Comparative analysis of the assessment radiation risks of medical diagnostic exposure of patients based on the method of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and methodological recommendations of Rospotrebnadzor

«Radiation and Risk», 2022, vol. 31, No. 3, pp.13-25

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2022-31-3-13-25


Kashcheev V.V. – Head of Lab., C. Sc., Biol.
Pryakhin E.A. – Researcher. Contacts: 4 Korolyov str., Obninsk, Kaluga region, Russia, 249035. Tel.: (484) 399-32-81; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Menyajlo A.N. – Lead. Researcher, C. Sc., Biol.
Panin M.S. – Tech-nician. A. Tsyb MRRC.
A. Tsyb MRRC, Obninsk


This work is devoted to a comparative analysis of the assessment of radiation risks of medical diagnostic exposure of patients using a method based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the method presented in the methodological recommendations of Rospotrebnadzor (MR In the course of the study, the authors analyzed the results of calculations of the lifetime attributable risk of oncological mortality calculated by these methods. As an example, the procedure of a single passage of computed tomography of the chest organs without contrast was considered. In the first case, the risk value was calculated using the methodology of ICRP Publication 103 based on organ doses for the following ages of men and women: examination at 22, 27, 32, 37, 42, 47, 52, 57, 62, 67, 72, 77, 82 and at 87 years old. In the second case, the data given in the tables presented in the methodological recommendations were considered, but without considering hereditary effects. The analysis was carried out for two cases: when the difference between effective doses between computed tomography procedures did not ex-ceed 30%, and when the difference was more than 30%. The authors of the work found that the difference in the risk assessment between the two methods exceeds 1.5 times for the age groups of 65 years and older, for men and women, if the effective doses are close. If the difference in dose between the two procedures was more than 30%, then a 1.5-fold difference in risks was observed in age groups 60 years and older. Risk assessment was performed with account of age and gender characteristics, as well as with the use of medical and demographic data of the Russian population.

Key words
radiation risk, methodology for assessing radiation risks, medical exposure, computed tomography, organ doses, mathematical model, ICRP Publication 103, lifetime attributable risk (LAR), single exposure, effective dose, methodological recommendations.


1. Ponomareva T.V., Kalnitsky S.A., Vishnyakov N.M. Medical exposure and strategy for its prevention. Radiatsionnaya gigiena – Radiation Hygiene, 2008, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 63-68. (In Russian).

2. Kalistratova V.S. The role of dose rate in the appearance of stochastic effects and reduction of life expectancy under the action of incorporated radionuclides and sources of external radiation. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost – Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety, 2004, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 5-27. (In Russian).

3. Tsyb A.F., Ivanov V.K., Biryukov A.P. Possibilities of radiation epidemiology in solving the problems of radiation safety of medical exposure. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2008, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 50-62. (In Russian).

4. The radiation doses to the Russian population in 2016: information collection. St. Petersburg, Ramzaev’s NIIRG Publ., 2017. 125 p. (In Russian).

5. Kashcheev V.V., Pryakhin E.A., Menyajlo A.N., Panin M.S., Seleva N.G., Kashcheeva P.V., Ivanov S.A., Kaprin A.D., Ivanov V.K. Radiation risks assessment of children cancer incidence based on computed tomography examination protocols. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2020, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 21-31. (In Russian).

6. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: International Basic Safety Standards. General Safety Requirements No. GSR Part 3 (Interim). Vienna, IAEA, 2011.

7. Radiation Safety Standards (RSS-99/2009). Sanitary-epidemiological rules and standards. Moscow, Federal Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, 2009. 100 p. (In Russian).

8. Basic Sanitary Rules for Radiation Safety (OSPORB-99/2010). Health regulations, SP Moscow, Center for Sanitary and Epidemiological Rationing, Hygienic Certification of Russian Ministry of Health, 2010. (In Russian).

9. MR Assessment of radiation risk in patients during X-ray and radiological studies. Guideline. Moscow, Rospotrebnadzor, 2020. (In Russian).

10. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP, 2007, vol. 37, no. 2-4, pp. 1-332.

11. Preston D.L., Kusumi S., Tomonaga M., Izumi S., Ron E., Kuramoto A., Kamada N., Dohy H., Matsuo T., Nonaka H., Thompson D.E., Soda M., Mabuchi K. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part III: Leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950-1987. Radiat. Res., 1994, vol. 137, pp. 68-97.

12. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2008 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: V.I. Chissov, V.V. Starinskiy. Moscow, 2010. (In Russian).

13. Fujii K., Aoyama T., Koyama S., Kawaura C. Comparative evaluation of organ and effective doses for pae-diatric patients with those for adults in chest and abdominal CT examinations. Br. J. Radiol., 2007, vol. 80, no. 956, pp. 657-667.

14. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, G.V. Pe-trova. Moscow, Р. Hertsen MORI, 2018. 250 p. (In Russian).

15. Ivanov V.K., Kashcheev V.V., Chekin S.Yu., Menyaylo A.N., Pryakhin E.A., Tsyb A.F., Mettler F.A. Estimation of risk from medical radiation exposure based on effective and organ dose: how much difference is there? Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 2013, vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 317-328. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nct008.

16. Kashcheev V.V., Pryakhin E.A., Panin M.S., Menyajlo A.N., Kurashvili Yu.B., Ivanov V.K. Methodology for assessing radiation risks of medical exposure on the example of multiple computed tomography. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2021, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 24-39. (In Russian).

Full-text article (in Russian)