A Comparative Study of the Construction of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Facilities in Three South African Hospitals

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Health Science, Sefako Makgatho Health Science University, Pretoria, South Africa

2 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Dr George MUkhari Hospital, Pretoria, South Africa.

3 University of free State Faculty: Health Sciences PO Box Bloemfontein 9300, Republic of South Africa


Introduction: Development of higher energy modalities such as positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), has led to more complex shielding problems. This is due to several factors, such as the radiopharmaceutical relatively high-administered activity, high patient throughput, and high energies of 511 kilo-electron volt (keV) positron annihilation photons. Therefore, this study aimed to compare three different methods used to determine the required shielding thicknesses of PET/CT facilities.
Material and Methods: The required shielding thicknesses for three facilities were determined by using three different shielding methods, i.e. narrow beam, broad beam and Monte Carlo approximation. The design goal was chosen as 6 mSv/year for radiation workers and 1 mSv/year for the public. In addition, occupancy factors (T) were established, and all calculations had a use factor (U) of 1. The workload (W) of facilities and thicknesses of all barriers were then calculated for the three facilities.
Results: For narrow beam approximation the average required thicknesses obtained were 6.16 mm lead, 5.12 cm concrete and 2.95 cm iron. Broad beam approximation required an average of 7.55 mm lead, 8.01 cm concrete and 2.96 cm iron thicknesses. Monte Carlo approximation required 7.62 mm lead, 10.59 cm concrete and 2.94 cm iron thicknesses.
Conclusion: The narrow beam approximation demonstrated the least shielding thickness required for the materials used in this study, which can lead to under-shielding. The broad beam and Monte Carlo approximations demonstrated higher required shielding thickness although there were discrepancies between these two approximations for lead, concrete, and iron. 


Main Subjects

  1. References


    1. Methé BM. Shielding design for a PET imaging suite: a case study. Health physics. 2003;84(5):S83-8. 
    2. Zanzonico P, Dauer L, Germain JS. Operational radiation safety for PET-CT, SPECT-CT, and cyclotron facilities. Health physics. 2008;95(5):554-70.
    3. Madsen MT, Anderson JA, Halama JR, Kleck J, Simpkin DJ, Votaw JR, et al. AAPM task group 108: PET and PET/CT shielding requirements. Medical Physics. 2006 ;33(1):4-15.
    4. Mollah A, Muraduzzaman M. Calculation of shielding and radiation dose for PET/CT nuclear medicine facility. 2011.
    5. Valentin J. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. International Commission on Radiological Protection: Elsevier; 2008.
    6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report 151 Structural shielding design and evaluation for megavoltage X- and gamma-ray radiotherapy facilities. J Radiol Prot. 2006; 26:349.
    7. Cruzate J, Discacciatti A. Shielding of medical facilities. Shielding design considerations for PET-CT facilities. In: Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association: Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association. 2018.   
    8. Jha A, Singh A, Mithun S, Shah S, Agrawal A, Purandare N, et al. Designing of high-volume PET/CT facility with optimal reduction of radiation exposure to staff: Implementation and optimization in a tertiary health care facility in India.  World J Nucl Med. 2015; 14(3):189.
    9. Anderson JA, Mathews D. Site planning and radiation safety in the PET facility. Proceedings of the 44th Annual American Association of Physicists in Medicine. 2002:14-8.
    10. Zeb J, Arshad W, Rashid A, Akhter P. Gamma shielding by aluminum (Al-shielder manual). Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology; 2010.
    11. Elschot M, Wit TC, Jong HWAM. The influence of self-absorption on PET and PET/CT shielding requirements. Med Phys. 2010; 37(6):2999-3007.
    12. Hippeläinen E, Nikkinen P, Ihalainen T, Ihalainen T, Uusi-Simola J, Savolainen S. Personal radiation doses in PET/CT facility: Measurements vs. calculations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 132:57–63.
    13. Hoff G, Costa PR. A comparative study for different shielding material composition and beam geometry applied to PET facilities: simulated transmission curves. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Biomédica. 2013;29(1):86-96.
    14. Lo Meo S, Cicoria G, Campanella F, Mattozzi M, Panebianco A, Marengo M. Radiation dose around a PET scanner installation: Comparison of Monte Carlo simulations, analytical calculations and experimental results. Phys Med. 2014; 30:448-53.
    15. Fog L, Comark J. Mathematical modelling of the radiation dose received from photons passing over and through shielding walls in a PET/CT suite. Health Phys. 2010; 99: 769-79.
    16. Department of Health South Africa. Requirements for the safe use of unsealed radioactive nuclides. 2018.