Some Considerations for Chelation Treatment and Surgical Excision Following Incorporation of Plutonium in Wounds. Issue 3 (March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Poudel, Deepesh; Bertelli, Luiz; Klumpp, John A.; Waters, Tom L.
• Is Part Of: Health physics. Volume 114:Issue 3(2018:Mar.)
• Publication Date: 2018-03
• Subjects: chelation -- dosimetry, internal -- intake, radionuclide -- plutonium; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Health Physics -- periodicals; Radiation Protection -- periodicals; Radiotherapy -- periodicals; Medische fysica; Electronic journals; 612.01448
• DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000772
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0017-9078

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: After a plutonium-contaminated wound, the role of an internal dosimetrist is to inform the patient and the physician of the dosimetric considerations. The doses averted due to medical treatments (excision or chelation) are higher if the treatments are administered early; therefore, the internal dosimetrist needs to rely on limited information on wound counts and process knowledge for advising the physician. Several wound cases in the literature were reviewed to obtain estimates of the efficacies of surgical excision and chelation treatment after plutonium-contaminated wounds. The dose coefficients calculated by coupling the NCRP 156 wound model with the systemic model were used to derive the decision guidelines that may indicate medical treatment based on 1) the concept of saved doses proposed by the NCRP 156 wound model, 2) the limits recommended by the CEC/DOE guidebook, and 3) the Clinical Decision Guidelines proposed in NCRP Report No. 161. These guidelines by themselves, however, are of limited use for several reasons, including 1) large uncertainties associated with wound measurements, 2) exposure to forms of radionuclides that cannot be assigned to a single category in the NCRP 156 framework, 3) inability of the NCRP 156 model to explain some of the wound cases in the literature, 4) neglect of the local doses to the wound site and the pathophysiological response of the tissue, 5) poorly understood relationship between effective doses and risks of late health effects, and 6) disregard of the psychological aspects of radionuclide intake.