The recommendation of chest radiography for school admission and

employment purposes should be discouraged due to the risks of

radiation especially cancer induction. It is therefore imperative to keep

diagnostic radiation doses as low as possible. This dataset presents the

entrance surface dose, effective dose, bone marrow dose, breast dose,

lung dose and the incidence cancer risks from chest radiography of 40

young adult females. The mean incidence cancer risk to participants is

1: 20,000 for solid cancers. The data revealed the significant factors

influencing the entrance surface dose and incidence cancer ris

Aborisade, Caleb A.

Achuka, J.A

Aweda, Moses

Usikalu, M.R.

Data in Brief

The recommendation of chest radiography for school admission and employment purposes should be discouraged due to the risks of radiation especially cancer induction. It is therefore imperative to keep diagnostic radiation doses as low as possible. This dataset presents the entrance surface dose, effective dose, bone marrow dose, breast dose, lung dose and the incidence cancer risks from chest radiography of 40 young adult females. The mean incidence cancer risk to participants is 1: 20,000 for solid cancers. The data revealed the significant factors influencing the entrance surface dose and incidence cancer risks. Keywords: Chest radiography, Entrance surface dose, Incidence cancer risks, Technical factor

Justina A. Achuka

Moses A. Aweda

Mojisola R. Usikalu

Caleb A. Aborisade

Directory of Open Access Journals

Cancer risks from chest radiography of young adults: A pilot study at a health facility in South West Nigeria

Covenant University Repository

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectData in BriefData in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–1256SMThttps://2352-34(http://cn CorrE-mjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dibData ArticleCancer risks from chest radiography of youngadults: A pilot study at a health facility in SouthWest NigeriaJustina A. Achuka a,n, Moses A. Aweda b, Mojisola R. Usikalu a,Caleb A. Aborisade ca Department of Physics, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeriab Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy and Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine, Lagos UniversityTeaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeriac Department of Physics and Engineering Physics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeriaa r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 20 April 2018Received in revised form11 May 2018Accepted 21 May 2018Available online 26 May 2018Keywords:Chest radiographyEntrance surface doseIncidence cancer risksTechnical factorsdoi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.12309/& 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsereativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).esponding author.ail address: justina.achuka@covenantunivera b s t r a c tThe recommendation of chest radiography for school admission andemployment purposes should be discouraged due to the risks ofradiation especially cancer induction. It is therefore imperative to keepdiagnostic radiation doses as low as possible. This dataset presents theentrance surface dose, effective dose, bone marrow dose, breast dose,lung dose and the incidence cancer risks from chest radiography of 40young adult females. The mean incidence cancer risk to participants is1: 20,000 for solid cancers. The data revealed the signiﬁcant factorsinﬂuencing the entrance surface dose and incidence cancer risks.& 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open accessarticle under the CC BY license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Speciﬁcations Tableubject area Medicineore speciﬁc subject area Diagnostic Radiology, X-ray Imaging, Radiation dosimetry, RadiationProtectionype of data Tables and ﬁguresvier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY licensesity.edu.ng (J.A. Achuka).HDEEDJ.A. Achuka et al. / Data in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–1256 1251ow data was acquired Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100; RadPro, Poland), PCXMCSoftware (20Rotation), Quality Control Kits (MagicMax, Germany)ata format Raw, Analyzedxperimental factors The aforementioned parameters in the abstracts were analyzedaccording to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standardsfor radiation protection of patientsxperimental features Determination of entrance surface dose, effective dose and bonemarrow dose, breast dose and lung dose in order to estimate therisk of radiation induced cancer from chest radiographyata source location Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife,Osun State, Nigeriaata accessibility All the data are in this data articleDValue of the data The data can be used to assess incidence cancer risk from chest radiography in the State. The data will help to curtail the demand for chest radiography for school admission andemployment purposes. The data will enhance the optimization of radiographic procedures in the State to be as low asreasonably achievable. The data is useful in radiation protection training and epidemiology studies. Cancer risks assessment can be extended to other irradiated organs arising from chest radiographynot covered in this study. The study can be extended to multi-centre studies. The data can be helpful to radiation regulatory authorities and policy makers.1. DataThe data contains radiation doses and incidence of cancer risks among young adult females whounderwent chest radiography for school admission purposes. Radiation protection of patients indiagnostic radiology is a subject of global concern. Concerted effort to minimizing patient's dose hasled to generation of datasets [1–5]. Justiﬁcation of radiographic examinations and optimization of theprocedures have been the emphasis for the protection of patients [2,5,6]. Data on some experiencesleading to the discouragement of requests for chest radiography used for school admission andemployment purposes can be found in [7–9]. Data on the risks of cancer induction from low doseionizing radiation can be found in [10–14]. Beyond cancer induction other radiation risks have beenreported [15–17].1.1. Description of dataThe patient parameters, technical factors, radiation doses and incidence cancer risks are presentedin Tables 1, 2 and 7. Descriptive analysis of patient parameters and technical factors are presented inTable 2 and the descriptive analysis of radiation doses and cancer risks is reported in Table 7. Theinﬂuence of patient parameters and technical factors on entrance surface dose (ESD) is reported inTables 3–6 and Fig. 2. Fig. 1 compares the entrance surface dose (ESD) with world data (Table 7). Thecancer risks ratio is presented in Table 7.Table 2Model Summary for entrance surface dose, patient parameters and technical factors.Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. error of the estimate0.775 0.601 0.528 0.16941Table 3Analysis of variance for entrance surface dose, patient parameters and technical factors.Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.1 Regression 1.425 6 0.237 8.275 0.000Residual 0.947 33 0.029Total 2.372 39Table 4Coefﬁcients of variables.Model Unstandardized coefﬁcients Standardized coefﬁcients t Sig.B Std. error Beta1 (Constant) 1.739 2.033 0.855 0.399Age 0.024 0.020 0.225 1.225 0.229BMI 0.024 0.017 0.371 1.427 0.163FFD  0.019 0.006  0.666  3.284 0.002FSD 0.013 0.007 0.428 1.908 0.065kVp 0.002 0.033 0.022 0.063 0.950mAs  0.030 0.012  0.563  2.565 0.015Table 1Descriptive statistics of patient parameters and technical factors.Age BMI FFD FSD kVp mAsN Valid 40 40 40 40 40 40Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0Mean 20.25 22.8815 147.23 121.58 74.13 23.50Median 20.00 22.2700 153.00 124.00 74.00 25.00Std. Deviation 2.295 3.82241 8.710 7.828 2.633 4.591Variance 5.269 14.611 75.871 61.276 6.933 21.077Skewness 0.360 0.321  1.143  0.267 0.115 0.510Std. Error of Skewness 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374Kurtosis  1.016  0.622  0.467  1.311  0.794  0.341Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733Range 8 14.84 22 26 9 16Minimum 17 15.63 131 109 70 16Maximum 25 30.47 153 135 79 32ESD ¼ entrance surface dose; BD ¼ breast dose; ICR ¼ incidence cancer risks; FFD ¼ focus ﬁlm distance; FSD ¼ focus skindistance; kVp ¼ kilovoltage peak; mAs ¼ current time product.J.A. Achuka et al. / Data in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–12561252Table 5Correlation matrix of entrance surface dose, patient parameters and technical factors.Correlations ESD Age BMI FFD FSD kVp mAsPearson ESD 1Age 0.539 1BMI 0.234 0.568 1FFD  0.620  0.380 0.039 1FSD  0.129 0.163 0.442 0.607 1kVp 0.379 0.741 0.859  0.129 0.502 1mAs  0.046 0.418 0.793 0.247 0.646 0.760 1Kendall's ESD 1Age 0.450 1BMI 0.221 0.355 1FFD  0.544  0.384  0.095 1FSD  0.011 0.190 0.270 0.409 1kVp 0.368 0.596 0.641  0.263 0.330 1mAs 0.037 0.301 0.627 0.154 0.545 0.587 1Spearman's ESD 1Age 0.620 1BMI 0.314 0.491 1FFD  0.685  0.479  0.098 1FSD  0.050 0.242 0.395 0.482 1kVp 0.506 0.753 0.777  0.302 0.445 1mAs 0.028 0.375 0.734 0.175 0.687 0.674 1ESD ¼ entrance surface dose; BD ¼ breast dose; ICR ¼ incidence cancer risks; FFD ¼ focus ﬁlm distance; FSD ¼ focus skindistance; kVp ¼ kilovoltage peak; mAs ¼ current time product.Table 6Descriptive statistics of radiation doses and cancer risks incidence.ESD E BMD BD LD ICRBM ICRB ICRL ICRSN Valid 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mean 1.08 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.66 0.78 0.81 2.81 4.56Median 1.00 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.61 0.73 0.81 2.82 4.35Std. Deviation 0.247 0.043 0.043 0.067 0.184 0.162 0.299 0.799 0.879Variance 0.061 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.034 0.026 0.089 0.638 0.772Skewness 0.959 1.628 1.334 1.174 1.558 1.559 0.799 1.169 1.255Std. Error of Skewness 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374Kurtosis 0.154 2.773 1.058 1.942 2.615 2.601 1.346 2.339 1.405Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.733Range 1.01 0.20 0.18 0.32 0.86 0.75 1.40 3.92 4.01Minimum 0.68 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.43 0.58 0.35 1.61 3.24Maximum 1.69 0.31 0.31 0.41 1.29 1.34 1.75 5.53 7.25Percentiles 25 0.89 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.54 0.67 0.54 2.17 3.9450 1.00 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.61 0.72 0.81 2.82 4.3575 1.18 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.70 0.85 0.97 3.26 4.93ESD ¼ entrance surface dose; E ¼ effective dose; BMD ¼ bone marrow dose; BD ¼ breast dose; LD ¼ lung dose; ICRBM ¼ incidencecancer risks for bonemarrow; ICRB ¼ incidence cancer risks for breast; ICRL ¼ incidence cancer risks for lung; ICRs ¼ incidence cancerrisks for solid cancers.J.A. Achuka et al. / Data in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–1256 1253Fig. 1. Comparison of entrance surface dose [3,18–20].Fig. 2. Scatter line plot for entrance surface dose (ESD), focus to ﬁlm distance (FFD) and current time product (mAs).Table 7Incidence cancer risks ratio for chest radiography.ICRBM Ratio ICRB Ratio ICRL Ratio ICRS RatioMean 0.78 1:100000 0.81 1:100000 2.81 3:100000 4.56 5:100000Minimum 0.58 0.35 1.61 2:100000 3.24 3:100000Maximum 1.34 1:100000 1.75 2:100000 5.53 6:100000 7.25 7:100000Percentiles 25 0.67 0.54 2.17 2:100000 3.94 4:10000050 0.73 0.81 1:100000 2.82 3:100000 4.35 4:10000075 0.85 1:100000 0.97 1:100000 3.26 3:100000 4.93 5:100000Level of Risk:1: 1,000,000–1: 100,000: Minimal risk1: 100,000–1: 10,000: very low riskICRBM ¼ incidence cancer risks for bone marrow; ICRB ¼ incidence cancer risks for breast; ICRL ¼ incidence cancer risks forlung; ICRs ¼ incidence cancer risks for solid cancers.J.A. Achuka et al. / Data in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–12561254J.A. Achuka et al. / Data in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–1256 12552. Experimental design, materials and methods2.1. Data collectionData was collected during chest radiography of young adult females (aged 17–25 year) at the x-rayunit of Radiology Departments of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex Ile-Ife,Osun State, Nigeria. The participants were students admitted into one of the Schools of the UniversityTeaching Hospital for the year 2017. Consent was obtained from each participant before the com-mencement of the examination. Entrance surface dose (ESD) were determined using thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD-100: LiF: Mg, Ti) from RadPro International GmbH, Poland. Each of theTLD chip was enclosed in labelled black polythene pack. A total of three coded chips were used tomeasure the entrance surface dose (ESD) during the procedure in order to obtain the mean andenhance precision. The chips were attached to an elastic tape and placed in the centre of x-raysﬁeld where the beam intercepted with the irradiated part of the patient. Patient's clinical informationand exposure parameters were noted and recorded using self-structured form. The x-ray machineoutput parameters were determined using MagicMax quality control kits (IBA Dosimetry, Germany).2.2. Data collection toolThe TLD chips were oven-annealed using Carbolite oven made in England. Irradiation of TLD chipsfor calibration (for TLD chips and Reader) was conducted at the Secondary Standard DosimetryLaboratory (SSDL) of the National Institute of Radiation Protection and Research (NIRPR), Ibadan. TLDchips were read using Harshaw Reader (Model 3500) at the Department of Physics, Obafemi AwolowoUniversity Ile-Ife.2.3. Data analysisThe bone marrow dose, breast dose, lung dose and effective doses were evaluated from themeasured entrance surface dose (ESD) using PCXMC software (version 20Rotation). Thereafter, BEIRVII model software was used to estimate the incidence cancer risk.2.4. The study centreThe hospital is the only federal tertiary healthcare institution in the State with a population ofabout 4.7 million [21]. It provides tertiary, secondary and primary healthcare services to all theneighbouring States. The hospital serves as the teaching hospital of the Medical School of ObafemiAwolowo University Ile-Ife and has other six schools under its jurisdiction.AcknowledgementsWe would like to extend our appreciation to the Center for Research, Innovation and Discovery(CUCRID), Covenant University Ota, Nigeria (VC/CUCRID/RG 001.02.2016/FS)_for sponsoring thisresearch. Special thanks to all the Radiographers, Radiologists and the healthcare institution used forthis study.Transparency document. Supplementary materialTransparency data associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.123.J.A. Achuka et al. / Data in Brief 19 (2018) 1250–12561256Appendix A. Supplementary materialSupplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.123.References[1] B.F. Wall, R. Haylock, J.T.M. Jansen, M.C. Hillier, D. Hart, P.C. Shrimpton, Radiation risks from medical x-ray examinations asa function of the age and sex of the patient, Health Prot. Agency (2011) 1–70.[2] International Commission on Radiological Protection, The 2007 Recommendation of International Commission on RadiologicalProtection Publication 103, Ann of the ICRP, UK, 2007.[3] United Nations Scientiﬁc Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Reportto the General Assembly with Scientiﬁc Annexes, UNSCEAR, New York, 2008.[4] National Health Service, Diagnostic Imaging Datasets. Annual Statistical Release 2014/2015, NHS, England, 2015.[5] International Atomic Energy Agency, Radiological Protection for Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. Safety StandardsSeries No. RS-G-1.5, IAEA, Vienna, 2002.[6] F. Mohd, A. Aisyahton, Z.H. Ahmad, A comparison of two indirect methods for skin dose in chest radiography, HealthEnviron. J. 4 (2013) 103–114.[7] International Atomic Energy Agency, Optimization of the Radiological Protection of Patients Undergoing Radiography,Fluoroscopy and Computed Tomography. Final Report of a Coordinated Research Project in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe(IAEA-TECDOC-1423), IAEA, Vienna, 2004.[8] R.A. Akinola, A.O. Akhigbe, A.S. Mohammed, M.A. Jaiyesimi, O.O. Omotayo, F.O. Jinadu, K.O. Wright, Evaluation of routinechest x-rays performed in a tertiary institution in Nigeria, Int. J. Cardiovasc. Res. 3 (2014) 1000178.[9] A. Kumar, U. Srivastava, Role of routine laboratory investigations in preoperative evaluation, J. Anaesthesiol. Clin.Pharmcol. 27 (2011) 174–179.[10] I. Izamin, A.M. Rizal, Chest x-ray as an essential part of routine medical examination: is it necessary? Med. J. Malay.67 (2012) 606–609.[11] BEIR VII Health risks from exposure to low level of ionizing radiation, Estimating cancer risks, National Research CouncilBEIR VII Phase, National Academies, Washington D.C., 2006, vol. 12, pp. 268–312.[12] United States Environmental Protection Agency, Modifying EPA radiation risk models based on BEIR VII, Draft white paper,2006.[13] E. Cardis, M. Vrijheid, M. Blettner, E. Gilbert, M. Hakama, C. Hill, G. Howe, J. Kaldor, C.R. Muirhead, M. Schubauer-Berigan,T. Yoshimura, Risk of cancer after low doses of ionizing radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries, Br. Med. J. 331(2005) 77–80.[14] J. Zhu, W. Hu, N. Ding, C. Ye, M. Usikalu, S. Li, B. Hu, B.M. Sutherland, G. Zhou, An optimized colony forming assay for lowdose radiation cell survival measurement, Int. Res. J. Biotechnol. 2 (2011) 164–172.[15] M.R. Usikalu, M.A. Aweda, E.B. Babatunde, F.O. Awobajo, Low level microwave exposure decreases the number of malegerm cells and affect vital organs of Sprague Dawley rats, Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 1 (2010) 410–420.[16] M.R. Usikalu, O.O. Obembe, M.L. Akinyemi, J. Zhu, Short duration to 2.45 GHz microwave radiation induces DNA damage inSprague Dawley rat's reproductive systems, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 12 (2013) 115–122.[17] F. Umansky, Y. Shoshan, G. Rosethal, S. Fraifeld, S. Spektor, Radiation induced meningioma, Neurosurg. Foc. 24 (2008) E7.[18] International Atomic Energy Agency, Applying Radiation Safety Standards in Diagnostic Radiology and InterventionalProcedures Using x-Rays. Safety Standards Series No. 39, IAEA, Vienna, 2006.[19] R.A. Parry, S.A. Glaze, B.R. Archer, The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorials for residents, RadioGrap 19 (1999) 1289–1302.[20] European Commission, Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thirty Six European Countries, Radiation Protection No. 180, 2014.[21] Nigeria: States and Cities. 〈http://www.citypopulation.de/Nigeria-Cities.html〉, (Accessed 15 April 2018).

http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/12594/1/1-s2.0-S2352340918306292-main.pdf

Cancer risks from chest radiography of young adults: A pilot study at a health facility in South West Nigeria

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals

Covenant University Repository