EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 54 / No 2 (April–June 2019) Radioprotection, 54 2 (2019) 113-116 References
Free Access
Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 54, Number 2, April–June 2019
Page(s) 113 - 116
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019010
Published online 30 April 2019
  • Al-Haj AN, Lobriguito AM, Arafah A, Parker R. 2011. Deriving staff and public doses in a PET/CT facility from measured radiation levels using thermoluminescent dosimetry. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 144: 487–491. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Andersen PA, Chakera AH, Klausen TL, Binderup T, Grossjohann HS, Friis E, Palnaes Hansen C, Schmidt G, Kjaer A, Hesse B. 2008. Radiation exposure to surgical staff during F-18-FDG-guided cancer surgery. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 35: 624–629. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • ARPANSA Radiation protection series No. 4. 2002. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. Discharge of patients undergoing treatment with radioactive substances. Retrieved January 7, 2019, Available from https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/rps/rps4.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Benatar NA, Cronin BF, O’Doherty MJ. 2000. Radiation dose rates from patients undergoing PET: implications for technologists and waiting areas. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 27: 583–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chiesa C, De Sanctis V, Crippa F, Schiavini M, Fraigola CE, Bogni A, Pascali C, Decise D, Marchesini R, Bombardieri E. 1997. Radiation dose to technicians per nuclear medicine procedure: comparison between technetium-99m, gallium-67, and iodine-131 radiotracers and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 24: 1380–1389. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Demir M, Demir B, Sayman H, Sager S, Sabbir Ahmed A, Uslu I. 2011. Radiation protection for accompanying person and radiation workers in PET/CT. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 147: 528–532. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Królicki L, Kunikowska J, Kobylecka M, Mączewska J, Fronczewska K. 2011. Significance of positron emission tomography (PET) in the diagnosis of cancer diseases. Prog. Med. Sci. 2: 104–108. [Google Scholar]
  • Kumar S, Pandey AK, Sharma P, Shamim SA, Malhotra A, Kumar R. 2012. Instantaneous exposure to nuclear medicine staff involved in PET-CT imaging in developing countries: experience from a tertiary care centre in India. Jpn. J. Radiol. 30: 291–295. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mithun S, Jha AK, Puranik AD, Monteiro P, Shah S, Agarwal A, Purandare NC, Rangarajan V. 2018. Reduction of radiation exposure to patients and professionals by reducing the administered activity of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in a positron-emission tomography/computed yomography study. Indian J. Nucl. Med. 33: 6–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nakamura F, Kanno T, Okada H, Yoshikawa E, Andou I, Futatsubashi M, Shinke T, Ouchi Y, Torizuka T. 2006. Measurement of radiation exposure to a PET institution driver from patients injected with FDG. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 62: 1105–1110. [Google Scholar]
  • Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. 2004. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 231: 305–332. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Schleipman AR, Gerbaudo VH. 2012. Occupational radiation dosimetry assessment using an automated infusion device for positron-emitting radiotracers. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 40: 244–248. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Seierstad T, Stranden E, Bjering K, Evensen M, Holt A, Michalsen HM, Wetteland O. 2007. Doses to nuclear technicians in a dedicated PET/CT centre utilising 18F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 123: 246–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • TAEA. 2000. Turkish Atomic Energy Authority. Regulation on Radiation Safety. Retrieved January 7, 2019, Available from: http://www.taek.gov.tr/en/documents/documents/Regulations/radiation-safety/Regulation-on-Radiation-Safety/lang-en-gb/. [Google Scholar]
  • The Royal College of Radiologists. 2016. Evidence-based indications for the use of PET/CT in the United Kingdom. Retrieved January 7, 2019, Available from: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/bfcr163_pet-ct.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Tulik P, Kowalska M, Golnik N, Budzynska A, Dziuk M. 2017. Measurements of the ıonising radiation level at a nuclear medicine facility performing Pet/Ct examinations. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 174: 501–509. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Vargas Castrillon S, Cutanda Henriquez F. 2011. A study on occupational exposure in a PET/CT facility. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 147: 247–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wrzesien M, Albiniak L. 2016. Hand exposure of workers in (18)F-FDG production centre. J. Radiol. Prot. 36: N67–N76. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wrzesien M, Napolska K. 2015. Investigation of radiation protection of medical staff performing medical diagnostic examinations by using PET/CT technique. J. Radiol. Prot. 35: 197–207. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zanzonico P, Dauer L, St Germain J. 2008. Operational radiation safety for PET-CT, SPECT-CT, and cyclotron facilities. Health Phys. 95: 554–570. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zargan S, Ghafarian P, Shabestani Monfared A, Sharafi AA, Bakhshayeshkaram M, Ay MR. 2017. Evaluation of radiation exposure to staff and environment dose from [18F]-FDG in PET/CT and cyclotron center using thermoluminescent dosimetry. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng. 7: 1–12. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.