Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportTechnologists

Returning to work after I-131 treatment: A Nuclear Medicine Technologist’s Personal Experience

Ejda Bajric, Ross Frye, Sarah Frye, Medhat Osman, Razi Muzaffar and Barbara Sterkel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2019, 60 (supplement 1) 2016;
Ejda Bajric
3Nuclear Medicine Department VA St. Louis Healthcare System St. Louis MO United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ross Frye
3Nuclear Medicine Department VA St. Louis Healthcare System St. Louis MO United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Frye
1Clinical Health Sciences St. Louis University Saint Louis MO United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Medhat Osman
2Nuclear Medicine Department St. Louis University St. Louis MO United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Razi Muzaffar
2Nuclear Medicine Department St. Louis University St. Louis MO United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara Sterkel
3Nuclear Medicine Department VA St. Louis Healthcare System St. Louis MO United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2016

Objectives: Radiation safety guidelines for the release of patients receiving radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment are well established. However, these guidelines are rarely tailored to the specific occupation of the patient. When the patient is a Nuclear Medicine Technologist (NMT), the limitations experienced in daily job duties can be quite apparent. This is an NMT’s perspective on receiving radioactive iodine treatment, and the limitations encountered upon returning to work post treatment. Methods: An NMT was treated for Graves’ Disease (70% thyroid uptake at 24 hours) with 20mCi I-131 Sodium Iodide. The NMT was permitted to return to work 3 days post administration by the treatment facility (after consultation with the medical physicist/Radiation Safety Officer and treating physician). Over the subsequent months, the NMT experienced numerous job specific limitations which would not typically be encountered by non-radiological workers. Limitations were observed and documented by the NMT and NMT supervisor. Exposure measurements were also measured periodically post treatment. Results: The NMT and supervisor analyzed the NMT’s daily work duties, and produced a list of limitations. Due to substantial radiation being emitted from the NMT, she could not wear dosimetry badges (body or ring), perform any I-123 uptake measurements, administer I-131 (until bioassay at background), perform surveys using a Geiger-Mueller survey meter (including area monitoring or package receipt), perform normal call duties, nor perform daily calibration/constancy quality control on the well counter or uptake probe. Other job duties could be performed, but with caution. The NMT was careful to not position her body too close to the camera detectors when performing flow studies of any kind, as the count rate on either detector of the camera was up to 21.4 kcts/sec above background, with the NMT standing directly next to the detectors, during the first week after dose administration. The importance of this became apparent during a bone flow study of the feet, where the NMT instinctively positioned herself next to the feet after the patient began moving, causing a “shine” scintillation artifact (figure 1). The NMT could perform wipes but had to step at least 3 meters away from the well counter before the wipe began. Also, the NMT could assay doses if standing at least 1 meter from the dose calibrator (at 5 days, background was 25uCi on Tc-99m channel, with NMT less than 1 meter from aperture of dose calibrator). All other job duties could be done without limitations. Measurements of the NMT with an ionization chamber immediately after dose administration were 41mR/hr at the surface and 3mR/hr at 1 meter from the abdomen. One-month post-administration, those measurements were 6.0 mR/hr and 0.08 mR/hr, respectively. Due to these measurements, 1 month post RAI, the NMT had not resumed all normal job duties. Once measurements are at background, the NMT will resume all normal job duties. Possible increases in other staff members’ dosimetry readings were considered, and will be analyzed once the occupational radiation exposure report is available. Conclusions: The general public does not typically have limitations in work duties once cleared for work post RAI by the treating facility. NMTs are not the general public (as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Therefore, it is important to note that as an NMT receiving radioactive treatment of any kind, in this case RAI, limitations in job duties must be planned for. This is especially important in single NMT departments or pediatric nuclear medicine facilities, where a “fill in” NMT or substantial scheduling adjustments may be necessary.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 60, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Returning to work after I-131 treatment: A Nuclear Medicine Technologist’s Personal Experience
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Returning to work after I-131 treatment: A Nuclear Medicine Technologist’s Personal Experience
Ejda Bajric, Ross Frye, Sarah Frye, Medhat Osman, Razi Muzaffar, Barbara Sterkel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2019, 60 (supplement 1) 2016;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Returning to work after I-131 treatment: A Nuclear Medicine Technologist’s Personal Experience
Ejda Bajric, Ross Frye, Sarah Frye, Medhat Osman, Razi Muzaffar, Barbara Sterkel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2019, 60 (supplement 1) 2016;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Technologists

  • Effect of scattering correction on SPECT/CT myocardial perfusion imaging
  • Comparison of Patient Experience with Commercial Versus Compounded Amino Acid Infusion for 177Lu-DOTATATE Therapy
  • Monte Carlo simulation of the acquisition conditions for 177Lu molecular imaging of hepatic tumors
Show more Technologists

Tech Papers III: Diagnostic & Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine

  • Comparison of Patient Experience with Commercial Versus Compounded Amino Acid Infusion for 177Lu-DOTATATE Therapy
  • Imaging Evaluation of Multi-type Neuropeptide Y(NPY) Derivative for Breast Tumor Therapy
Show more Tech Papers III: Diagnostic & Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire