Application of different radiation health risk metrics in medical exposure

   In recent years, several methodological documents have been approved and a number of scientific articles have been published concerning the assessment of radiation risks associated with medical exposure. Risk assessment is performed using various quantitative and qualitative risk indicators; however, the issue of their correct application, taking into account the specifics of a particular exposure scenario for solving applied problems in risk management, often remains unresolved.

   The aim of this study is to develop a framework and to substantiate a method for selecting and applying radiation risk indicators associated with diagnostic medical X-ray and radiological procedures, depending on the purpose of risk assessment, the type and parameters of the procedure, patient sex and age, and other factors.

   Materials and Methods: An analysis of radiation risk indicators was carried out based on a literature review, comparative analysis of definitions, and calculation methods.

   Results and Discussion: The main radiation risk indicators and their scope of application were analyzed; a list of indicators recommended for solving applied problems in medical diagnostic exposure was substantiated; a qualitative risk level scale and a scheme for selecting indicators are proposed.

   Conclusion: The developed approach allows for the alignment of the choice of risk indicator with the assessment purpose, target audience, dose burden, and availability of initial data.

1. Repin LV, Chipiga LA, Biblin AM, Akhmatdinov RR, Vazhenina DA. Characterization of radiation risk associated with radionuclide diagnostics for the russian patients using disability-adjusted life years measure. Rossiyskiy elektronnyy zhurnal luchevoy diagnostiki = Russian Electronic Journal of

2. Radiology. 2024;14(4): 189–203. (In Russian) DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2024-14-4-189-203.

3. Repin LV, Akhmatdinov RR, Biblin AM, Vodovatov AV, Shatskiy IG. Using disability-adjusted life years measure for characterization of radiation risk from fluoroscopy. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2024;17(1): 7–17. (In Russian) DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2024-17-1-7-17.

4. Kotre CJ. Comparing benefit and detriment from medical diagnostic radiation exposure using disability-adjusted life years: towards quantitative justification. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2023;43(4): 041512. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ad1159.

5. Hirouchi J, Kujiraoka I, Takahara S, Takada M, Schneider T, Kai M. Comparison of lifetime mortality risk, incidence risk, and DALYs of baseline cancer rates among countries as a benchmark for radiation-related cancer risk. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2024;44(2): 021510. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ad4043.

6. Hirouchi J, Kujiraoka I, Takahara S, Takada M, Schneider T, Kai M. Comparison of radiation-related cancer risk against baseline cancer rates in 33 countries using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), lifetime incidence risk and lifetime mortality risks. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2025;45(1): 011508. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/adba6f.

7. Repin LV, Biblin AM. Development of a mobile application for assessing radiation risk associated with medical X-ray radiological examinations. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2025;18(3): 112–119. (In Russian) DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2025-18-3-112-119.

8. Onishchenko GG, Zaitseva NV, Popova AYu, Mai IV, Ustinova Oyu, Trusov PV et al. Health risk analysis in the strategy of state socio-economic development. Monograph : in 2 volumes. Edited by G.G. Onishchenko and N.V. Zaitseva. 2^nd ed., revised and additional. Moscow; Perm; 2024. Vol. 1. 580 p. (In Russian)

9. Radiation detriment calculation methodology. ICRP Publication 152. Annals of the ICRP. 2022;51(3): 103. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 2006. 424 p.

10. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Vol. I. New York: United Nations; 2008. 383 p.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population. EPA 402-R-11-001. Washington, DC: EPA; 2011. 164 p.

12. Lee C, Kim KP, Bolch WE, Moroz BE, Folio L. NCICT: a computational solution to estimate organ doses for pediatric and adult patients undergoing CT scans. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2015;35(4): 891–909. DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/35/4/891.

13. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, Araújo HM, Arce P, et al. GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A. 2003;506(3): 250–303. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.

14. PENELOPE-2014: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport. Paris: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; 2015. 386 p.

15. Radiological Protection in Biomedical Research. ICRP Publication 62. Annals of the ICRP. 1992;22(3): 73.

16. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP. 2007;7(2–4): 332. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003.

17. Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation. Risk of Solid Cancers following Radiation Exposure: Estimates for the UK Population. Documents of the Health Protection Agency. Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. RCE-19. Chilton: Health Protection Agency; 2011. 258 p.

18. Darby S, Fagnani F, Hubert P, Schneider T, Thomas D, Vaeth M, et al. Measures of lifetime detriment from radiation exposures: principles and methods. CEPN Report No. 175. Paris: Centre d’étude sur l’Évaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire; 1990. McElvenny DM. ASQRAD. Journal of Radiological Protection. 1997;17(3): 223–228.

19. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Procedures. NCRP Report No. 168. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; 2010. 325 p.

20. Vaeth M, Pierce DA. Calculating excess lifetime risk in relative risk models. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1990;87: 83–94. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.908783.

21. Thomas D, Darby S, Fagnani F, Hubert P, Vaeth M, Weiss K. Definition and Estimation of Lifetime Detriment from Radiation Exposures. Health Physics. 1992;63(3): 259–272. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-199209000-00001.

22. Kellerer AM, Nekolla EA, Walsh L. On the conversion of solid cancer excess relative risk into lifetime attributable risk. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2001;40(4): 249–257. DOI: 10.1007/s004110100106.

23. Andersson M, Eckerman K, Mattsson S. Lifetime attributable risk as an alternative to effective dose to describe the risk of cancer for patients in diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2017;62(24): 9177–9188. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa959c.

24. Shimada K, Kai M. Calculating disability-adjusted life years (DALY) as a measure of excess cancer risk following radiation exposure. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2015;35(4): 763–775. DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/35/4/763.

25. Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison JD, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM et al. Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for purpose. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2021;41(4): 1390–1409. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac1611.

26. Vaillant L, Maitre M, Lafranque E, Schneider T, Wasselin V. Proposal of a quantitative approach integrating radioactive and chemical risks. Radioprotection. 2023;58(2): 147–155. DOI: 10.1051/radiopro/2023012.

27. World Health Organization. Communicating radiation risks in paediatric imaging: information to support health care discussions about benefit and risk. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. 88 p.

28. Use of dose quantities in radiological protection. ICRP Publication 147. Annals of the ICRP. 2021;50(1): 82.

29. Martin C. Effective dose in medicine. Annals of the ICRP. 2020;49(1_suppl): 126–140. DOI: 10.1177/0146645320927849.

30. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2020.

31. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 6.0. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2025. 312 p.

32. Royal College of Anaesthetists. Anaesthesia and risk: communicating risk to patients. London: Royal College of Anaesthetists; 2019.

33. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Shared decision making. NICE guideline NG197. London: NICE; 2021.

34. World Health Organization. WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease estimates 2000–2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024. 47