
medical exposure of patients to other sources of exposure to humans, as the effective
dose values for the other sources are for an age- and sex-averaged population. Effec-
tive dose can be of value for comparing doses from different diagnostic procedures
and for comparing the use of similar technologies and procedures in different hospi-
tals and countries, as well as the use of different technologies for the same medical
examination, provided that the reference patient or patient populations are similar
with regard to age and sex. As noted in Section 4, for planning the exposure of pa-
tients and risk–benefit assessments, the equivalent dose or the absorbed dose to irra-
diated tissues is the relevant quantity.
26
6.7. Range of detriments from radiation uses in medicine
(50) A wide range of potential radiation detriment to an individual patient occurs

in medical practice. The detriments range from (most commonly) minimal to (rarely)
lethal.
(51) An example of minimal detriment would be a chest x-ray procedure on a very
elderly patient. There would be no chance, due to the low absorbed dose, of
deterministic effects (tissue reactions) and, in view of the patient’s age, essentially
no risk of stochastic effects being expressed in the individual’s lifetime.
(52) An example of more significant potential for radiation detriment is CT exam-
inations, which can involve relatively high doses to patients. The absorbed doses to
tissues from a whole-body CT examination are typically in the range of 10–100 mGy.
Therefore, a non-symptomatic 45-year-old adult who, beginning at that age, under-
goes voluntary (self-referred) annual whole-body CT examinations for 30 years
could accrue a significant lifetime cumulative absorbed dose to tissues [i.e. 300–
3000 mGy (0.3–3 Gy)]. This cumulative absorbed dose is of a magnitude at which
an increase in the probability of cancer has been observed in human epidemiological
studies (UNSCEAR, 2000).
(53) There is also a growing number of deterministic injuries (tissue reactions)
resulting from unnecessarily high doses from the use of fluoroscopy during interven-
tional procedures (ICRP, 2000b). In addition, in radiation oncology, the tolerance
for deviation from the treatment regimen is very small. Usually, overdosage in excess
of 10% will result in an unacceptably high risk of complications. Underdosage will
result in failure to cure the cancer and will lead to more cancer deaths than expected.
6.8. References
85. Ann. ICRP 30(2).
Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes, United Nations,
New York, NY.
27
7. DISCUSSION OF THE TERM ‘PRACTICE’
(54) The Commission previously distinguished between ‘practices’ that added

doses and ‘interventions’ that reduced doses (ICRP, 1991a). Different protection
principles were applied in the two situations. That distinction caused difficulties
and was seen as artificial. The Commission now recommends one set of principles
for all the situations to which its recommendations apply, namely planned, emer-
gency, and existing situations.
(55) The term ‘practice’ has, however, become widely used in radiological protec-
tion. In the field of medicine, the term ‘practice’ typically refers to the medical care
that a practitioner provides to patients. For example, in radiation oncology, the term
refers to initial consultation with the patient, accurate diagnosis and staging of the
cancer, treatment planning, administering a course of treatment, and subsequent
follow-up.
(56) The term ‘practice’, when the Commission is communicating with the medical
community regarding the utilisation of ionising radiation in medicine, needs to be
presented in a way that is readily understood by the medical community. The term
‘radiological practice in medicine’ is recommended in order to differentiate between
the usual meaning of ‘practice’ in medicine. This should help the medical profession
to better understand the radiological protection concepts of the Commission.
7.1. Reference
29
8. JUSTIFICATION OF A RADIOLOGICAL PRACTICE IN MEDICINE
(57) In principle, the decision to adopt or continue any human activity involves a
review of the benefits and disadvantages of the possible options. This review usually
provides a number of alternative procedures that will do more good than harm. The
more elaborate process of judging which of these options is the ‘best’ (e.g. choosing
between the use of x rays or ultrasound) is still necessary and is more complex. The
harm, more strictly the detriment, to be considered is not confined to that associated
with the radiation; it includes other detriments and the economic and societal costs
of the practice. Often, the radiation detriment will be only a small part of the total.
For these reasons, the Commission limits its use of the term ‘justification’ to the first
of the above stages (i.e. it requires only that the net benefit be positive). Searching for
the best available option is usually a task beyond the responsibility of radiological
protection organisations.
(58) Depending on the healthcare system in a country, there may be an influence of
commercial interests on referral of patients to radiological examinations, since such
examinations may be a major source of income to hospitals, academic medical insti-
tutions, and clinics with modern radiological departments. Such a situation may cre-
ate referral incentives for frequent radiological examinations of patients that could
exceed the needs of good medical practice. The Commission disapproves of such
referrals that confer unjustifiable risk on patients, being inconsistent with medical
ethics and principles of radiological protection.
(59) Most of the assessments needed for the justification of a radiological practice
in medicine are made on the basis of experience, professional judgement, and com-
mon sense. However, quantitative decision-aiding techniques are available and, if the
necessary data are accessible, they should be considered.
(60) There are three levels of justification of a radiological practice in medicine.
At the first and most general level, the proper use of radiation in medicine is
accepted as doing more good than harm to society. This general level of justifica-
tion is now taken for granted, and is not discussed here further.
At the second level, a specified procedure with a specified objective is defined and
justified (e.g. chest x rays for patients showing relevant symptoms, or a group of
individuals at risk for a condition that can be detected and treated). The aim of
the second level of justification is to judge whether the radiological procedure will
improve the diagnosis or treatment, or will provide necessary information about
the exposed individuals.
At the third level, the application of the procedure to an individual patient should
be justified (i.e. the particular application should be judged to do more good than
harm to the individual patient). Hence all individual medical exposures should be
justified in advance, taking into account the specific objectives of the exposure and
the characteristics of the individual involved.
(61) The second and third levels of justification are discussed below.
31
8.1. Justification of a defined radiological procedure (Level 2)
(62) The justification of a radiological procedure is a matter for national and inter-
national professional bodies, in conjunction with national health and radiological
protection authorities, and the corresponding international organisations. The total
benefits from a medical procedure include not only the direct health benefits to the
patient, but also the benefits to the patient’s family and to society.
(63) It should be noted that the justification of a medical procedure does not nec-
essarily lead to the same choice of the best procedure in all situations. For example,
chest fluoroscopy for the diagnosis of serious pulmonary conditions may do more
good than harm, but chest radiography is likely to be the procedure of choice in a
country with substantial resources, because the ratio of good to harm would be lar-
ger. However, fluoroscopy may be the procedure chosen in developing countries with
fewer resources, if it would still produce a net benefit and if no better alternatives
were available.
(64) In a similar manner, the justification for routine radiological screening for
some types of cancer will depend on the national incidence and on the availability
of effective treatment for detected cases. National variations are to be expected.
(65) Although the main exposures in medicine are to patients, the exposures to
staff and to members of the public who are not connected with the procedures should
be considered. The possibility of accidental or unintended exposures should also be
considered. The decisions should be reviewed from time to time, as more information
becomes available about the risks and effectiveness of the existing procedure and
about new procedures.
(66) The justification of diagnostic investigations for which the benefit to the
patient is not the primary objective needs special consideration. In the use of radio-
graphy for insurance purposes, the primary benefit usually accrues to the insurer, but
there may be some economic benefit for the individual examined. Examinations
ordered by physicians as a defence against malpractice claims may only have mar-
ginal advantages for the individual patient.
8.2. Justification of a procedure for an individual patient (Level 3)
(67) Justification of individual exposures should include checking that the required
information is not already available. Usually, no additional justification is needed
for the application of a simple diagnostic procedure to an individual patient with
the symptoms or indications for which the procedure has already been justified in
general. For high-dose examinations, such as complex diagnostic and interventional
procedures, individual justification by the practitioner is particularly important and
should take account of all the available information. This includes the details of the
proposed procedure and of alternative procedures, the characteristics of the individ-
ual patient, the expected dose to the patient, and the availability of information on
previous or expected examinations or treatment. It will often be possible to speed up
the procedure by defining referral criteria and patient categories in advance.
32
9. OPTIMISATION OF PROTECTION FOR PATIENTS IN MEDICAL
EXPOSURES
9.1. General approach
(68) The optimisation of radiological protection for patients in medicine is usually

applied at two levels: (1) the design, appropriate selection, and construction of equip-
ment and installations; and (2) the day-to-day methods of working (i.e. the working
procedures). The basic aim of this optimisation of protection is to adjust the protec-
tion measures for a source of radiation in such a way that the net benefit is
maximised.
(69) The concepts involved can be set out in simple terms, but their practical appli-
cation can range from simple common sense to complex quantitative processes. In
selecting the provision for protection in relation to a source, there is always a choice
of options. The choice of protection option directly alters the level of exposure of the
patient, the staff, and sometimes the public. However, the choice also alters the scale
of resources applied to protection. These resources may be reflected directly in finan-
cial costs, but they may also involve less easily quantified societal costs such as other
health risks to staff.
(70) The optimisation of radiological protection means keeping the doses ‘as low
as reasonably achievable, economic and societal factors being taken into account’,
and is best described as management of the radiation dose to the patient to be com-
mensurate with the medical purpose.
9.2. Use of diagnostic reference levels and dose constraints
(71) In protection of the patient, the detriments and benefits are received by the
same individual, the patient, and the dose to the patient is determined principally
by the medical needs. Dose constraints for patients are therefore inappropriate, in
contrast to their importance in occupational and public exposure. Nevertheless,
management of patient dose is important and can often be facilitated for diagnostic
and interventional procedures by use of a diagnostic reference level, which is a meth-
od for evaluating whether the patient dose (with regard to stochastic effects) is
unusually high or low for a particular medical imaging procedure (Section 10).
(72) In the exposure of comforters and carers (other than occupational), and in the
exposure of volunteers in biomedical research programmes that provide no direct
benefit to the volunteers, dose constraints are applicable to limit inequity and be-
cause there is no further protection in the form of a dose limit.
9.3. Management of medical exposures
(73) There is considerable scope for dose reductions in diagnostic radiology. Sim-
ple, low-cost measures are available to reduce doses without loss of diagnostic infor-
mation, but the extent to which these measures are used varies widely.
33
(74) The optimisation of protection in medical exposures (as implemented through

management of patient dose) does not necessarily mean the reduction of doses to the
patient. For example, diagnostic radiographic equipment often uses antiscatter grids
to improve the image quality, yet removing the grid would allow a reduction in dose
by a factor of 2–4. For radiography of the abdomen of adults, where the scattered
radiation is important, the net benefit would be reduced by removing the grid be-
cause the benefit of the dose reduction would be more than offset by the loss of qual-
ity of the image. The optimisation of protection would not call for the removal of the
grid. In the radiography of small children, however, the amount of scattered radia-
tion is less and the benefit of the dose reduction resulting from the removal of the
grid is not fully offset by the small deterioration of the image. The optimisation of
protection then calls for the reduction in dose allowed by the removal of the grid.
(75) In radiation therapy, it is necessary to differentiate between the dose to the
target tissue and the dose to other parts of the body. If the dose to the target tissue
is too low, the therapy will be ineffective. The exposures will not have been justified
and the optimisation of protection does not arise. However, the protection of tissues
outside the target volume is an integral part of dose planning, which can be regarded
as including the same aims as the optimisation of protection.
(76) The exposure (other than occupational) of individuals helping to support and
comfort patients includes the exposure of families and friends of patients discharged
from hospital after therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures using unsealed radio-
nuclides or permanently implanted sealed sources. The procedure of optimisation
of protection for these groups is no different from that for public exposure, except
that the exposures need not be restricted by dose limits, but include the use of dose
constraints.
34
10. DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS
(77) Guidance for the use of diagnostic reference levels for patients in medical
exposure has been provided in Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a), Publication 73 (ICRP,
1996), and Supporting Guidance 2 (ICRP, 2001). Summaries of that guidance, which
include some of the history of the evolution of the concept of diagnostic reference
levels, are given in this section.
10.1. Diagnostic reference levels (Publications 60 and 73)
(78) In Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a), reference levels were described as values of

measured quantities above which some specified action or decision should be taken.
They include recording levels, above which a result should be recorded, lower values
being ignored; investigation levels, above which the cause or the implications of the
result should be examined; intervention levels, above which some remedial action
should be considered; and, more generally, action levels, above which some specified
action should be taken. The use of these levels can avoid unnecessary or unproduc-
tive work and can help in the effective deployment of resources. They can also be
helpful in radiological protection by drawing attention to situations of potentially
high risk.
(79) One particular form of reference level (the diagnostic reference level) applies
to medical x-ray imaging and diagnostic nuclear medicine. In Publication 60 (ICRP,
1991a), the Commission recommended that consideration should be given to the use
of dose constraints, or investigation levels, selected by the appropriate professional
organisation or regulatory authority, for application in some common diagnostic
procedures. They should be applied with flexibility, to allow higher doses where indi-
cated by sound clinical judgement. In Publication 73 (ICRP, 1996), the Commission
decoupled the concept of diagnostic reference level from that of a dose constraint,
and discussed the concept in more detail, as noted below.
(80) Diagnostic reference levels, which are a form of investigation level, apply to
an easily measured quantity, usually the absorbed dose in air, or in a tissue-equiva-
lent material at the surface of a simple standard phantom or representative patient.
In nuclear medicine, the quantity will usually be the administered activity. In both
cases, the diagnostic reference level will be intended for use as a simple test for iden-
tifying situations where the levels of patient dose or administered activity are unusu-
ally high or low.
(81) If it is found that procedures are consistently causing the relevant diagnostic
reference level to be exceeded, there should be a local review of the procedures and
the equipment in order to determine whether the protection has been adequately
optimised. If not, measures aimed at reduction of the doses should be taken.
(82) Diagnostic reference levels are supplements to professional judgement and do
not provide a dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ medicine. They contribute to
good radiological practice in medicine. The numerical values of diagnostic reference
levels are advisory; however, implementation of the diagnostic reference level
concept may be required by an authorised body (ICRP, 2001). It is inappropriate
35
to use the numerical values for diagnostic reference levels as regulatory limits or for
commercial purposes.
(83) Diagnostic reference levels apply to radiation exposure of patients resulting
from medical x-ray imaging and diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures. They do
not apply to radiation therapy. Diagnostic reference levels have no direct linkage
to the numerical values of the Commission’s dose limits or dose constraints. Ideally,
they should be the result of a generic optimisation of protection. In practice, this is
unrealistically difficult and it is simpler to choose the initial values as a percentile
point on the observed distribution of doses to patients. The values should be selected
by professional medical bodies (in conjunction with national health and radiological
protection authorities), and reviewed at intervals that represent a compromise be-
tween the necessary stability and the long-term changes in the observed dose distri-
butions. The selected values could be specific to a country or region.
(84) In principle, it may be possible to choose a lower diagnostic reference level
below which the doses would be too low to provide a sufficiently good image quality.
However, such diagnostic reference levels are very difficult to set, because factors
other than dose also influence image quality. Nevertheless, if the observed doses
or administered activities are consistently well below the diagnostic reference level,
there should be a local review of the quality of the images obtained.
10.2. Diagnostic reference levels (Supporting Guidance 2)
(85) More recently, in Supporting Guidance 2 (ICRP, 2001), additional advice was
provided, as noted below in paragraphs (86)–(94). ICRP (2001) also includes a
survey of the various approaches that have been taken by authorised bodies, work-
ing in concert with professional medical groups, to establish diagnostic reference
levels for medical imaging tasks.
(86) The objective of a diagnostic reference level is to help avoid radiation dose to
the patient that does not contribute to the clinical purpose of a medical imaging task.
This is accomplished by comparison between the numerical value of the diagnostic
reference level (derived from relevant regional, national, or local data) and the mean
or other appropriate value observed in practice for a suitable reference group of pa-
tients or a suitable reference phantom. A reference group of patients is usually de-
fined within a certain range of physical parameters (e.g. height, weight). If an
unselected sample of patients was used as a reference group, it would be unclear
whether the observed value for the sample was appropriate for comparison with
the diagnostic reference level. A diagnostic reference level is used for a given medical
imaging task or protocol, and is not applied to individual patients.
(87) A diagnostic reference level can be used:
to improve a regional, national, or local distribution of observed results for a gen-
eral medical imaging task, by reducing the frequency of unjustified high or low
values;
to promote attainment of a narrower range of values that represent good practice
for a more specific medical imaging task; or
36
to promote attainment of an optimum range of values for a specified medical

imaging protocol.
(88) These uses are differentiated by the degree of specification for the clinical and
technical conditions selected for a given medical imaging task. Definitions and exam-
ples associated with the uses are given in Supporting Guidance 2 (ICRP, 2001).
(89) Appropriate local review and action is taken when the value observed in prac-
tice is consistently outside the selected upper or lower level. This process helps to
avoid unnecessary tissue doses being received by patients in general and, therefore,
helps to avoid unnecessary risk for the associated stochastic radiation health effects.
(90) For fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, diagnostic reference
levels, in principle, could be used to promote the management of patient doses with
regard to avoiding unnecessary stochastic radiation risks. However, the observed
distribution of patient doses is very wide, even for a specified protocol, because
the duration and complexity of the fluoroscopic exposure for each conduct of a
procedure is strongly dependent on the individual clinical circumstances. A potential
approach is to take into consideration not only the usual clinical and technical
factors, but also the relative ‘complexity’ of the procedure.
(91) Diagnostic reference levels are not applicable to the management of determin-
istic effects (tissue reactions) (i.e. radiation-induced skin injuries) from fluoroscopi-
cally guided interventional procedures. In this case, the objective is to avoid
deterministic effects (tissue reactions) in individual patients undergoing justified
but long and complex procedures. The need here is to monitor, in real time, whether
the threshold doses for deterministic effects (tissue reactions) are being approached
or exceeded for the actual procedure as conducted on a particular patient. The rel-
evant risk quantity is absorbed dose in the skin at the site of maximum cumulative
skin dose. A helpful approach is to select values for maximum cumulative absorbed
dose in the skin at which various clinical actions regarding the patient’s record or
care (related to potential radiation-induced skin injuries) are taken (ICRP, 2000b).
Then, during actual procedures, appropriate quantities that can help to indicate
the maximum cumulative absorbed dose in the skin are monitored.
(92) Diagnostic reference levels should be used to help manage the radiation dose
to patients so that the dose is commensurate with the clinical purpose.
(93) The concept of a diagnostic reference level permits flexibility in the choice of
quantities, numerical values, and technical or clinical specifications in order to meet
the objectives relevant to the local circumstances. The guiding principles for setting a
diagnostic reference level are:
the regional, national, or local objective is clearly defined, including the degree of
specification of clinical and technical conditions for the medical imaging task;
the selected value of the diagnostic reference level is based on relevant regional,
national, or local data;
the quantity used for the diagnostic reference level can be obtained in a practical
way;
37
the quantity used for the diagnostic reference level is a suitable measure of the rel-
ative change in patient tissue doses and, therefore, of the relative change in patient
risk for the given medical imaging task; and
the manner in which the diagnostic reference level is to be applied in practice is
clearly illustrated.
(94) Professional medical bodies (in conjunction with national health and radio-
logical protection authorities) are encouraged to set diagnostic reference levels that
best meet their specific needs and that are consistent for the regional, national, or
local area to which they apply.
10.3. References
85. Ann. ICRP 30(2).
ICRP 31(4).
38
11. INDIVIDUAL DOSE LIMITS
(95) It is not appropriate to apply dose limits to medical exposure of patients, be-
cause such limits would often do more harm than good. Often, there are concurrent
chronic, severe, or even life-threatening medical conditions that are more critical
than the radiation exposure. The emphasis is then on justification of the medical pro-
cedures and on the optimisation of radiological protection.
39
12. PREVENTING ACCIDENTS IN RADIATION
THERAPY
(96) This section discusses accident prevention in radiation therapy (equipment

and procedures) (ICRP, 2000c, 2005a,b).
(97) Accident prevention in radiation therapy should be an integral part of the
design of equipment and premises, and of the working procedures. A key feature
of accident prevention has long been the use of multiple safeguards against the
consequences of failures. This approach, called ‘defence in depth’, aims to prevent
equipment failures and human errors, and mitigates their consequences should they
happen. Some defences are provided by the design of equipment, others by the
working procedures.
(98) Radiation therapy equipment should be designed to reduce operator errors by
automatically rejecting demands outside the design specification. In addition, enclo-
sures should be designed to exclude staff during exposures, without unduly isolating
the patient.
(99) Radiation therapy equipment should be calibrated after installation and after
any modification, and should be routinely checked by a standard test procedure that
will detect significant changes in performance, as described in Publication 86 (ICRP,
2000c).
(100) Working procedures should require key decisions, especially in radiation
therapy, to be subject to independent confirmation. The patient’s identity and the
correct link to the prescribed treatment should be double-checked. In therapeutic nu-
clear medicine, dual checks should be made on the correctness of the pharmaceutical
and its activity. Effective communication between all the staff involved is a vital part
of the process.
(101) Radioactive sources used for therapy can cause very serious exposures if they
are mislaid or misused. Brachytherapy sources should be subject to frequent and
thorough accounting checks, and provision should be made for their eventual safe
disposal. The possible presence of implanted sources or therapeutic activities of
radiopharmaceuticals should be taken into account in the handling of deceased
patients.
12.1. References
35(2).
41
13. MANAGING ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS INVOLVING
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
(102) This section discusses remedial actions that can be taken to reduce doses, or
their consequences, resulting from an accident or from the misuse of a radioactive
material. However, accidents and errors may also occur with x-ray generators and
accelerators. While termination of such exposures ends the irradiation, the excess
doses or their consequences may require medical treatment.
(103) In fractionated radiation therapy, an error in an early fraction can be partly
corrected by adjusting further fractions. This is best thought of as part of dose plan-
ning rather than medical intervention.
(104) The misadministration of radiopharmaceuticals in diagnostic nuclear medi-
cine does not usually cause a serious health problem, but does need to be explained
fully to the patient.
(105) Several examples of remedial actions in emergency situations associated with
the use of radioactive materials in medicine are as follows.
The dose from an excessive or erroneous administration of radioiodine in therapy
may be reduced by the early administration of stable iodine as potassium iodide or
iodate to reduce the uptake of radioiodine by the thyroid.
The dose from a missing brachytherapy source can be reduced by measures to
locate the source and warnings to those who may be exposed.
The dose from a major spill of radioactive materials in nuclear medicine may be
reduced by the early isolation of the contaminated area and by the controlled
evacuation of staff and patients.
The doses resulting from the improper disposal and subsequent damage or mis-
handling of a teletherapy source may be both serious and widespread. Major
countermeasures in the public domain may have to include evacuation, destruc-
tion of property, and decontamination of substantial areas. A widespread moni-
toring programme will be indispensable. Guidance on the levels of averted dose
that would justify such actions is given in Publication 63 (ICRP, 1993).
13.1. Reference
ICRP, 1993. Principles for intervention for protection of the public in a radiological emergency. ICRP
43
14. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
(106) There should be radiological protection training requirements for physicians,

dentists, and other health professionals who order, conduct, or assist in medical or
dental procedures that utilise ionising radiation in diagnostic and interventional pro-
cedures, nuclear medicine, and radiation therapy. The final responsibility for the
radiation exposure lies with the physician, who should be aware of the risks and ben-
efits of the procedures involved.
(107) Relative to radiation use in medicine, three distinct categories of physicians
can be identified:
physicians that are trained in the ionising radiation medical specialties (e.g. radi-
ologists, nuclear medicine physicians, radiation oncologists);
other physicians that utilise ionising radiation modalities in their practice (e.g.
cardiologists, vascular surgeons, urologists); and
physicians that prescribe medical procedures that use ionising radiation.
(108) Education and training, appropriate to the role of each category of physi-
cian, should be given at medical schools, during the residency, and in focused specific
courses. There should be an evaluation of the training, and appropriate recognition
that the individual has completed the training successfully. In addition, there should
be corresponding radiological protection training requirements for other clinical per-
sonnel that participate in the conduct of procedures utilising ionising radiation, or in
the care of patients undergoing diagnosis or treatments with ionising radiation.
45
15. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
(109) In particular, it is important to clarify the separate responsibilities of the

referring physicians who request radiological procedures, the radiologists and other
practitioners who undertake the procedures, and the administrators who provide the
resources. The role of medical physicists also should be incorporated.
(110) One important need is to provide adequate resources for education and
training in radiological protection for future professional and technical staff who re-
quest or partake in radiological practices in medicine. The training programme
should include initial training for all incoming staff, regular updating and retraining,
and certification of the training.
(111) Quality assurance programmes are essential for maintaining the intended
standards in all the functions of the undertaking. Their scope should specifically in-
clude radiological protection and safety. Quality assurance and audit programmes
(including patient dose or administered activity assessments) and inspections by
competent authorities should ensure that medical exposure is delivered under good
radiation protection conditions. These programmes should include acceptance test-
ing carried out before the first use of the equipment for clinical purposes, and there-
after performance testing on a regular basis and after any major maintenance
procedure. Specific quality assurance programmes should be adapted to the new
imaging technologies (e.g. digital) and radiation therapy procedures.
(112) Any system of verification includes record keeping. The requirements for
recording occupational exposures will usually be determined by the regulatory
authorities. When procedure-related dose quantities are measured for diagnostic
or interventional procedures, records should be kept of any comparisons with diag-
nostic reference levels. In radiation therapy, the data from dose planning, adminis-
tered activity (in nuclear medicine), and, for radiation therapy patients, the
activity at the time of discharge should be included in the patients’ records.
47
16. PRACTICAL METHODS OF PROTECTION OTHER THAN FOR
PATIENTS
16.1. Occupational exposure
(113) The principles for the protection of workers from ionising radiation, includ-
ing in medicine, are discussed fully in Publication 75 (ICRP, 1997). These principles
apply to staff in x-ray, nuclear medicine, and radiation therapy facilities.
(114) The control of occupational exposure can be simplified and made more effec-
tive by the designation of workplaces into two types: controlled areas and supervised
areas. In a controlled area, normal working conditions, including the possible occur-
rence of minor mishaps, require workers to follow well-established procedures and
practices aimed specifically at controlling radiation exposures. A supervised area is
one in which the working conditions are kept under review, but special procedures
are not normally needed. The definitions are best based on operational experience
and judgement. In areas where there is no problem of contamination by unsealed
radioactive materials, designated areas may sometimes be defined in terms of the
dose rate at the boundary.
(115) Individual monitoring for external radiation is fairly simple and does not re-
quire a heavy commitment of resources. In medicine, it should be used for all those
who work in controlled areas.
(116) In several areas of medicine, the control of occupational exposure is of par-
ticular importance. One of these is the nursing of brachytherapy patients when the
sources have been implanted, rather than inserted by after-loading techniques. A sec-
ond is palpation of patients during procedures utilising fluoroscopy. A third is in
fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, as in heart catheterisation. A
fourth is radiopharmaceutical preparation by staff in nuclear medicine. In all these
procedures, careful shielding and time limits are needed. Individual monitoring with
careful scrutiny of the results is also important. In brachytherapy, frequent and care-
ful accounting of sources is essential.
(117) The system for protecting staff from the source (e.g. shielding) should be de-
signed to minimise any sense of isolation experienced by the patient. This is partic-
ularly relevant in nuclear medicine and brachytherapy, where the source is within the
patient.
(118) The Commission recommends that the working conditions of a pregnant
worker, after the declaration of pregnancy, should be such as to make it unlikely that
the additional equivalent dose to the embryo/fetus will exceed approximately 1 mSv
during the remainder of the pregnancy. In the interpretation of this recommenda-
tion, it is important not to create unnecessary discrimination against pregnant
women. The part of a pregnancy prior to declaration of the pregnancy is covered
by the normal protection of workers, which is essentially the same for females and
males.
49
16.2. Public exposure
(119) Public access to hospitals and radiology rooms is restricted, but it is more
open than is common in industrial and research laboratory operations. There are
no radiological protection grounds for imposing restrictions on public access to
non-designated areas. Due to the limited duration of public access, an access policy
can be adopted for supervised areas if this is of benefit to patients or visitors and
there are appropriate radiological protection safeguards. Public access to controlled
areas with high-activity sources (e.g. brachytherapy and other therapy sources)
should be limited to patients’ visitors, who should be advised of any restrictions
on their behaviour.
16.3. Exposure of volunteers in biomedical research
(120) The use of volunteers in biomedical research makes a substantial contribu-

tion to medicine and human radiobiology. Some research studies are of direct value
in the investigation of disease, and others provide information on the metabolism of
pharmaceuticals and radionuclides that may be absorbed from contamination of the
workplace or the environment. Not all of these studies take place in medical institu-
tions, but the Commission includes the exposure of all these volunteers under the
category of medical exposure.
(121) The ethical and procedural aspects of the use of volunteers in biomedical re-
search have been addressed by the Commission in Publication 62 (ICRP, 1991b). The
key aspects include the need to guarantee a free and informed choice by the volun-
teers, the adoption of dose constraints linked to the societal worth of the studies, and
the use of an ethics committee that can influence the design and conduct of the stud-
ies. The use of children and the mentally ill or defective in biomedical research is also
addressed in Publication 62 (ICRP, 1991b). It is important that the ethics committee
should have easy access to radiological protection advice.
(122) In many countries, radiation exposure of pregnant females in biomedical
research is not specifically prohibited. However, their involvement in such research
is very rare and should be discouraged unless pregnancy is an integral part of the
research. In order to protect the embryo/fetus, strict controls should be placed on
the use of radiation in these cases.
16.4. Exposure of comforters and carers of patients
(123) Friends and relations helping in the support and comfort of patients are also
volunteers, but there is a direct benefit both to the patient and those who care for
them. Their exposures are defined as medical exposures, but dose constraints should
be established for use in defining the protection policy for visitors to patients, and
families at home when nuclear medicine patients are discharged from hospital. Such
groups may include children. The Commission has not previously recommended val-
ues for such constraints, but a value of 5 mSv per episode for an adult (i.e. for the
duration of a given release of a patient after therapy) is reasonable. The constraint
50
needs to be used flexibly. For example, higher doses may well be appropriate for the
parents of very sick children. Young children, infants, and visitors not engaged in
direct comforting or care should be treated as members of the public (subject to
the public dose limit of 1 mSv/year). The topic of release of patients after therapy
with unsealed radionuclides is covered in further detail in Section A.7.
16.5. References
ICRP, 1991b. Radiological protection in biomedical research. ICRP Publication 62. Ann. ICRP 22(3).
ICRP, 1997. General principles for the radiation protection of workers. ICRP Publication 75. Ann. ICRP
27(1).
51
ANNEX A. FOCUSED EVALUATIONS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION
IN MEDICINE
(A1) Committee 3 has produced a number of documents that provide detailed ad-
vice related to radiological protection and safety in the medical applications of ion-
ising radiation. Each document focuses on a particular radiation source as applied in
a given medical discipline or to a given type of patient. Each document is a compen-
dium of the application of the extant Commission recommendations, as applicable
to medical radiation. In brief, the following observations appear to be predominant
with regard to radiological protection and safety in medicine.
Communications must be directed to the relevant medical practitioners, in a for-
mat in which they are conversant, and channelled to them by an appropriate
authoritative or professional body.
In diagnostic and interventional procedures, management of the patient dose
commensurate with the medical task is the appropriate mechanism to avoid
unproductive radiation exposure. Equipment features that allow this to be accom-
plished, and diagnostic reference levels derived at the appropriate national, regio-
nal, or local level are likely to be the most effective approaches.
In radiation therapy, the avoidance of accidents is the predominant issue. A
review of such accidents and advice for accident prevention is found in Publication
86 (for external beam and solid brachytherapy sources) (ICRP, 2000c), Publica-
tion 97 [additional advice for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy sources]
(ICRP, 2005a), and Publication 98 (additional advice for permanently implanted
sources used in brachytherapy for prostate cancer) (ICRP, 2005b).
(A2) Brief synopses of these focused publications are provided below in the order
in which the documents were published. Each illustrates the aspects of the Commis-
sion’s radiological protection framework that are most relevant.
A.1. Pregnancy and medical radiation (Publication 84)
(A3) Thousands of pregnant patients and radiation workers are exposed to ionis-
ing radiation each year. Lack of knowledge is responsible for great anxiety and prob-
ably unnecessary termination of pregnancies. For many patients, the exposure is
appropriate, while for other patients, the exposure may be inappropriate, placing
the embryo/fetus at increased risk.
(A4) Before any exposure using ionising radiation, it is important to determine
whether a female is, or could be, pregnant. Medical exposures during pregnancy re-
quire specific consideration due to the radiation sensitivity of the developing embryo/
fetus. The manner in which an examination is performed depends on whether the
embryo/fetus will be in the direct beam and whether the procedure requires a rela-
tively high dose.
(A5) Prenatal doses from most correctly performed diagnostic procedures present
no measurably increased risk of prenatal death, developmental damage including
malformation, or impairment of mental development over the background incidence
53
of these entities. Higher doses, such as those involved in therapeutic procedures, have
the potential to result in developmental harm.
(A6) The pregnant patient or worker has a right to know the magnitude and type
of potential radiation effects that may result from in-utero exposure. Almost always,
if a diagnostic radiology examination is medically indicated, the risk to the mother
of not performing the procedure is greater than the risk of potential harm to the
embryo/fetus. Most nuclear medicine procedures do not result in high doses to the
embryo/fetus. However, some radiopharmaceuticals that are used in nuclear medi-
cine (e.g. radioiodides) can pose increased risks to the embryo/fetus.
(A7) It is essential to ascertain whether a female patient is pregnant prior to radi-
ation therapy. In pregnant patients, cancers that are remote from the pelvis can usu-
ally be treated with radiation therapy. However, this requires careful planning.
Cancers in the pelvis cannot be treated adequately during pregnancy without severe
or lethal consequences for the embryo/fetus.
(A8) The basis for the control of occupational exposure of women who are not
pregnant is the same as that for men. However, if a woman declares to her employer
that she is pregnant, additional controls have to be considered in order to attain a
level of protection for the embryo/fetus broadly similar to that provided for members
of the public.
(A9) In many countries, radiation exposure of pregnant females in biomedical
research is not specifically prohibited. However, their involvement in such research
is very rare and should be discouraged unless pregnancy is an integral part of the
research. In order to protect the embryo/fetus, strict controls should be placed on
the use of radiation in these cases.
(A10) Termination of pregnancy is an individual decision affected by many fac-
tors. Absorbed doses below 100 mGy to the developing organism should not be con-
sidered a reason for terminating a pregnancy. At doses to the embryo/fetus above
this level, informed decisions should be made based upon individual circumstances,
including the magnitude of the estimated dose to the embryo/fetus, and the conse-
quent risks of harm to the developing embryo/fetus and risks of cancer in later life.
A.2. Interventional procedures (fluoroscopically guided) (Publication 85)
(A11) Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures are being used by an

increasing number of clinicians who are not adequately trained in radiation safety
or radiobiology. Many of these interventionists are not aware of the potential for
injury from these procedures or the simple methods for decreasing their incidence.
Many patients are not being counselled on the radiation risks, nor followed-up when
radiation doses from difficult procedures may lead to injury. Some patients are suf-
fering radiation-induced skin injuries, and younger patients may face an increased
risk of future cancer. Interventionists are having their practice limited or suffering
injury, and are exposing their staff to high doses.
(A12) In some of these interventional procedures, skin doses to patients ap-
proach those experienced in radiation therapy fractions in the treatment of can-
cer. Radiation-induced skin injuries are occurring in patients due to the use of
54
inappropriate equipment and, more often, poor operational technique. Injuries to

physicians and staff performing these interventional procedures have also been ob-
served. Acute radiation doses (to patients) may cause erythaema at 2 Gy, cataract
at 2 Gy, permanent epilation at 7 Gy, and delayed skin necrosis at 12 Gy. Pro-
tracted (occupational) exposures to the eye may cause cataracts at 4 Gy if the dose
is received in less than 3 months, and at 5.5 Gy if received over a period exceeding
3 months. However, new data on the radiosensitivity of the eye with regard to vi-
sual impairment are expected, and the Commission will consider these data when
they become available.
(A13) Practical actions to control dose to the patient and to the staff are available.
The absorbed dose to the patient in the area of skin that receives the maximum dose
is of major concern. Each local clinical protocol should include, for each type of fluo-
roscopically guided interventional procedure, a statement on the cumulative skin
doses and skin sites associated with the various parts of the procedure. Intervention-
ists should be trained to use information on skin dose and on practical techniques to
control dose. Maximum cumulative absorbed doses that appear to approach or ex-
ceed 1 Gy (for procedures that may be repeated) or 3 Gy (for any procedure) should
be recorded in the patient’s record, and there should be a follow-up procedure for
such cases. Patients should be counselled if there is a significant risk of radiation-
induced injury, and the patient’s personal physician should be informed of the pos-
sibility of radiation effects. Training in radiological protection for patients and staff
should be an integral part of the education for those using these interventional pro-
cedures. All interventionists should audit and review the outcomes of their proce-
dures for radiation injury. Risks and benefits, including radiation risks, should be
taken into account when new fluoroscopically guided interventional techniques are
introduced.
A.3. Accidental exposures in radiation therapy (Publication 86)
(A14) From the viewpoint of radiation safety, radiation therapy is a very special
application of radiation because:
human beings are directly placed in a very intense radiation beam (external beam
therapy), or radiation sources are placed in direct contact with tissue (brachyther-
apy), to deliver very high doses (20–80 Gy) intentionally; and
overdosage as well as underdosage may have severe consequences.
(A15) Publication 86 intends to assist in the prevention of accidental exposures
involving patients undergoing treatment from external beam or solid brachytherapy
sources. It does not deal directly with radiation therapy involving unsealed sources.
The document is addressed to a diverse audience of professionals directly involved in
radiation therapy procedures, hospital administrators, and health and regulatory
authorities. The approach adopted is to describe illustrative severe accidents, discuss
the causes of these events and contributory factors, summarise the sometimes devas-
tating consequences of these events, and provide recommendations on the preven-
tion of such events. The measures discussed include institutional arrangements,
55
staff training, quality assurance programmes, adequate supervision, clear definition

of responsibilities, and prompt reporting.
(A16) In many of the accidental exposures described in this report, a single cause
cannot be identified. Usually, there was a combination of factors contributing to the
accident (e.g. deficient staff training, lack of independent checks, lack of quality con-
trol procedures, and absence of overall supervision). Such combinations often point
to an overall deficiency in management, allowing patient treatment in the absence of
a comprehensive quality assurance programme. Factors common to many accidents
are identified and discussed in detail, and explicit recommendations on measures to
prevent radiation therapy accidents are given with respect to regulations, education,
and quality assurance.
(A17) Doses received during radiation therapy are on the upper edge of tolerable
doses to normal tissues. As a result, accidental overdosages have often had devastat-
ing and sometimes fatal consequences. Accidental exposures involving an overdos-
age of 10% or more should be detectable by a well-trained clinician, based upon
an unusually high incidence of adverse patient reactions. Underdosage accidents
are difficult to detect clinically and may only be manifest as poor tumour control.
(A18) The frequency of radiation therapy is increasing worldwide, and accidents
may be expected to increase in frequency if measures for prevention are not taken.
While a number of serious and fatal radiation therapy accidents are reported, it is
likely that many more have occurred but were either not recognised or reported to
regulatory authorities or published in the literature.
(A19) The complex equipment and techniques used in radiation therapy mandate
that for accident prevention, there must be sound and risk-informed regulations,
managerial commitment at the hospital level, an adequate number of trained staff,
adequate resources, a functional implemented quality assurance programme, good
communication, and continuing education.
(A20) There is a danger in not fully appreciating that modern equipment and new
technologies require more quality assurance and highly qualified maintenance. Per-
sons in charge of radiation therapy facilities should ensure that there is proper com-
missioning of new equipment and proper decommissioning of old equipment and
sources.
A.4. Computed tomography (Publication 87)
(A21) CT examinations can involve relatively high doses to patients. The cumula-
tive absorbed doses to tissues from multiple CT procedures (10–100 mGy/procedure)
can often approach or exceed the levels known, from epidemiological studies, to
increase the probability of cancer. The frequency of CT examinations is increasing
worldwide and the types of examination using CT are also becoming more numer-
ous. However, in contrast to the common trend in diagnostic radiology, the rapid
developments in CT have not led in general to a reduction of patient doses for a
given type of application.
(A22) Therefore, management of patient dose is crucial. The referring physician
should evaluate whether the result of each examination will affect the clinical
56
management of the patient. The radiologist should concur that the procedure is jus-
tified. The radiologist and CT system operator should be aware of the possibilities to
reduce patient doses by adapting technical parameters to each patient and the exam-
ination at hand, with special attention being paid to paediatric and young patients. A
reduction in patient dose of more than 50% is possible by an appropriate choice of
technical parameters, attention to quality control, and the application of diagnostic
reference levels in co-operation with a medical physicist. Further improvements in
CT equipment could help the operator to reduce unnecessary patient doses substan-
tially. The most important of these features will be anatomically based on-line
adjustment of exposure factors, and new image reconstruction approaches associ-
ated with multi-slice CT.
A.5. Guide for general practitioners (Supporting Guidance 2)
(A23) This didactic text is devoted to the protection of patients against unneces-
sary exposure to ionising radiation. It is organised in a questions-and-answers
format.
(A24) There are obvious benefits to health from medical uses of radiation, in x-ray
diagnostic examinations, interventional procedures, nuclear medicine, and radiation
therapy. However, there are well-established risks from high doses of radiation (radi-
ation therapy, interventional procedures), particularly if improperly applied, and
possible deleterious effects from small radiation doses (such as those used in diagnos-
tics). Appropriate use of large doses in radiation therapy prevents serious harm, but
even low doses carry a risk that cannot be eliminated entirely. Therefore, diagnostic
use of radiation requires such methodology that would secure high diagnostic gains
while minimising the possible harm.
(A25) The text provides ample information on opportunities to minimise doses,
and therefore the risk from diagnostic uses of radiation. This objective may be
reached by avoiding unnecessary (unjustified) examinations, and by optimising the
procedures applied both from the standpoint of diagnostic quality and in terms of
reduction of the excessive doses to patients.
(A26) Optimisation of patient protection in radiation therapy must depend on
maintaining sufficiently high doses to irradiated tumours, securing a high cure rate,
while protecting the healthy tissues as much as possible.
(A27) Problems related to special protection of the embryo/fetus in the course of
diagnostic and therapeutic uses of radiation are presented, and practical solutions
are recommended.
A.6. Digital radiology (Publication 93)
(A28) Digital techniques have the potential to improve the practice of radiology
but they also risk the overuse of radiation. The main advantages of digital imaging
(i.e. wide dynamic range, post processing, multiple viewing options, and electronic
transfer and archiving possibilities) are clear, but overexposures can occur without an
adverse impact on image quality. In conventional radiography, excessive exposure
57
produces a ‘black’ film. In digital systems, good images are obtained for a large range
of doses. It is very easy to obtain (and delete) images with digital fluoroscopy
systems, and there may be a tendency to obtain more images than necessary.
(A29) In digital radiology, higher patient dose usually means improved image
quality, so a tendency to use higher patient doses than necessary could occur. Differ-
ent medical imaging tasks require different levels of image quality, and doses that
have no additional benefit for the clinical purpose should be avoided.
(A30) Image quality can be compromised by inappropriate levels of data compres-
sion and/or post-processing techniques. All these new challenges should be part of
the optimisation of protection process, and should be included in clinical and tech-
nical protocols.
(A31) Local diagnostic reference levels should be re-evaluated for digital imaging,
and patient dose parameters should be displayed at the operator console. Frequent
patient dose audits should occur when digital techniques are introduced. Training in
the management of image quality and patient dose in digital radiology is necessary.
Digital radiology will involve new regulations and invoke new challenges for practi-
tioners. As digital images are easier to obtain and transmit, the justification criteria
should be reinforced.
(A32) Commissioning of digital systems should involve clinical specialists, medical
physicists, and radiographers to ensure that imaging capability and radiation dose
management are integrated. Quality control requires new procedures and protocols
(visualisation, transmission, and archiving of the images).
(A33) Industry should promote tools to inform radiologists, radiographers, and
medical physicists about the exposure parameters and the resultant patient doses
associated with digital systems. The exposure parameters and the resultant patient
doses should be standardised, displayed, and recorded.
A.7. Unsealed radionuclides (release after therapy) (Publication 94)
(A34) After some therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures with unsealed radio-
nuclides, precautions may be needed to limit doses to other people, but this is rarely
the case after diagnostic procedures. 131I results in the largest dose to medical staff,
the public, caregivers, and relatives. Other radionuclides used in therapy are usually
simple beta emitters (e.g. 32P, 89Sr, and 90Y) that pose much less risk. Dose limits
apply to exposure of the public and medical staff resulting from medical exposure
of patients.
(A35) Previously, the Commission recommended that a source-related dose con-
straint of a few mSv per episode applies to relatives, visitors, and caregivers at home,
rather than a dose limit (Publication 73) (ICRP, 1996). A dose constraint of 5 mSv/
episode (i.e. for the duration of a given release of a patient after therapy) is likely to
be reasonable (see Section 16.4).
(A36) Publication 94 (ICRP, 2004) recommends that young children and infants,
as well as visitors not engaged in direct care or comforting, should be treated as
members of the public (i.e. be subject to the public dose limit of 1 mSv/year).
58
(A37) The modes of exposure to other people are: external exposure; internal
exposure due to contamination; and environmental pathways. Dose to adults from
patients is mainly due to external exposure. Contamination of infants and children
with saliva from a patient could result in significant doses to the child’s thyroid. It
is important to avoid contamination of children and pregnant women. After radio-
iodine therapy, mothers must cease breastfeeding immediately. Many types of ther-
apy with unsealed radionuclides are contraindicated in pregnant females. Women
should not become pregnant for some time after radionuclide therapy (e.g. 6 months
for radioiodine, the most common radionuclide used). Various shorter or longer
times for other radionuclides are given in Publication 94 (ICRP, 2004).
(A38) 99mTc dominates discharges to the environment from excreta of nuclear
medicine patients, but its short half-life limits its importance. The second largest dis-
charges, 131I, can be detected in the environment after medical uses but with no mea-
surable environmental impact. Storing patients’ urine after radionuclide therapy
appears to have minimal benefit. Radionuclides released into modern sewage systems
are likely to result in doses to sewer workers and the public that are well below public
dose limits.
(A39) The decision to hospitalise or release a patient should be determined on an
individual basis. In addition to residual activity in the patient, the decision should
take many other factors into account. Hospitalisation will reduce exposure to the
public and relatives, but will increase exposure to hospital staff. Hospitalisation often
involves a significant psychological burden as well as monetary and other costs that
should be analysed and justified. Patients travelling after radioiodine therapy rarely
present a hazard to other passengers if travel times are limited to a few hours.
(A40) Environmental or other radiation-detection devices are able to detect pa-
tients who have had radioiodine therapy for several weeks after treatment. Personnel
operating such detectors should be specifically trained to identify and deal with nucle-
ar medicine patients. Records of the specifics of therapy with unsealed radionuclides
should be maintained at the hospital and given to the patient along with written pre-
cautionary instructions. In the case of death of a patient who has had therapy with
unsealed radionuclides in the last few months, special precautions may be required.
A.8. High-dose-rate brachytherapy (accidents) (Publication 97)
(A41) HDR brachytherapy is a rapidly growing technique that has been replacing
low-dose-rate (LDR) procedures over the last few years in both industrialised and
developing countries. It is estimated that approximately 500,000 procedures (admin-
istrations of treatment) are performed by HDR units annually. LDR equipment has
been discontinued by many manufacturers, leaving HDR brachytherapy as the ma-
jor alternative.
(A42) HDR brachytherapy techniques deliver a very high dose, of the order of
1.6–5.0 Gy/min, so mistakes can lead to under- or overdosage with the potential
for clinical adverse effects. More than 500 HDR accidents (including one death) have
been reported along the entire chain of procedures from source packing to delivery
of dose. Human error has been the prime cause of radiation events. The Commission
59
concludes that many accidents could have been prevented if staff had had functional
monitoring equipment and paid attention to the results.
(A43) Since 192Ir has a relatively short half-life, the HDR sources need to be
replaced approximately every 4 months. Over 10,000 HDR sources are transported
annually, with the resultant potential for accidents; therefore, appropriate proce-
dures and regulations must be observed.
(A44) A number of specific recommendations on procedures and equipment are
given in this report. The need for an emergency plan and for practicing emergency
procedures is stressed. The possibility of loss or theft of sources must be kept in
mind.
(A45) A collaborating team of specifically trained personnel following quality
assurance procedures is necessary to prevent accidents. Maintenance is an indispens-
able component of quality assurance; external audits of procedures reinforce good
and safe practice, and identify potential causes of accidents. Quality assurance
should include peer review of cases. Accidents and incidents should be reported
and the lessons learned should be shared with other users to prevent similar
mistakes.
A.9. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer with permanent sources

(radiation safety) (Publication 98)
(A46) The use of permanent radioactive implants (125I or 103Pd seeds) to treat se-
lected localised prostate cancer patients has been increasing rapidly all over the
world for the last 15 years. It is estimated that more than 50,000 patients receive this
treatment annually worldwide, and this number is anticipated to increase in the near
future.
(A47) Although no accidents or adverse effects involving medical staff and mem-
bers of the patient’s family have been reported to date, this brachytherapy technique
raises a number of radiation safety issues.
(A48) All data concerning the dose received by people approaching patients after
implantation have been reviewed. Those doses have either been measured directly or
calculated. The available data show that, in the vast majority of cases, the dose to
comforters and carers is well below 1 mSv/year. Only the (rare) case where the pa-
tient’s partner is pregnant at the time of implantation may need specific precautions.
(A49) Expulsion of sources through urine, semen, or the gastrointestinal tract is
rare. Specific recommendations should be given to patients to allow them to deal
with this event adequately. Of note, due to the low activity of an isolated seed and
its low photon energy, no incident or accident linked to seed loss has ever been
recorded.
(A50) Cremation of a corpse (common in some countries) in the first few months
after implantation raises several issues related to: the activity that remains in the
patient’s ashes; and the airborne dose, potentially inhaled by crematorium staff or
members of the public. Review of available data shows that cremation can be
allowed if 12 months have elapsed since implantation with 125I (3 months for
60
103
Pd). If the patient dies before this delay has elapsed, specific measures must be
undertaken.
(A51) Specific recommendations have to be given to the patient to warn his sur-
geon in case of subsequent pelvic or abdominal surgery. A ‘wallet card’ with all rel-
evant information about the implant is useful.
(A52) In most cases, brachytherapy does make the patient infertile. However,
although the therapy-related modifications of the semen reduce fertility, patients
must be aware of the possibility of fathering children after such a permanent implan-
tation, with a limited risk of genetic effects for the child.
(A53) Patients with permanent implants must be aware of the possibility of trig-
gering certain types of security radiation monitors. The ‘wallet card’ including the
main information about the implant (see above) may prove to be helpful in such a
case.
(A54) Considering the available experience after brachytherapy and external irra-
diation of prostate cancer, the risk of radio-induced secondary tumours appears to be
extremely low. The demonstrated benefit of brachytherapy clearly outweighs, by far,
the very limited (mainly theoretical) increase in the radiation-induced cancer risk.
A.10. Multi-detector computed tomography (Publication 102)
(A55) Modern CT scanners employ multiple rows of detector arrays allowing ra-
pid scanning and wider scan coverage. All new CT systems have multiple detectors
(MDCT) with a single or dual x-ray source, and a number of new dose-reduction
tools have become available commercially.
(A56) There are a number of aspects specific to MDCT that systematically in-
crease or decrease patient dose compared with single-detector row CT scanners
(SDCT). Initial reports indicated increased patient doses for MDCT relative to
SDCT, but more recent reports have shown comparable or decreased patient doses.
If the user selects settings for MDCT identical to those used in SDCT, there can be
an increase in patient dose. Settings appropriate to a specific scanner model must be
determined.
(A57) There is potential for dose reduction with MDCT systems, but the actual
dose reduction achieved depends upon how the system is used. It is important that
radiologists, cardiologists, medical physicists, and CT system operators understand
the relationship between patient dose and image quality, and are aware that image
quality in CT is often higher than that needed for diagnostic confidence. Images
of the highest quality are not essential for all diagnostic tasks, but rather the level
of quality (e.g. low noise, medium, or low dose) is dependent on the diagnostic task.
(A58) There is increasing awareness of how adapting exposure factors can contrib-
ute to the management of patient dose. However, the rate at which technology is
changing requires continued attention to management of patient dose.
(A59) Automatic exposure control systems enable scan protocols to be applied
using measures related to image quality. If the image quality is appropriately speci-
fied by the user and suited to the clinical task, there is a reduction in patient dose for
all but the obese patient. In obese patients, the dose is increased to improve the
61
image quality. Automatic exposure control does not totally free the operator from
selection of scan parameters, and awareness of individual systems is important.
(A60) The selection of image quality parameters in automatic exposure control
systems is not straightforward. There is a lack of consensus on how image quality
is to be specified, and there are significant differences in the way that different com-
panies achieve exposure control. Operator knowledge of the system is important.
(A61) Justification of CT use is a shared responsibility between requesting clini-
cians and radiologists. It includes justification of the CT study for a given indication,
and classification of the clinical indications into those requiring standard-dose CT
and those requiring low-dose CT. Scanning parameters should be based on study
indication, patient size, and body region being scanned so that patient dose can be
managed based on these parameters. Guidelines (selection criteria for CT examina-
tions) are necessary so that inappropriate studies can be avoided. In addition, alter-
nate non-radiation imaging techniques should be considered, when appropriate.
(A62) With the emergence of cardiac MDCT applications, many cardiologists
have become users of MDCT scanners. The Commission recommends appropriate
training in radiation protection for cardiologists. Training of requesting physicians
and CT staff can help in the management of scan indications, protocols, and patient
dose.
A.11. References
ICRP 34(2).
35(2).
62
ALL REFERENCES
ICRP, 1991b. Radiological protection in biomedical research. ICRP Publication 62. Ann. ICRP 22(3).
ICRP, 1993. Principles for intervention for protection of the public in a radiological emergency. ICRP
ICRP, 1997. General principles for the radiation protection of workers. ICRP Publication 75. Ann. ICRP
27(1).
ICRP, 1999a. Genetic susceptibility to cancer. ICRP Publication 79. Ann. ICRP 28(1/2).
ICRP, 1999b. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum to ICRP Publication 53.
Also includes Addendum 1 to ICRP Publication 72. ICRP Publication 80. Ann. ICRP 28(3).
ICRP, 2000a. Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP Publication 84. Ann. ICRP 30(1).
85. Ann. ICRP 30(2).
ICRP 31(4).
ICRP, 2003a. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann. ICRP 34(1).
ICRP, 2003b. Biological effects after prenatal irradiation (embryo and fetus). ICRP Publication 90. Ann.
ICRP 33(1/2).
ICRP, 2003c. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor
(wR). ICRP Publication 92. Ann. ICRP 33(4).
ICRP 34(2).
35(2).
ICRP, 2005c. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. ICRP Publication 99. Ann. ICRP
35(4).
ICRP, 2007a. Biological and epidemiological information on health risks attributable to ionising
radiation: a summary of judgements for the purposes of radiological protection of humans. Annex A to
2007 Recommendations.
ICRP, 2007b. Quantities used in radiological protection. Annex B to 2007 Recommendations.
Ann. ICRP 37(1).
ICRU, 2005. Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging. ICRU Report 74. J. ICRU 5(2).
Mettler, F.A., Thomadsen, B.R., Bhargavan, M., et al., 2008. Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. 2006:
Preliminary results. 43rd Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements: Advances in Radiation Protection in Medicine. Health Phys. 95, in press.
NAS/NRC, 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionising Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2.
Board on Radiation Effects Research. National Research Council of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C.
Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes, United Nations,
New York, NY.
63

Icrp 105

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icrp 105

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icrp 105

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of the ICRP

ICRP PUBLICATION 105

2 Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy for

21 low photon energy, no incident/accident

Radiation Protection in Medicine

Approved by the Commission in October 2007

Abstract—This report was prepared to underpin the Commission’s 2007 Recommendations

Keywords: Radiological protection; Justification; Optimisation; Patient dose; Dose management

FOUNDATIONS AND FUNDAMENTALS

on patient dose could be counterproductive to the medical purpose of the procedure.

2. USE OF IONISING RADIATION IN MEDICINE .............................................. 15

3. BRIEF SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RADIOLOGICAL

4. DOSIMETRIC QUANTITIES ................................................................................. 21

5. FRAMEWORK OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN THE 2007

6. UNIQUE ASPECTS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN MEDICINE FOR

7. DISCUSSION OF THE TERM ‘PRACTICE’............................................................. 29

8. JUSTIFICATION OF A RADIOLOGICAL PRACTICE IN MEDICINE ........... 31

9. OPTIMISATION OF PROTECTION FOR PATIENTS IN MEDICAL

10. DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS .................................................................... 35

11. INDIVIDUAL DOSE LIMITS ................................................................................... 39

12. PREVENTING ACCIDENTS IN RADIATION THERAPY .................................. 41

13. MANAGING INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE

14. EDUCATION AND TRAINING .............................................................................. 45

15. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.................................................................... 47

16. PRACTICAL METHODS OF PROTECTION OTHER THAN FOR PATIENTS 49

ANNEX A. FOCUSED EVALUATIONS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN

ALL REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 63

Over the years, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP),

(1) Publication 73 (ICRP, 1996), entitled ‘Radiological protection and safety in

 reviewed the main topics covered in Publication 73;

3.1. Deterministic eﬀects (tissue reactions)

3.2. Stochastic eﬀects (cancer and heritable eﬀects)

3.3. Eﬀects of in-utero irradiation

3.3.1. Lethal eﬀects

(23) During the period of major organogenesis, conventionally taken to be from

3.3.3. Central nervous system

3.3.4. Leukaemia and childhood cancer

(33) The primary aim of radiological protection is to provide an appropriate stan-

5.1. Source-related principles

5.2. Individual-related principle

6.1. Deliberate exposure

(41) The exposure of patients is deliberate. Except in radiation therapy, it is not

6.2. Voluntary exposure

6.3. Medical screening of asymptomatic patients

6.4. Radiation therapy

6.5. Management of radiation dose

6.6. Demographics of the patient population

6.7. Range of detriments from radiation uses in medicine

(50) A wide range of potential radiation detriment to an individual patient occurs

(54) The Commission previously distinguished between ‘practices’ that added

8.1. Justiﬁcation of a deﬁned radiological procedure (Level 2)

8.2. Justiﬁcation of a procedure for an individual patient (Level 3)

9.1. General approach

(68) The optimisation of radiological protection for patients in medicine is usually

9.2. Use of diagnostic reference levels and dose constraints

9.3. Management of medical exposures

(74) The optimisation of protection in medical exposures (as implemented through

10.1. Diagnostic reference levels (Publications 60 and 73)

(78) In Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a), reference levels were described as values of

reviewed the main topics covered in Publication 73;

to promote attainment of an optimum range of values for a speciﬁed medical