Assessment of Staff Dose Loads During Computer Tomography-Guided Biopsy
A. A. Garmash,
Yu. V. Buydenok,
E. Yu. Vasyuk,
I. M. Lebedenko,
M. G. Naidenov,
B. I. Dolgushin,
I. E. Tyurin,
V. E. Bugaev,
P. V. Kononets,
E. R. Virshke,
E. N. Kozak,
G. I. Akhverdieva,
M. G. Lapteva,
A. V. Zakurdaeva https://doi.org/10.37174/2587-7593-2026-9-1-77-89
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the radiation exposure of personnel during biopsy of lung cancer patients under X-ray computed tomography control (CT) and to justify the need to implement specialized technologies to reduce and prevent radiation exposure to personnel. Materials and methods: Measurement of the radiation dose in the X-ray computed tomography beam on the surgeon’s hands, organs of vision and thyroid gland for all stages of puncture taking without taking into account the attenuation of radiation in the surgeon’s protective apron and taking it into account was carried out using a RadiaScan-801M dosimeter. The measurement of the equivalent dose in the surgeon’s head and neck area for all stages of biopsy taking, taking into account the apron on the patient and on the Alderson Rando anthropomorphic phantom, was carried out using two dosimeters: RadiaScan-801M and DKS-AT1123. Results: It has been shown that the maximum equivalent doses received by the surgeon during biopsy procedures were received by the hands, located within the scanning beam. The head and neck areas are significantly exposed to scattered X-ray radiation. The average equivalent dose and average dose rate for all biopsy stages were D = 1850 ± 874 μSv, Ḋ̅ = 21 ± 2 μSv/s. However, given the specific propagation of scattered X-rays during CT scanning due to tube rotation, radiation protective goggles cannot fully perform their function. The average equivalent dose in the head and neck area and average equivalent dose rate were D = 148.8 ± 116 μSv and Ḋ̅ = 1.5 ± 0.5 μSv/s, respectively. An additional simple method for reducing scattered radiation levels is proposed and validated, the effectiveness of which was demonstrated in a phantom experiment. Several ways to reduce radiation exposure through process automation are discussed. Conclusion: The obtained results indicate the need to find measures to make CT-guided biopsy procedures safer while minimizing radiation exposure to personnel
Supporting agencies: The work was carried out with the support of the Program for Enhancement of Competitiveness of NRNU MEPhI (Agreement No. 02.a03.21.0005)
About the Authors
A. A. Garmash
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
31 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115409
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
Yu. V. Buydenok
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute); N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
31 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115409
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
E. Yu. Vasyuk
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
31 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115409
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
I. M. Lebedenko
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute); N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
31 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115409
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
M. G. Naidenov
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
B. I. Dolgushin
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
I. E. Tyurin
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
V. E. Bugaev
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology; Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
8-2. Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
P. V. Kononets
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology; Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
8-2. Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
E. R. Virshke
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
E. N. Kozak
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
G. I. Akhverdieva
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute); N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
31 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115409
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
M. G. Lapteva
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
24 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115478
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
A. V. Zakurdaeva
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
31 Kashirskoye Highway, Moscow, 115409
Competing Interests:
Yu. V. Buidenok, B. I. Dolgushin, I. E. Tyurin, and M. G. Lapteva are members of the editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and executive secretary of the journal “Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology, Radiotherapy,” respectively, and had no role in the decision to publish this article. The article underwent the journal’s peer-review process. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
References
1. Prabhakar AM, Misono AS, Hemingway J, et al. Radiology Practice Environment and Occupational Radiation Exposure: A Survey of Vascular and Interventional Radiologists. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2022;33(4):395-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2021.12.024.
2. Miller DL, Vañó E, Bartal G, et al. Occupational Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology: A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2010;33(2):230-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-009-9756-7.
3. Korenkov IP, Okhrimenko SE, Shandala NK, et al. Assessment of Lens and Skin Radiation Doses to Personnel in Modern Medical Technologies. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022;67(1):54 9. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.12737/1024-6177-2022-67-1-54-59.
4. McParland BJ, Nosil J, Barry B. A Survey of Radiation Exposure Received by the Staff at Two Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. British Journal of Radiology. 1990;63(755):885-888. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-63-755-885.
5. Staffenino G, Rossetti V, Rubichini F, et al. Short Communication: Staff Dose Reduction during Coronary Angiography using Low Framing Speed. British Journal of Radiology. 1996;69(825):860-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-69-825-860.
6. Li LB, Kai M, Takano K, et al. Occupational Exposure in Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization. Health Physics. 1995;69(2):261-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199508000-00011.
7. Medeiros RB, Mennucci TA. Evolution of X-ray Exposure Dosage during Coronary Cineangiography. Arquivos Brasileirosde Cardiologia. 1990;55(1):31-3.
8. Okhrimenko SE, Ryzhkin SA, Akopova NA, Alekhnovich AV. Lens Doses to Medical Personnel Working under Conditions of Gamma and X-ray Radiation Exposure. Medical Physics. 2020;1:44-5. (In Russ.).
9. Karppinen J, ParvianenT, Servomaa A, et al. Risk and Exposure of Radiologists and patients during Coronary Angiography and percutaneous Trunsluminal Coronary Angioplasty. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 1995;57(1-4):481-5.
10. Guo Y, Mao L, Zhang G, et al. Conceptual Design and Preliminary Results of a VR-based Radiation Safety Training System for Interventional Radiologists. 2020;arXiv:2001.04839. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.04839.
11. Cho JH, Kim JY, Kang JE, et al. A Study to Compare the Radiation Absorbed Dose of the C-arm Fluoroscopic Modes. Korean J Pain. 2011;24(4):199-204. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2011.24.4.199.
12. Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W, et al. Effect of Reduction of the Pulse Rates of Fluoroscopy and CINE-Acquisition on X-Ray Dose and Angiographic Image Quality During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014;7(4):441-6. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001479.
13. IAEA. Dosimetry. URL: https://www.iaea.org/resources/hhc/medical-physics/radiology/dosimetry. (05.01.2026).
14. Rizik D, Riley R, Burke R, et al. Comprehensive Radiation Shield Minimizes Operator Radiation Exposure and Obviates Need for Lead Aprons. Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. 2023;2:100603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.100603.
15. Fattal P, Goldstein JA. A Novel Complete Radiation Protection System Eliminates Physician Radiation Exposure and Leaded Aprons. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013;82(1):11-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.24625.
16. Jones AK, Pasciak AS, Wagner LK. Best Practices Guidelines for CT-Guided Interventional Procedures. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2022;19(11):1240-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.08.012.
17. Takaki H, Kobayashi K, Kako Y, et al. Computed Tomography-guided Puncture: Preprocedural Preparation, Technical Tips, and Radioprotection. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(18):2925. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182925.
18. Kiapour M, Ebrahimnejad GK, Mehraeen R, et al. Can Common Lead Apron in Testes Region Cause Radiation Dose Reduction during Chest CT Scan? A Patient Study. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering. 2021;11(4):447-56. https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v11i4.2008-1133.
19. Balakhnin PV, Burovik IA, Bagnenko SS. Visualization, Guidance and Tracking Technologies in Interventional Oncology: Current Capabilities and Future Development Prospects. High-Tech Medicine. 2024;(2):5-23. (In Russ.).
20. Siemens Healthineers AG. URL: https://www.siemens-healthineers.com. (05.01.2026).
21. ГК «Промет-Урал». Екатеринбург. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://рентгенозащита.рф. (05.01.2026). Promet-Ural Group of Companies. Yekaterinburg. URL: https://рентгенозащита.рф. (05.01.2026). (In Russ.).
22. Stavitsky RV, Blinov NN, Rabkin IH, Lebedev LA. Radiation Protection in Medical Radiology. M: Kabur. 1994;272 (In Russ.).
23. Frija G, Schueler BA, Damilakis J, et al. Patient Safety in Medical Imaging: a joint paper of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS). Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0721-y.
24. GOST 31114.3-2012 (IEC 61331-3:1998, MOD). Protective equipment against X-ray radiation in medical diagnostics. Part 3. Protective clothing. M.: Standartinform, 2012. 12 p. (In Russ.).
25. Faggioni L, Paolicchi F, Bastiani L, et al. Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2021;44(6):857-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02807-3.
26. Sanitary and epidemiological requirements in the field of radiation safety of the population when handling ionizing radiation sources. 2025 (In Russ.).
27. Borovkov IM, Sekhniaidze DD, Eltsov IV et al. Thoracoscopic pneumonectomy in lung cancer patients: surgical technique and immediate outcomes. Surgery and Oncology. 2025;15(4):19-33. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17650/2949-5857-2025-15-4-19-33
28. Sattin C, Pizzi C, Summers P, et al. Histopathologic Yields and Concordance of In-Bore MRI-targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Radiology. 2025;316(1):e241710. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.241710.
29. Mazo ML, Jacobs OE, Puchkova OS et al. First experience with MRI-guided vacuum aspirated breast biopsy. Medical alphabet. 2020;(29):25-31. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2020-29-25-31
30. Li P, Li C, Xu Y, et al. Feasibility of Multiparameter MRI-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy for Central Lung Lesions With Atelectasis. Korean J Radiol. 2025;26(5):498-507. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.0818. PMID: 40307203; PMCID: PMC12055272.
31. Cherkashin MA, Puchkov DD, Reut EA, et al. Trephine biopsy of solid tumours under the CT and MRI control. RMJ. 2019;6:3-9. (In Russ.).
32. He Z, Zhu Y-N, Chen Y, et al. A deep unrolled neural network for re al-time MRI-guided brain intervention. Nature Communications. 2023;14(1):8257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43966-w.
33. Huang S, Lou C, Zhou Y, et al. MRI-guided robot intervention—current state-of-the-art and new challenges. Med-X. 2023;1(1): 4.
34. Sivanesan N, Diaz GM, Strachan S, et al. MRI-fusion biopsy era: the role of perineural invasion in low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Probl Cancer. 2025;59:101251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2025.101251. PMID: 40946534.
35.
Review
For citations:
Garmash A.A., Buydenok Yu.V., Vasyuk E.Yu., Lebedenko I.M., Naidenov M.G., Dolgushin B.I., Tyurin I.E., Bugaev V.E., Kononets P.V., Virshke E.R., Kozak E.N., Akhverdieva G.I., Lapteva M.G., Zakurdaeva A.V. Assessment of Staff Dose Loads During Computer Tomography-Guided Biopsy. Journal of oncology: diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2026;9(1):77-89. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37174/2587-7593-2026-9-1-77-89
Views:
176
JATS XML
Email this article 