In a fictional case, a 42-year-old orthopedic surgeon operates on fractures with a C-arm several nights a week. In the corridor, the hemodynamics nurse mentions a colleague interventionalist treated for glioblastoma, and the radiology technician asks whether the thyroid shield is still worth it after so many years. The question that reaches the preceptor is not about cataract: it is about long-term cancer.

Fluoroscopy guides procedures in orthopedics, hemodynamics, interventional radiology, vascular surgery and bedside radiographs in the ICU. The team, physicians, nursing and technicians, stays close to the scatter source. This text gathers what large cohorts, case series and surveys show about brain and neck tumors, breast, thyroid and leukemia, makes the limits of each design clear and translates the evidence into practical protection. Cataract and staff skin are covered in the post on lens and skin in interventional radiology; ICRP 118 addresses tissue reactions, such as those of the lens (ICRP, 2012); here the focus is long-term neoplasia.

Key points

• Case series of brain tumors in interventionalists, such as Roguin's, suggest left-sidedness, but do not estimate population risk (Roguin et al., 2013).
• In US radiology technicians who performed procedures with guided fluoroscopy, brain cancer mortality was higher (hazard ratio 2.55; interval 1.48 to 4.40), with modest elevations of melanoma and incident breast cancer (Rajaraman et al., 2016).
• As an analogy, and with the caveat that these are nuclear workers and not health care teams, in the INWORKS cohorts mortality from solid cancer and from leukemia (except chronic lymphocytic) rose with cumulative exposure, on gray scales (Richardson et al., 2023; Leuraud et al., 2015).
• Surveys of female orthopedic surgeons found a higher prevalence of breast cancer than expected; this is a hypothesis, subject to response bias (Chou et al., 2012).
• A confidence interval that includes the null is inconclusive; a case series does not measure incidence; the synthesis below is a working hypothesis for the team (our synthesis).

• Who stays close to the C-arm
• What the large occupational cohorts show
• Radiology technicians and procedures with fluoroscopy
• Case series: what they measure and what they do not
• Surveys and prevalence: orthopedics and hemodynamics
• Limits of the evidence, in plain language
• Practical protection in the room and in the ICU
• How NEXO helps train this reasoning
• Frequently asked questions
• Take-home messages

Who stays close to the C-arm

Fluoroscopy produces real-time images and spreads radiation through the room environment. Those who operate near the table, who hold the limb, who record the image and who assist in the ICU with a mobile unit receive scatter. The ALARA principle (as low as reasonably achievable) and the ICRP recommendations for procedures under guided fluoroscopy call for distance, shielding and reduced emission time (ICRP Publication 117).

The specialties with the longest fluoroscopy time include orthopedics (fractures, spine), hemodynamics and electrophysiology, interventional radiology, vascular surgery and ICU and emergency teams with portable radiography. Nursing and technicians spend years in the same room. Cumulative exposure over a career, and not a single day, is the object of the cohorts and surveys discussed below (our synthesis).

Units that appear in the studies

The gray (Gy) and the milligray (mGy) measure energy absorbed in tissue. The sievert (Sv) and the millisievert (mSv) express effective or equivalent exposure, useful for comparing scenarios. The INWORKS cohorts estimate risk per accumulated Gy; the USRT estimates occupational organ exposure in mGy. The authors' original units are kept in this text.

What the large occupational cohorts show

The best estimates of cancer risk after prolonged exposure to low amounts of radiation come from monitored nuclear workers, not from catheterization laboratories. They serve as a biological reference, with the caveat that the geometry of fluoroscopy (asymmetric scatter, partially unprotected head and trunk) differs from typical monitoring in the nuclear industry (our synthesis).

INWORKS: solid cancer

The INWORKS cohorts appear here as an explicit analogy: they are nuclear workers, not health care teams, and they serve to show the biological relationship between accumulated exposure and cancer. Richardson and colleagues updated the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) with 309,932 workers from France, the United Kingdom and the USA, 10.7 million person-years and 28,089 deaths from solid cancer (Richardson et al., 2023). The solid cancer mortality rate increased with accumulated exposure: excess relative risk of 0.52 per Gy (90 percent interval of 0.27 to 0.77), with a 10-year latency (Richardson et al., 2023). In the 0 to 100 mGy range, the association held and the interval widened. The authors describe the result as evidence of risk even at low accumulated exposures, typical of occupational settings.

In the previous analysis by the same collaboration, with 308,297 workers and 17,957 deaths from solid cancer, the excess relative risk was 0.47 per Gy (0.18 to 0.79) for solid cancer, with a mean colon exposure of 20.9 mGy among the exposed (Richardson et al., 2015). The cohort is not made up of health professionals; the extrapolation to the procedure room is biological, not directly empirical (our synthesis).

INWORKS: leukemia

Leuraud and colleagues, using the same INWORKS base, analyzed mortality from leukemia and lymphoma. For leukemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the excess relative risk was 2.96 per Gy (90 percent interval of 1.17 to 5.21), with a 2-year latency; for chronic myeloid leukemia, 10.45 per Gy (4.48 to 19.65) (Leuraud et al., 2015). The mean annual bone marrow exposure was low (about 1.1 mGy per year), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia showed no positive association (Leuraud et al., 2015). These numbers support the concern about prolonged occupational exposure, without proving the specific risk of hospital fluoroscopy (our synthesis).

What the nuclear industry teaches and what it does not teach

The INWORKS cohorts measure workers with individual dosimetry over decades. The strength of the design is the large denominator and the measured exposure. The weakness, for the reader in the catheterization laboratory, is the geometry: the fluoroscopy beam is localized, the scatter is asymmetric, and the head, neck and hands may remain outside the apron. Therefore, INWORKS is an analogy, not a measurement of the room: they are nuclear workers. Using the INWORKS excess relative risk per Gy as the orthopedist's personal number would be a mistake. The correct use is biological: it confirms that prolonged exposure to low amounts of radiation is associated with solid cancer and leukemia; the magnitude in your room depends on emission time, protection and position (our synthesis).

The USRT brings the hospital closer, because the participants are radiology technologists. Even so, organ exposure was reconstructed from work history and models, not from a dosimeter on the lens or the breast at every shift. Wide intervals and self-reported FGIP call for a humble reading of the hazard ratios (Rajaraman et al., 2016).

The historical review by Linet and colleagues summarizes that the clearest excesses in medical workers occurred in those who started before 1950, especially leukemia, breast and skin, when protections were weaker (Linet et al., 2010).

Radiology technologists and fluoroscopy-guided procedures

The US Radiologic Technologists Study (USRT) follows technologists in the USA with questionnaires and cancer registries. Rajaraman and colleagues compared those who reported work with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP) between 1994 and 2008 with those who did not.

Brain, breast and melanoma

Brain cancer mortality was about twice as high among those who had FGIP (hazard ratio 2.55; 95 percent interval 1.48 to 4.40) (Rajaraman et al., 2016). The incidence of melanoma (1.30; 1.05 to 1.61) and of female breast cancer (1.16; 1.02 to 1.32) also rose; breast cancer mortality did not (1.07; 0.69 to 1.66) (Rajaraman et al., 2016). The incidence of all cancers combined, excluding non-melanoma skin, was at the limit (1.08; 1.00 to 1.17), and the authors warn about exposure estimated by self-report and about possible confounders (Rajaraman et al., 2016).

Breast and thyroid in USRT: response to exposure

In a breast analysis in USRT, Preston, Kitahara and colleagues found a positive association between occupational radiation estimated in the breast and breast cancer risk, with an excess relative risk of 0.07 per 100 mGy (95 percent interval −0.005 to 0.19) (Preston et al., 2016). The association was clearer in women born before 1930, when the estimated mean annual exposure was much higher (about 37 mGy) than in later years (about 1.3 mGy) (Preston et al., 2016). The interval that nearly touches the null calls for caution: the signal exists, but precision is limited.

For thyroid, Kitahara and colleagues followed 89,897 technicians with 476 incident thyroid cancer diagnoses. The estimated mean thyroid exposure was 57 mGy. The excess relative risk per 100 mGy was −0.05 (95 percent interval from less than −0.10 to 0.34): the interval includes the null, and the result is inconclusive for excess thyroid cancer in adulthood with this exposure (Kitahara et al., 2018). This does not justify abandoning the thyroid shield: by the ALARA principle, it remains recommended even with inconclusive evidence, because it reduces organ exposure at low cost (our synthesis).

Pediatric patients and tomography appear in another text, about tomography in children and cancer risk. Follow-up after radiological accidents is in long-term follow-up after radiation exposure.

Case series: what they measure and what they do not

Roguin and colleagues gathered reports of brain and neck tumors in physicians who performed interventional procedures. In the expanded report, 31 physicians (23 interventional cardiologists, 2 electrophysiologists and 6 interventional radiologists) had worked long periods (mean latency about 23.5 years) (Roguin et al., 2013). Among the 26 physicians with a reported side, 22 tumors were on the left (85 percent), 3 on the right and 1 in the midline (Roguin et al., 2013). The earlier report already described a left predominance and recalled that the left side of the head is more exposed at the table (Roguin et al., 2012).

A case series does not estimate incidence or relative risk. There is no denominator of interventionalist-years, nor a formal comparison with the population. Reporting bias is expected: striking cases reach the authors; cases without tumor do not. Jackson discussed the same question and asked for caution before concluding causality from laterality alone (Jackson, 2012). The honest reading: the series generates a biologically plausible hypothesis and reinforces protection of the head and neck; it does not quantify the risk (our synthesis).

Surveys and prevalence: orthopedics and hemodynamics

Orthopedic surgeons

Chou and colleagues sent a questionnaire to women AAOS fellows. Among 505 responses (about 70 percent of those eligible), the standardized prevalence of any cancer was 1.85 times the expected (interval 1.19 to 2.76), and that of breast cancer, 2.9 times (1.66 to 4.71), a number that should be read as a hypothesis, not as an established risk (Chou et al., 2012). In the comparison between specialties, orthopedics kept the excess; urology and plastic surgery, with less weekly fluoroscopy, did not (Chou et al., 2015). Surgeons with cancer may have responded more to the questionnaire (response bias), and the comparison with the general population also distorts; the design does not prove that fluoroscopy is the cause, but it justifies adequate breast shielding (our synthesis).

Valone and colleagues used an anthropomorphic phantom and showed that the upper outer quadrant of the breast can be poorly covered depending on the size and type of apron, the surgeon's position and the orientation of the C-arm (Valone et al., 2016). Hayda and colleagues reviewed occupational risks for orthopedists and reiterate the ALARA principle, standardized education and dosimetry (Hayda et al., 2018).

In an Italian orthopedic hospital with protection described as poor, Mastrangelo and colleagues found a cumulative cancer incidence of 29 percent (9 of 31) among orthopedists, versus 4 percent (7 of 158) in the unexposed; the regression linked work as an orthopedist to tumor risk (Mastrangelo et al., 2005). The sample is small and the context of inadequate protection limits generalization.

Hemodynamics and the interventional laboratory

Andreassi and colleagues compared 466 professionals exposed in hemodynamics and electrophysiology with 280 unexposed. In highly exposed physicians, the adjusted odds ratio for cancer was 4.5 (interval 0.9 to 25; p = 0.06): the interval includes the null and the result is inconclusive for cancer, although other conditions were associated with exposure (Andreassi et al., 2016).

Orme and colleagues, in a multicenter Mayo Clinic survey with 1,543 responses, found no difference in cancer prevalence between those who took part in procedures involving radiation and those who did not (9 percent in both groups) (Orme et al., 2015). Musculoskeletal pain was greater in the exposed. Read together, Andreassi suggests a signal that does not reach significance and Orme finds no difference; neither closes the question, and the balance between them is the honest picture of the evidence in hemodynamics (our synthesis). Klein and SCAI described, in a survey of 314 interventionalists, workload limitation due to exposure and concerns about cataract and cancer, without estimating population relative risk (Klein et al., 2015).

The table below summarizes the design and what each type of study allows one to conclude (our synthesis).

Type of evidence	Examples	What it measures	Main limitation
Cohort with individual dosimetry	INWORKS (Richardson, Leuraud)	Cancer mortality vs cumulative exposure in Gy	Few are health professionals; geometry differs from fluoroscopy
Technologist cohort (USRT)	Rajaraman; Preston; Kitahara	Incidence and mortality vs estimated FGIP or mGy	Self-reported procedures; wide intervals
Case series	Roguin 2012 and 2013	Description and laterality of tumors	No denominator; reporting bias; risk estimate unavailable
Prevalence survey	Chou; Andreassi; Orme; Klein	Self-reported prevalence vs controls or population	Response bias; causality not established
Phantom / bench dosimetry	Valone	Relative exposure of trunk regions	Measures only relative exposure, with no clinical cancer outcome

Sources: Richardson et al., 2023; Leuraud et al., 2015; Rajaraman et al., 2016; Roguin et al., 2013; Chou et al., 2012; Valone et al., 2016.

ICU, nursing and technologists

In the ICU and the emergency department, the mobile X-ray machine and the portable C-arm place nursing staff and technologists a few centimeters from the patient. Whoever holds the cassette, whoever stabilizes the head and whoever stays at the head of the bed during emission receives scatter. The culture of "just one quick shot" without an apron is the opposite of ALARA. Announcing the emission, moving away those who are not essential and wearing protection even on crowded shifts are team measures, not those of an individual hero (our synthesis).

Orme and colleagues note that musculoskeletal pain was greater in technologists and nurses than in attending physicians in the interventional laboratory, which shows that the physical load of the apron and of long postures is also occupational (Orme et al., 2015). Cancer and spine do not compete: both call for safe work design.

Limits of the evidence, in plain language

Three reading rules avoid alarmism and complacency (our synthesis).

First: a case series generates a hypothesis, not incidence. Roguin documents tumors and laterality; it does not say how many interventionalists per thousand will have a tumor.

Second: reporting and response bias. Those who had cancer respond more to surveys about cancer; those who are healthy disappear. Comparing the prevalence of female surgeons with the general population mixes reproductive factors, screening and occupation.

Third: a confidence interval that includes the null is inconclusive. Thyroid in the USRT (−0.05 per 100 mGy, interval crossing zero) (Kitahara et al., 2018) and cancer in the Andreassi study (odds ratio 4.5; 0.9 to 25) (Andreassi et al., 2016) prove neither the absence nor the presence of risk. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How to talk to the team without alarmism

A useful conversation in the department separates three layers. Layer 1: the biology (ionizing radiation can initiate cancer; occupational cohorts show an association). Layer 2: the epidemiology of your specialty (case series and surveys generate hypotheses; technician cohorts suggest signals in brain, breast and melanoma; thyroid remained inconclusive). Layer 3: the action (time, distance, shielding, dosimetry, pregnancy). Mixing the three layers into a single "we are going to get cancer" or a single "there is no proof, so ignore it" undermines safety (our synthesis).

Reading evidence with study design and interval in mind is daily training: whoever reads Roguin must avoid turning a case series into an incidence rate, and whoever reads Chou must remember who answered the questionnaire (our synthesis).

The editorial synthesis of this post is a working hypothesis: prolonged occupational exposure to fluoroscopy is biologically capable of raising the risk of some cancers; the magnitude in modern procedure rooms, with correct protection, remains poorly quantified; the practical answer is to reduce exposure without abandoning necessary procedures.

Practical protection in the room and in the ICU

ICRP 117 organizes protection in procedures under guided fluoroscopy: justify the use, optimize the emission and shield the team (ICRP Publication 117). In daily practice:

• Time: pulsed fluoroscopy, last frame held, fewer unnecessary cine acquisitions.
• Distance: step away from the patient and the source when the image does not require hands on the table; scatter falls quickly with distance.
• Shielding: a well-fitted apron (Valone showed gaps in the upper outer quadrant), thyroid shield, mobile or fixed screen, leaded glasses when indicated.
• Dosimeter: correct use, periodic reading and investigation of high values; dosimeter under and over the apron according to local protocol.
• Pregnancy: declare it early, reinforce shielding and, if needed, reassign tasks; fetal counseling is in radiation in pregnancy.
• Ergonomics: a heavy apron and long postures add up to musculoskeletal injury; see also surgeon ergonomics and care with sleep deprivation on call.

Operational checklist in one sentence per item

Before the first case of the day: check the apron (size and type), thyroid shield, glasses if indicated, screen in position and dosimeter in the right place. During the case: pulsed fluoroscopy, hands out of the primary beam, distance when the image allows, fewer cine runs "out of habit". After the case: store the dosimeter, report high values and log equipment failures. In teams with a high load of spine and trauma, education on breast and thyroid shielding should enter residency with the same seriousness as surgical technique (Hayda et al., 2018; Valone et al., 2016).

Vascular surgery and hemodynamics share the same scatter physics. The difference lies in the annual volume of procedures and in the chronic proximity to the table. Those who accumulate thousands of procedures over two decades are the target audience of the Roguin series and the SCAI surveys, even though these designs do not measure incidence (Roguin et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2015).

ICU and bedside radiography: whoever holds the cassette or stays at the head of the bed receives scatter. Keeping away those who are not essential, wearing an apron and announcing the emission before the shot are cheap and effective gestures (our synthesis).

Team well-being is not limited to radiation. Fatigue, workload and safety culture appear in texts such as working sick: physician presenteeism and moral injury. The patient's clinical oncology, distinct from occupational risk, is in posts such as breast cancer: treatment sequence.

How NEXO helps train this reasoning

In NEXO, the case of the day is fictional, with a real clinical presentation and up to six progressive clues, and you propose the diagnosis by looking for the ICD-10 code. Reading an occupational study calls for the same care with design, bias and confidence interval that the game calls for when putting clues together without closing too early.

The limits on using the game are described on the Economy page of NEXO. If you research the teaching of clinical reasoning, the page for Researcher explains how to get in touch. Professionals who write or review cases find information on Curator and on Creators, and institutions can learn about the proposal on the partnerships page.

Frequently asked questions

Does the Roguin series prove that interventionalists will get brain tumors?

The series describes tumors and left-sided laterality that is biologically plausible, with no population denominator and no relative risk (Roguin et al., 2013; Jackson, 2012). It does not prove the individual risk of each interventionalist.

Do technicians who perform fluoroscopy have more cancer?

In the USRT, mortality from brain cancer and the incidence of melanoma and breast cancer rose among those who reported FGIP; other sites did not (Rajaraman et al., 2016). Exposure was estimated from work history.

Does the thyroid shield still make sense if the USRT found no excess?

Yes. The thyroid analysis was inconclusive (an interval that includes the null), not proof that there is no risk (Kitahara et al., 2018). Under the ALARA principle, the shield remains recommended even with inconclusive evidence: it is cheap and reduces exposure of the organ (Hayda et al., 2018).

Can pregnant women stay in the hemodynamics room?

With advance declaration of pregnancy, reinforced shielding, dosimetry and, if needed, reassignment. Details of fetal counseling are in the post on radiation in pregnancy.

Is cataract covered in this text?

Only by reference. Thresholds, glasses and staff skin are in lens and skin in interventional radiology.

Take-home messages

• Large cohorts (INWORKS, USRT) link prolonged occupational exposure to more solid cancer, leukemia and, in technicians with FGIP, to more mortality from brain cancer, with intervals and limitations specific to each study; INWORKS, of nuclear workers, serves as an analogy (Richardson et al., 2023; Rajaraman et al., 2016).
• Case series (Roguin) and surveys (Chou, Andreassi, Orme) generate hypotheses and describe prevalence; they do not replace cohorts with a denominator; Andreassi and Orme, together, remain inconclusive (Andreassi et al., 2016; Orme et al., 2015).
• An interval that includes the null is inconclusive; the absence of excess in the thyroid in the USRT does not justify removing the shield, which remains recommended by the ALARA principle (Kitahara et al., 2018).
• Practical protection: ALARA, pulsed fluoroscopy, distance, fitted apron, thyroid shield, barrier, dosimeter and a local protocol for pregnancy (ICRP Publication 117).
• The synthesis in this post is a working hypothesis for the team, not an individual risk calculation.

Play the case of the day in NEXO and train your reasoning with progressive clues.

References

1. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):1368-1372. PMID: 23419190. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23419190/
2. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention. 2012;7(9):1081-1086. PMID: 22207231. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22207231/
3. Rajaraman P, Doody MM, Yu CL, et al. Cancer Risks in U.S. Radiologic Technologists Working With Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures, 1994-2008. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(5):1101-1108. PMID: 26998721. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10986158/
4. Preston DL, Kitahara CM, Freedman DM, et al. Breast cancer risk and protracted low-to-moderate [...] occupational radiation exposure in the US Radiologic Technologists Cohort, 1983-2008. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(9):1105-1112. PMID: 27623235. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5117787/
5. Kitahara CM, Preston DL, Neta G, et al. Occupational radiation exposure and thyroid cancer incidence in a cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists, 1983-2013. Int J Cancer. 2018;143(9):2145-2149. PMID: 29355960. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6054904/
6. Chou LB, Chandran S, Harris AH, Tung J, Butler LM. Increased breast cancer prevalence among female orthopedic surgeons. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21(6):683-689. PMID: 22432467. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22432467/
7. Chou LB, Lerner LB, Harris AH, Brandon AJ, Girod S, Butler LM. Cancer Prevalence among a Cross-sectional Survey of Female Orthopedic, Urology, and Plastic Surgeons in the United States. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(5):476-481. PMID: 26265543. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26265543/
8. Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Giovanazzi A, Scoizzato L, Saia B. Increased cancer risk among surgeons in an orthopaedic hospital. Occup Med (Lond). 2005;55(6):498-500. PMID: 16140840. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16140840/
9. Valone LC, Chambers M, Lattanza L, James MA. Breast Radiation Exposure in Female Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(21):1808-1813. PMID: 27807113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27807113/
10. Hayda RA, Hsu RY, DePasse JM, Gil JA. Radiation Exposure and Health Risks for Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(8):268-277. PMID: 29570497. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29570497/
11. Richardson DB, Leuraud K, Laurier D, et al. Cancer mortality after low [...] exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study. BMJ. 2023;382:e074520. PMID: 37586731. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10427997/
12. Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniels RD, et al. Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 2015;351:h5359. PMID: 26487649. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612459/
13. Leuraud K, Richardson DB, Cardis E, et al. Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(7):e276-e281. PMID: 26436129. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4587986/
14. Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, et al. Occupational Health Risks in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Workers. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(4):e003273. PMID: 27072525. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27072525/
15. Orme NM, Rihal CS, Gulati R, et al. Occupational health hazards of working in the interventional laboratory: a multisite case control study of physicians and allied staff. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(8):820-826. PMID: 25720626. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25720626/
16. Klein LW, Tra Y, Garratt KN, et al. Occupational health hazards of interventional cardiologists in the current decade: Results of the 2014 SCAI membership survey. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(5):913-924. PMID: 25810341. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25810341/
17. Linet MS, Kim KP, Miller DL, Kleinerman RA, Simon SL, de Gonzalez AB. Historical review of occupational exposures and cancer risks in medical radiation workers. Radiat Res. 2010;174(6):793-808. PMID: 21128805. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4098897/
18. Jackson G. Brain cancer in interventional cardiologists and physicians - is occupational radiation exposure the cause? Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(6):521. PMID: 22607500. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22607500/
19. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection in fluoroscopically guided procedures performed outside the imaging department. ICRP Publication 117. Ann ICRP. 2010;40(6):1-102. https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20117
20. ICRP. ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions and Early and Late Effects of Radiation in Normal Tissues and Organs [...] in a Radiation Protection Context. ICRP Publication 118. Ann ICRP. 2012;41(1-2):1-322. PMID: 22925378. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22925378/