JOURNAL DESCRIPTION
The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.
Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.
Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.
The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.
Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.
The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.
Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.
The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.
Issues journals
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 5
DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-82-87
E.K. Azimova1, 2, Sh.Sh. Abdulloeva1, F.N. Usov1,
A.D. Zikiryakhodzhaev1, 3 ,4, E.I. Egina1
Variants of Sentinel Lymph Node Research Protocols in Breast Cancer
1 P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncology Institute, Moscow, Russia
2Tashkent State Dental Istitute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
3Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
4I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
Contact person: E.K. Azimova, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To study the advantages of the technique of administering a radiopharmaceutical according to the “two-day protocol” for determining the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Compare the methods of introducing radiopharmaccutical according to the “two-day protocol” and the “one-day protocol”. To identify the advantages of using the “two-day protocol” method over the “one-day protocol” method.
Material and methods: In order to improve the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer by means of a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using the technique of introducing a radiopharmaceutical a day before surgical treatment, we analyzed 76 patients with various molecular biological types and stage of breast cancer disease who underwent examination and treatment in the conditions of the P.A. Herzen Moscow State Medical Institute. This cohort of patients was divided into 2 comparable groups: 1 group of patients who underwent SLNB according to a two-day protocol (n=38), the 2nd group of patients who underwent SLNB according to a one-day protocol (n=38). The ambient equivalent dose rate of photon radiation was measured using the MKS-08P dosimeter on the day of RP administration and on the day of surgery.
Results: On average, the dose rate of photon radiation 0.5 m from the injection point on the day of radiopharmaccutical administration (according to the “one-day protocol”) and on the day of surgery (according to the “two-day protocol”) was 46.9±23.1(11.0‒85.4) and 2.2±1.1(1.0‒6.4) μSv/h, respectively. The average value of thedose rate directly in the colloid injection zone two hours after administration is equal to 185.1±25.7 (138.9‒258.0) μSv/h, a day later ‒ 9.8±3.8 (6.5‒27) μSv/h. In the first group, when using the “two-day protocol”, when scanning the SPECT/CT in 34/38 (89.5 %) patients revealed 83 lymph nodes, in the second in 30/38 (78.9 %) patients – 72; the total number of removed lymph nodes ‒ 147 and 156, respectively. With an urgent cytological examination, adenogenic metastases were detected in 8 cases in the first group, in 11 cases in the second. In 11/38 (29.0 %) patients, according to the “two-day protocol”, the number of detected and removed lymph nodes is equal, “according to the one-day protocol” ‒ in 5/38 (13.2 %). The scan did not reveal any SLN in the first group – 5/38 (13.2 %), in the second – 7/38 (18.4 %).
Conclusions: The advantage of using the “two-day protocol” was revealed, consisting in an 18-fold decrease in background radiation. And also, a faster and more accurate determination of the sentinel lymph node in the surgical field using a gamma detector, associated with a minimum number of cases of scattered radiation in the area of regional lymph outflow, in contrast to the weak accumulation of “sentinel” lymph nodes and strong background radiation outside the nodes when a radioisotope is injected on the day of surgery. The “two-day protocol” greatly facilitates the work of the oncologist surgeon, contributes to a more accurate determination and biopsy of the sentinel lymph node, reduces the radiation load on medical staff during surgery.
Keywords: breast cancer, sentinal lymph node, SPECT/CT, gamma-probe, biopsy, one-day protocol, two-day protocol, radiation
situation
For citation: Azimova EK, Abdulloeva ShSh, Usov FN, Zikiryakhodzhaev AD, Egina EI.Variants of Sentinel Lymph Node Research Protocols in Breast Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(5):82–87. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-82-87
References
1. Lyman G.H., Somerfield M.R., Bosserman L.D., et al. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017;35;5:561–564.
2. Veronesi U., Cascinelli N., Mariani L., et al. Twenty-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Study Comparing Breast-Conserving Surgery with Radical Mastectomy for Early Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;347:1227–11232.
3. Audretsch W., Kolotas Ch., Rezai M., et al. Conservative Treatment for Breast Cancer. Complications Requiring for Breast Cancer. Materials of IOPBS 3rd International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Symposium (Tokyo). 2010;1:391-392.
4. Cabanas R.M. An Approach for the Treatment of Penile Carcinoma. Cancer. 1977;39;2:456–466.
5. Allard-Coutu A., Dobson V., Schmitz E., Shah H., Nessim C. The Evolution of the Sentinel Node Biopsy in Melanoma. Life. 2023;13:489.
6. Cochran A.J., Roberts A., Wen D.-R., Huang R.-R., Itakura E., Luo F., Binder S. W. Optimized Assessment of Sentinel Lymph Nodes for Metastatic Melanoma: Implications for Regional Surgery and Overall Treatment Planning. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2004;11:156S-161.
7. Jakobsen J.K. Sentinel Node Methods in Penile Cancer – a Historical Perspective on Development of Modern Concepts. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 2022;52:486-497.
8. Imyanitov E.N., Khanson K.P. Advances in Fundamental Oncology: the Year 2020 Update. Prakticheskaya Onkologiya = Practical Oncology. 2005;6;1:1-5 (In Russ.).
9. Dick A., Perri T., Kogan L., Brandt B., Meyer R., Levin G. Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer: A Comparison of Main National and International Guidelines. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2022.
10. Krag D.N., Weaver D.L., Alex J.C., Fairbank J.T. Surgical Resection and Radiolocalization of the Sentinel Lymph Node in Breast Cancer Using a Gamma Probe. Surg. Oncol. 1993;2;6:335–339.
11. Ermakov A.V., Zikiryakhodzhayev A.D., Saribekyan E.K., Ablitsova N. V., Usov F.N. The Biological Conceptualization of the Sentinel Lymph Node (Literature Review). Zlokachestvennyye Opuholi = Malignant Tumoursis. 2016;4:5-13 (In Russ.).
12. Ismagilov A.Kh., Asnina N.G., Azarov G.A. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: History and Current Concepts. Opukholi Zhenskoy Reproduktivnoy Sistemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2018;14;1:38-46 (In Russ.).
13. Semiglazov V.F., Krivorotko P.V., Zhiltsova E.K., et al. Twenty-Year Experience of Examining Biopsies of Signal Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer. Opukholi Zhenskoy Reproduktivnoy Sistemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2020;16;1:2-20 (In Russ.).
14. Nazera Dodia, Deena El‑Sharief, Cliona C. Kirwan. The Use of Isotope Injections in Sentinel Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer: Are the 1- and 2-Day Protocols Equally Effective? SpringerPlus. 2015;4:495.
15. Stoffels I., Dissemond J., Pöppel T., Schadendorf D., Klode J. Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging for Sentinel Lymph Node Detection: Prospective Clinical Trial to Compare the Usefulness of Indocyanine Green vs Technetium Tc 99m for Identification of Sentinel Lymph Nodes. JAMA Surg. 2015;150;7:617-623.
16. Waqar M., Afridi T.A., Soomror Q., Khatoon J., Dahri J. Determination of Annual Effective Doses from Background Ionizing Radiation to Nuclear Medicine Professionals in Medical Centre. Journal of Radiation and Nuclear Applications. 2022;7;3:15-20.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. A.D. Zikiryakhodjaev: concept and design of the study;
E.K. Azimova, Sh.Sh. Abdulloeva, E.I. Egina: collection and processing of the material; E.K. Azimova: writing the text; F.N. Usov: editing.
Article received: 20.04.2023. Accepted for publication: 27.05.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 5
DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-88-95
A.A. Medvedeva, A.N. Rуbina, R.V. Zeltchan, O.D. Bragina, A.V. Doroshenko,
E.Iu. Garbukov, N.A. Tarabanovskaya, L.A. Tashireva, V.I. Chernov
Radionuclide Diagnosis of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast cancer with a Radiopharmaceutical Based on Technetium-99m Labeled Gamma Aluminum Oxide
Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Tomsk, Russia
Contact person: A.A. Medvedeva, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Аim: To analyze the results of radionuclide diagnostics of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) in patients with breast cancer (BC) with the radiotracer Sentiscan, 99mTc (manufacturer “MedicorPharma-Ural”) using the multimodal SPECT/CT at the stage of visualization.
Material and methods: The study was retrospective, it included 48 patients with BC with clinical stage T2-3N0M0, who underwent radionuclide diagnostics of SLN and SPECT/CT was performed at the imaging stage. The images were evaluated visually, the intensity of the radiotracer accumulation in the lymph nodes (LN) was analyzed, SUVmax was used as a quantitative parameter. Intraoperative detection of SLN with subsequent histological examination was also carried out with the calculation of the level of the radiotracer accumulation.
Results: On tomoscintigrams, LNs were visualized in 43 patients out of 48, intraoperatively ‒ in 46 cases, in 2 patients, accumulation of the radiotracer in the LN projection was noted neither according to SPECT/CT, nor intraoperatively. When analyzing the intensity of the radiotracer accumulation according to SPECT/CT data, a rather large scatter of SUVmax‒35 [10‒104]. Sentinel were considered LNs with the level of the radiotracer accumulation in them of at least 10 % of the most intense node. According to SPECT/CT data, 165 lymph nodes were identified, the average number of lymph nodes detected in one patient was 2 [1‒3], the maximum number was 6 lymph nodes. In all patients, the lymph nodes were determined in the projection of the 1st level, in 25 cases ‒ in the projection of other zones of regional lymphatic outflow. The total number of lymph nodes removed during surgery was n=247, on average 3 [2‒5] lymph nodes were removed in one patient, with a maximum of 8 nodes.
Conclusion: The sensitivity of radionuclide diagnostics of SLN with Sentiscan, 99mTc was 89.6 % according to SPECT/CT and 95.8 % according to the results of intraoperative detection. The use of multimodal imaging provides information on the exact anatomical localization of the lymph nodes. In the absence of scintigraphic visualization of the radiotracer redistribution in the lymphatic collector, intraoperative detection does not lose its relevance.
Keywords: breast cancer, sentinel lymph node, radionuclide colloid, single photon emission computed tomography, gamma probe
For citation: Medvedeva AA, Rуbina AN, Zeltchan RV, Bragina OD, Doroshenko AV, Garbukov EIu, Tarabanovskaya NA, Tashire-
va LA, Chernov VI. Radionuclide Diagnosis of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast cancer with a Radiopharmaceutical Based on Technetium-99m Labeled Gamma Aluminum Oxide. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(5):88–95. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-88-95
References
1. Cabañas R.M. An Approach for the Treatment of Penile Cancer. Cancer. 1977;39:456-466.
2. Morton D. Technical Details of Intraoperative Lymphatic Mapping for Early Stage Melanoma. Arch Surg. 1992;127;4:392. DOI: 10.1001/ archsurg.1992.01420040034005.
3. Alex J.C., Krag D.N. The Gamma-Probe-Guided Resection of Radiolabeled Primary. Lymph Nodes. Surg. Oncol. Clin. N Am. 1996;5;1:33–41.
4. Boada A., Tejera-Vaquerizo A., Ribero S., Puig S., Moreno-Ramírez D., Quaglino P., Osella-Abate S., Cassoni P., Malvehy J., Carrera C., Pigem R., Barreiro-Capurro A., Requena C., Traves V., Manrique-Silva E., Fernández-Orland A., Ferrandiz L., García-Senosiain O., Fernández-Figueras M.T., Ferrándiz C, Nagore E. Factors Associated with Sentinel Lymph Node Status and Prognostic Role of Completion Lymph Node Dissection for Thick Melanoma. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020;46;2:263–271. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.09.189.
5. Lafuente-Sanchis A., Olmo A., Carretero J., Alcacer Fernandez-Coronado J., Estors-Guerrero M., Martínez-Hernández N.J., Cremades A., Zúñiga A., Alcacer J., Farras R., Cuenca M., Galbis-Caravajal J.M. Clinical Significance of Epithelial-mesenchymal Transition-related Markers Expression in the Micrometastatic Sentinel Lymph Node of NSCLC. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2020;22;3:381–391. doi: 10.1007/s12094-019-02138-3.
6. Ni J.S., Janz T.A., Nguyen S.A., Lentsch E.J. Predictors of Occult Lymph Node Metastasis in Cutaneous Head and Neck Melanoma. World J. Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;5;4:200–206. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2019.02.003.
7. Touhami O., Grégoire J., Renaud M.C., Sebastianelli A., Plante M. Performance of Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) Mapping in High-risk Endometrial Cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;147;3:549–553. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.09.014.
8. Moo T.A., Sanford R., Dang C., Morrow M. Overview of Breast Cancer Therapy. PET Clin. 2018;13;3:339–354. doi: 10.1016/j.cpet.2018.02.006.
9. Plichta J.K. Breast Cancer Prognostic Staging and Internal Mammary Lymph Node Metastases: a Brief Overview. Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2019;8:1–11. DOI: 10.21037/cco.2019.01.09.
10. Chernov V.I., Dudnikova E.A., Zelchan R.V., Kravchuk T.L., Danilova A.V., Medvedeva A.A., Sinilkin I.G., Bragina O.D., Goldberg V.E., Goldberg A.V., Frolova I.G. The First Experience of Using 99mTc-1-Thio-d-Glucose for Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging of Lymphomas. Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2018;17;4:81-87 (In Russ.).
11. Bragina O., Chernov V., Zelchan R., Medvedeva A., Schulga A., Vorobyeva A., Orlova A., Deyev S., Tolmachev V., Konovalova E., Garbukov E., Tashireva L., Sorensen J. Phase I trial of 99mTc-(He)3-G3, a Darpin-based Probe for Imaging of Her2 Expression in Breast Cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2022;63;4:528-535.
12. Chernov V.I., Medvedeva A.A., Sinilkin I.G., Zelchan R.V., Bragina O.D, Development Radiopharmaceuticals for Nuclear Medicine in Oncology. Meditsinskaya Vizualizatsiya = Medical Visualization. 2016;2:63-66 (In Russ.).
13. Zhang Jing-Jie, Zhang Wan-Chun, An Cai-Xia, Li Xiao-Min, Ma Le. Comparative Research on 99mTc-Rituximab and 99mTc-sulfur Colloid in Sentinel Lymph Node Imaging of Breast Cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019;19;1:956. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6197-9.
14. Unkart J.T., Hosseini A., Wallace A.M. Tc-99m Tilmanocept Versus Tc-99m Sulfur Colloid in Breast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Identification: Results from a Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;116;7:819–823.
15. Krivorotko P.V., Kanayev S.V., Semiglazov V.F., Novikov S.N., Krzhivitskiy P.I., Semenov I.I., Turkevich E.A., Busko E.A., Donskikh R.V., Bryantseva Zh.V., Piskunov E.A., Trufanova E.S., Chernaya A.V. Methodological Problems of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Breast Cancer. Problems in Oncology. 2015;61;3:418-423 (In Russ.).
16. Giammarile F., Alazraki N., Aarsvold J.N., Audisio R.A., Glass E., Grant S.F., Kunikowska J., Leidenius M., Moncayo V.M., Uren R.F., Oyen W.J.G., Olmos R.A.V., Sicart S.V. The EANM and SNMMI Practice Guideline for Lymphoscintigraphy and Sentinel Node Localization in Breast Cancer. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2013;40:1932–1947.
17. Navalkissoor S., Wagner T., Gnanasegaran G. SPECT/CT in Imaging Sentinel Nodes. ClinTransl Imaging. 2015;3;3:203–215. doi: 10.1007/s40336- 015-0113-3.
18. Olmos V.R.A., Rietbergen D.D.D., Vidal-Sicart S. SPECT/CT and Sentinel Node Lymphoscintigraphy. ClinTransl Imaging. 2014;2;6:491–504. doi: 10.1007/s40336-014-0087-6.
19. Mucientes R.J., Farge B.L., Cardona A.J., Moreno E.A., Delgado-Bolton R, Izarduy P.L., Rodríguez R.C., Lapeña G.L., González M.A., Román S.J.M., Carreras D.J.L. SPECT-CT: a New Tool for Localisation of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer Patients. Rev. Esp. Med. Nucl. 2008;27;3:183-190.
20. Krzhivitskiy P.I., Kanayev S.V., Novikov S.N., Chernaya A.V., Krivorotko P.V., Semiglazov V.F., Semenov I.I., Ponomareva O.I., Ilin N.D., Zhukova L.A. Use of SPECT-CT for Visualization of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer Patients. Problems in Oncology. 2015;61;4:624-626 (In Russ.).
21. Krzhivitskiy P.I., Kanayev S.V., Novikov S.N., Novikov R.V., Semenov I.I., Ponomareva O.I., Ilin N.D., Petrova A.S. The Use of SPECT-CT for Visualization of Sentinel Lymph Nodes and Lymph Drainage Pathways in Prostate Cancer Patients. Problems in Oncology. 2016;62;2:272-276 (In Russ.).
22. Kanayev S.V., Novikov S.N., Krzhivitskiy P.I., Radzhabova Z.A., Kotov M.A., Ponomareva O.I., Girshovich M.M., Artemyev S.S., Artemyeva A.S., Melnik Yu.S. SPECT-CT for Visualization of Sentinel Lymph Nodes and Lymph Flow from Tongue Cancer. Problems in Oncology. 2019;65;2:250-255 (In Russ.).
23. Jimenez-Heffernan A., Ellmann A., Sado H., Huić D., Bal C., Parameswaran R., Giammarile F., Pruzzo R., Kostadinova I., Vorster M., Almeida P., Santiago J., Gambhir S., Sergieva S., Calderon A., Young G.O., Valdes-Olmos R., Zaknun J., Magboo V.P., Pascual T.N. Results of a Prospective Multicenter International Atomic Energy Agency Sentinel Node Trial on the Value of SPECT/CT Over Planar Imaging in Various Malignancies. J. Nucl. Med. 2015;56;9:1338-1344. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.153643.
24. Pouw B., Hellingman D., Kieft M., Vogel W.V., van Os K.J., Rutgers E.J., Valdés Olmos R.A., Stokkel M.P. The Hidden Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer: Reevaluating the Role of SPECT/CT and Tracer Reinjection. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;42;4:497-503. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.12.009.
25. Varlamova N.V., Skuridin V.S., Nesterov E.A., Larionova L.A., Chernov V.I. The Study of Cumulative Propertiesradiopharmaceutical Nanocolloid, 99mtс-Al2o3 in Rats. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University. Series: Biology, Clinical Medicine. 2015;13;2:40–44 (In Russ.).
26. Varlamova N.V., Stasyuk E.S., Titskaya A.A., Sinilkin I.G., Larionova L.A., SHerstoboyev E.Yu., Trofimova E.S., Ligacheva A.A., Skuridin V.S. The Study of the Allergenic Pproperties of the Radiopharmaceutical “Nanocolloid, 99mTc-Al2O3” in the Experiment. Modern Technologies in Medicine. 2015;4:72–77 (In Russ.).
27. Skuridin V.S., Chernov V.I., Varlamova N.V., Nesterov E.A., Sinilkin I.G., Zelchan R.V. Study of Functional Fitness Radiopharmaceuticals “Nanocolloids,99mTc-Al2O3” for Scintigraphic and Intraoperative Identification of “Sentinel” Lymph Nodes. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2015;3:76–80 (In Russ.).
28. Zelchan R.V., Medvedeva A.A., Sinilkin I.G., Bragina O.D., Chernov V.I., Stasyuk E.S., Ilina E.A., Skuridin V.S. Study of the Functional Suitability of the Tumoritropic Radiopharmaceutical 99mTc-1-Thio-6-Glucose in the Experiment. Molecular Medicine. 2018;16;3:54-57
(In Russ.).
29. Sinilkin I.G., Chernov V.I., Kolomiyets L.A., Slonimskaya E.M., Medvedeva А.А., Zelchan R.V., Chernyshova A.L., Doroshenko A.V., Lyapunov A.Yu. The First Clinical Experiment with a New Domestic Radiopharmaceutical 99mTc-Aluminum Gamma-Oxide for Imaging Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Malignant Tumors. Medical visualization. 2016;2:57-62 (In Russ.).
30. McMasters K.M., Reintgen D.S., Ross M.I., Wong S.L., Gershenwald J.E., Krag D.N., Noyes R.D., Viar V., Cerrito P.B., Edwards M.J. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Melanoma: How Many Radioactive Nodes should be Removed? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2001;8;3:192–197.
31. Boughey J.C., Suman V.J., Mittendorf E.A., Ahrendt G.M., Wilke L.G., Taback B., Leitch A.M., Kuerer H.M., Bowling M., Flippo-Morton T.S., Byrd D.R., Ollila D.W., Julian T.B., McLaughlin S.A., McCall L., Symmans W.F., Le-Petross H.T., Haffty B.G., Buchholz T.A., Nelson H., Hunt K.K., Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Node-positive Breast Cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2013;310;14:1455–1461. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.278932.
32. Kuehn T., Bauerfeind I., Fehm T., Fleige B., Hausschild M., Helms G., Lebeau A., Liedtke C., von Minckwitz G., Nekljudova V., Schmatloch S., Schrenk P., Staebler A., Untch M. Sentinel-Lymph-Node Biopsy in Patients with Breast Cancer before and after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (SENTINA): a Prospective, Multicentre Cohort Study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14;7:609–618. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9.
33. Krag D., Anderson S., Julian T., et al. Technical Outcomes of Sentinel-Lymph-Node Resection and Conventional Axillary-Lymphnode Dissection in Patients with Clinically Node-negative Breast Cancer: Results from the NSABP B-32 Randomised Phase III Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8;10:881–888.
34. Li S., Liu F., Chen K., Rao N., Xie Y., Su F., Zhu L. The Extent of Axillary Surgery is Associated with Breast Cancer-specifc Survival in T1–2 Breast Cancer Patients with 1 or 2 Positive Lymph Nodes: a SEER-population Study. Medicine. 1995;14:e3254.
35. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Breast Cancer. Version. 1.2018.
36. Cheng G., Kurita S., Torigian D.A., Alavi A. Current Status of Sentinel Lymph-node Biopsy in Patients with Breast Cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2011;38:562-575.
37. Magnoni F., Corso G., Gilardi L., Pagan E., Massari G., Girardi A., Ghidinelli F., Bagnardi V., Galimberti V., Grana C.M., Veronesi P. Does Failed Mapping Predict Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in cN0 Breast Cancer? Future Oncol. 2022;18;2:193-204. doi: 10.2217/fon-2021-0470.
38. Giammarile F., Alazraki N., Aarsvold J.N., Audisio R.A., Glass E., Grant S.F., Kunikowska J., Leidenius M., Moncayo V.M., Uren R.F., Oyen W.J., Valdés Olmos R.A., Vidal Sicart S. The EANM and SNMMI Practice Guideline for Lymphoscintigraphy and Sentinel Node Localization in Breast Cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2013;40;12:1932-1947. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2544-2.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Medvedeva A.A.: collection and analysis of literary material, concept and design development, data analysis and interpretation, text writing; Chernov V.I.: concept and design development, scientific text editing, final approval for manuscript publication; Rybina A.N., Zelchan R.V., Bragina O.D.: research concept development, development research design, data analysis, text editing; Doroshenko A.V., Garbukov E.Yu., Tarabanovskaya N.I., Tshireva L.A.: material collection, data analysis, statistical data processing, text editing.
Article received: 20.04.2023. Accepted for publication: 27.05.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-5-13
Yu.E. Kvacheva, A.S. Samoylov, N.K. Shandala
Scientist, Innovator, Mentor, Public Figure – on the Occasion
of the 95th Anniversary of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences L.A. Ilyin
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Nataliya K. Shandala, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The article is dedicated to the jubilee event - the 95th anniversary of a world-famous scientist, an outstanding figure in the national medical science, one of the pioneer organizers of healthcare and the creators of the nuclear shield of our country, our Teacher – Academician Leonid Andreyevich Ilyin.
Keywords: L.A. Ilyin, anniversary, radiation health physics, radiation safety, radiation medicine, Chernobyl accident, protective measures
For citation: Kvacheva YuE, Samoylov AS, Shandala NK. Scientist, Innovator, Mentor, Public Figure ‒ on the Occasion of the 95th Anniversary of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences L.A. Ilyin. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):5–13. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-5-13
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. The concept of the study ‒ Samoylov A S; collection and processing and writing of the text ‒ Kvacheva Yu E, Shandala N K ‒ equal participation.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 5
DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-96-104
S.M. Minin, Zh.Zh. Anashbayev, E.A. Samoylova, A.A. Zheravin,
W.Yu. Ussov, S.E. Krasilnikov, A.M. Cherniavsky
SPECT/CT with 99mTc-Technetryl in Staging, Planning of External Radiotherapy and Follow-up in Lung Cancer: a Clinical Case and Case – Addressed Review of Literature
E.N. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Novosibirsk, Russia
Contact person: W.Yu. Ussov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The case of a patient with newly diagnosed peripheral cancer of the right lung, involving the pleura, in whom the local extent of the process initially detected by X-ray CT was significantly extended from the data of the SPECT with 99mTc-technetryl. In particular, with SPECT/CT before the start of radiation therapy (RT), involved lymph nodes were detected both in the lower edge of the root of the right lung, and in paraaortic and paratracheal location. The SPECT/CT with 99mTc-technetryl was carried out with dual-detector gamma-camera GE Discovery NM/CT 670 DR (GE Medical) in a quantitative mode, with calibration and calculation of indexes of standardized uptake values (SUV) and % uptake of the administered activity by the primary tumor and metastatically involved lymph nodes. The values of the volume of tumor tissue were, respectively, for the tumor and the largest proximal metastatically involved lymph node 154.2 cm3 and 12.9 cm3, % of the activity absorbed by the tumor tissue − 0.498 and 0.030 %, and SVP ‒ 2.19 and 2.5.With subsequent external radiation therapy (in total 40 Gy, 2 Gy 5−6 times a week) the irradiation fields were planned in such a way that all affected lymph nodes were within their borders.
A control SPECT/CT study carried out immediately after the RT showed a decrease in the volume of tumor tissue in the primary node down to 58 cm3, % of the activity absorbed by the tumor tissue to 0.090 %, and SVP ‒ to 1.15. Reliable imaging of lymph nodes after LT was not observed. After 6.5 months, no evidencies for relapse or continued tumor growth were detected with a control X-ray CT performed on an outpatient visit with contrast enhancement.
Thus, SPECT/CT with 99mTc-technetryl in lung cancer is a vital method for clarifying the diagnosis and assessment of the extent of the tumor process, as well as monitoring the patient. A broad inter-center assessment of abilities of the SPECT/CT with 99mTc-technetryl in lung cancer is advisable, especially when planning RT.
Keywords: lung cancer, radiation therapy, dosimetric planning, SPECT/CT, 99mTc-technetryl
For citation: Minin SM, Anashbayev ZhZh, Samoylova EA, Zheravin AA, Ussov WYu, Krasilnikov SE, Cherniavsky AM. SPECT/CT with 99mTc-technetryl in Staging, Planning of External Radiotherapy and Follow-up in Lung Cancer: a Clinical Case and Case – Addressed Review of Literature. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(5):96–104. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-96-104
References
1. Malignant Tumors in Russia in 2018 (Morbidity and Mortality). Ed. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. Moscow Publ., 2019. 250 p. (In Russ.).
2. Merabishvili V.M., Yurkova Yu.P., Levchenko E.P., Shcherbakov A.M., Krotov N.E. The State of Cancercare in Russia: Lung Cancer, Patient Survival (Population Study at the Federal District Level). Problems of Oncology. 2021;67;4:492-500 (In Russ.).
3. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68;6:394-424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492.
4. Solodkiy V.A., Panshin G.A. Modern Radiotherapy for Inoperable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Bulletin of the Russian Scientific Center of Radiology. 2020;20;2:74-98 (In Russ.).
5. Arsenyev A.I., Kanayev S.V., Novikov S.N., Barchuk A.A., Barchuk F.E. Current Trends in the Use of Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Locally Advanced (Stage IIIA / N2) and Early Forms (Stage I - II) of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, or the Role of Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer at the Present Stage. Malignant Tumors. 2017;7;3:26-34. doi: 10.18027/2224-5057-2017-7-3s1-26-34 (In Russ.).
6. Nudnov N.V., Sotnikov V.M., Ledenev V.V., Baryshnikova D.V. Quantitative Estimation of Radiation-Induced Lung Damage by CT. Medical Visualization. 2016;20;3:85-94. (In Russ.).
7. Meshcheryakova N.A., Dolgushin M.B., Davydov M.M., Laktionov K.K., Odzharova A.A., Nevzorov D.I., Eremin N.V. The Role of Positron Emission Tomography Combined with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis and Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Russian Journal of Oncology. 2016;21;3:160–164 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18821/1028-9984-2016-21-3-160-164
8. Stukanov S.L., Ussov W.Yu., Kolomiets S.A., Ryannel’ Yu.E., Velichko S.A., Zyryanov B.N. Single-Photon Emission Computer-Aided Tomography with 99mTc-Technetryl in Lung Cancer. Мedical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 1996;41;6:11-15.
9. Aktolun C., Bayhan H., Kir M. Clinical Experience with Tc-99m MIBI Imaging in Patients with Malignant Tumors. Preliminary results and comparison with Tl-201. Clin. Nucl. Med. 1992;17;3:171-176. doi: 10.1097/00003072-199203000-00003.
10. Aktolun C., Bayhan H., Pabuccu Y., Bilgic H., Acar H., Koylu R. Assessment of Tumour Necrosis and Detection of Mediastinal Lymph Node Metastasis in Bronchial Carcinoma with Technetium-99m Sestamibi Imaging: Comparison with CT Scan. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 1994;21;9:973-979. doi: 10.1007/BF00238122.
11. Chipiga L.A., Ladanova E.R., Vodovatov A.V., Zvonova L.A., Mosunov A.A., Naurzbayeva L.T., Ryzhov S.A. Trends in the Development of Nuclear Medicine in the Russian Federation for 2015 – 2020. Radiation Hygiene. 2022;15;4:122-133. doi: 10.21514/1998-426X-2022-15-4-122-133 (In Russ.).
12. Lugano R., Ramachandran M., Dimberg A. Tumor Angiogenesis: Causes, Consequences, Challenges and Opportunities. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2020;77;9:1745-1770. doi: 10.1007/s00018-019-03351-7.
13. Ussov W.Y., Riannel J.E., Slonimskaya E.M., Velichko S.A., Mihailovic J.M.F., Scopinaro F. Quantification of Breast Cancer Blood Flow in Absolute Units Using Gjedde-Rutland-Patlak Analysis of 99mTc-MIBI Uptake. Nucl. Med. Rev. Cent. East. Eur. 1999;2;1:4-9.
14. Nikolov N.A. Kinetics of 99mTc-MIBI in Breast Cancer According to the Results of Mathematical Modelling. Electronics and Communications. 2013;1:38-44 (In Russ.).
15. Santini M., Fiorello A., Mansi L., Rambaldi P.F., Vicidomini G., Busiello L., Messina G., Nargi P. The Role of Technetium-99m Hexakis-2-Methoxyisobutyl Isonitrile in the Detection of Neoplastic Lung Lesions. Eur. J. Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35;2:325-331. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.09.033.
16. Nikoletic K., Lucic S., Peter A., Kolarov V., Zeravica R., Srbovan D. Lung 99mTc-MIBI Scintigraphy: Impact on Diagnosis of Solitary Pulmonary Nodule. Bosnian J. Basic Med. Sci. 2011;11;3:174-179. doi: 10.17305/bjbms.2011.2570.
17. Nikoletić K., Mihailović J., Srbovan D., Kolarov V., Zeravica R. Lung Tumors: Early and Delayed Ratio of 99mTc-Methoxy-2-Isobutylisonitrile Accumulation. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2014;71;5:438-445.
18. Ussov W.Yu., Obradovich V., Kostenikov N.A. Mammoscintigraphy: a Brief Review of Modern Clinical Application. Radiology — Practice. 2001;2;3:10–27 (In Russ.).
19. Crișan G., Moldovean-Cioroianu N.S., Timaru D.G., Andrieș G., Căinap C., Chiș V. Radiopharmaceuticals for PET and SPECT Imaging: A Literature Review over the Last Decade. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23;9:5023. doi: 10.3390/ijms23095023.
20. Ergün E.L., Kara P.O., Gedik G.K., Kars A., Türker A., Caner B. The Role of Tc-99m (V) DMSA Scintigraphy in the Diagnosis and Follow-up of Lung Cancer Lesions. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2007;21;5:275-283. doi: 10.1007/s12149-007-0017-z.
21. Berk F., Demir H., Aktolun C. Thallium-201 Imaging in the Assessment of Tumor Response to Anti-Tumor Treatments. Q. J. Nucl. Med. 2003;47;1:63-74.
22. Borodin O.Yu., Karpov E.N., Lishmanov Yu.B., Skuridin V.S., Ignatovich I.A., Ussov W.Yu. First Experience of SPECT-CT with the Radiopharmaceutical Thallium-199 Chloride in Diagnosis and Assessment of the Metastatic Spread of Lung Cancer. Medical Visualization. 2022;26;1:84–93 (In Russ.). doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-1016.
23. de Barros A.L., Cardoso V.N., Mota L.d., Leite E.A., Oliveira M.C., Alves R.J. Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Technetium-Labeled D-Glucose-MAG3 Derivative as Agent for Tumor Diagnosis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2009;19;9:2497-2499. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.03.059.
24. Nadeem Q., Khan I., Javed M., Mahmood Z., Dar U.K., Ali M., Hyder S.W., Murad S. Synthesis, Characterization and Bioevaluation of Technetium-99m Labeled N-(2-Hydroxybenzyl)-2-Amino-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose as a Tumor Imaging Agent. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013;26;2:353-357.
25. Lindner T., Altmann A., Krämer S., Kleist C., Loktev A., Kratochwil C., Giesel F., Mier W., Marme F., Debus J., Haberkorn U. Design and Development of 99mTc-Labeled FAPI Tracers for SPECT Imaging and 188Re Therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 2020;61;10:1507-1513. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.239731.
26. Minai O.A., Raja S., Mehta A.C., Sullivan E.J., Khan S.U., Dasgupta A., Arroliga A.C. Role of Tc-99m MIBI in the Evaluation of Single Pulmonary Nodules: a Preliminary Report. Thorax. 2000;55;1:60-62. doi: 10.1136/thorax.55.1.60.
27. Zhang S., Liu Y. Diagnostic Performances of 99mTc-Methoxy Isobutyl Isonitrile Scan in Predicting the Malignancy of Lung Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95;18:e3571. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003571.
28. Miziara J.M., da Rocha E.T., Miziara J.E., Garcia G.F., Simões M.I., Lopes M.A., Kerr L.M., Buchpiguel C.A. Preoperative Nodal Staging of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using 99mTc-Sestamibi Spect/Ct Imaging. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66;11:1901-1909. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322011001100009.
29. Sathekge M., Maes A., D›Asseler Y., Vorster M., Van de Wiele C. Nuclear Medicine Imaging in Tuberculosis Using Commercially Available Radiopharmaceuticals. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2012;33;6:581-90. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283528a7c.
30. Monostori Z. Novelties and New Possibilities in Radiological Diagnostics of Lung Cancer. Hungarian Oncology. 2015;59:37–43.
31. Arsenyev A.I., Novikov S.N., Barchuk A.S., Kanayev S.V., Barchuk A.A., Tarkov S., Nefedov A.O., Kostitsin K.A., Gagua K.E., Nefedova A.V., Aristidov N.Yu. Lung Cancer Diagnosis: Non-Invasive and Invasive Methods. Problems in oncology. 2020;66;1:42-49 (In Russ.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.04.2023. Accepted for publication: 27.05.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-14-19
A.S. Samoylov, O.A. Kochetkov, V.N. Klochkov, V.G. Barchukov, S.M. Shinkarev
The Main Directions of Improving the Current Standards and Rules to Provide Radiation Safety. Part 1. Scale of the Problem and Ways to Solve It
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: V.N. Klochkov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To justify the necessity to update the radiation safety standards in our country and to propose the main directions for revising the Russian regulatory framework in the field of radiation safety.
Material and methods: This paper considers the phases of development of the radiation safety regulation system in Russia. It is noted that for the first time a full-fledged three-level system of radiation safety regulation was created in Russia in the early 2000s. A generalized analysis of new international documents in the field of radiation safety system, which are worth using in the Russian regulatory framework, is presented.
Results: The main directions of the revision of the Russian regulatory framework in the field of radiation safety are:
introduction of new concepts and current terminology;
introduction of “soft” standards, which are reference levels and the so-called “dose constraints” (it is desirable to give this term a different Russian name);
updating the principles and standards of emergency response;
updating the dose coefficients taking into account new biokinetic models, extension of the list of radionuclides and pathways;
introduction of special approaches in the field of internal dosimetry and regulation of radiation protection of workers under management of radionuclides with a long effective half-life of clearance from the human body (isotopes of plutonium and 90Sr);
use of principles and standards according to the concept of exclusion, exemption, and clearance to justify the criteria for classifying various media as radioactive waste and waste with a high content of radionuclides;
development of standards and rules for maintaining the radiation safety of workers and the public during the decommissioning of radiation facilities and the rehabilitation of contaminated areas.
Conclusion: For the successful implementation of the work to be done, it is important to combine the efforts of the Russian scientists and practitioners who have accumulated extensive experience in the field of radiation safety. The high potential of the Russian specialists makes it possible to carry out this work in a short time. A necessary condition for the implementation of these works is the introduction of amendments to the Federal Law of 09.01.1996 No. 3-FL «On Radiation Safety of the Public».
Keywords: radiation safety, ionizing radiation, radiation safety regulation, regulatory framework, workers, public
For citation: Samoylov AS, Kochetkov OA, Klochkov VN, Barchukov VG, Shinkarev SM. The Main Directions of Improving the Current Standards and Rules to Provide Radiation Safety. Part 1. Scale of the Problem and Ways to Solve It. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):14–19. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-14-19
References
1. Kochetkov O.A., Klochkov V.N., Samoylov A.S., Shandala N.K. Harmonization of the Russian Federation Legislation with Current International Recommendations. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66;6:111–115. DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-111-115 (In Russ.).
2. Kochetkov O.A., Klochkov V.N., Samoylov A.S., Shandala N.K., Barchukov V.G., Shinkarev S.M. General Principles of Legal, Standard and Methodical Regulation of Radiation Safety. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022;67;1:19–26. DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2022-67-1-19-26 (In Russ.).
3. Klochkov V.N., Shinkarev S.M., Kochetkov O.A., Barchukov V.G., Simakov A.V. To the Discussion on Amendments to NRB-99/2009 and OSPORB-99/2010. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68;2:95-98. DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-2-95-98 (In Russ.).
4. Hygiene Standards. HS 2.6.1.054-96. Radiation Safety Standards NRB-96. Approved and Put into Effect by the Decree of the State Committee for Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision of Russia Dated April 19, 1996 No. 7 (In Russ.).
5. SP 2.6.1.758-99. Hygiene Standards. Radiation Safety Standards NRB-99. Approved by the Chief State Doctor of the Russian Federation G.G. Onishchenko 02.07.1999 (In Russ.).
6. SP 2.6.1.799-99. Basic Sanitary Rules for Maintaining Radiation Safety OSPORB-99. Approved by the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation G.G. Onishchenko 27.12.1999 (In Russ.).
7. ICRP Publication 60. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP. 1991;21;1–3:1-201.
8. Safety Series No. 115. International Basic Safety Standards for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources. Vienna, IAEA, 1996.
9. SanPin 2.6.1.2523–09. Radiation Safety Standards NRB-99/2009. Approved by the Decree of the Chief State Doctor of the Russian Federation G.G. Onishchenko 07.07.2009 No. 47 (In Russ.).
10. Sanitary Rules and Standards SP 2.6.1.2612-10. Basic Sanitary Rules for Maintaining Radiation Safety OSPORB-99/2010. Approved by the Decree of the Chief State Doctor of the Russian Federation G.G. Onishchenko 26.04.2010 No. 40 (In Revision Amendments No. 1, Approved by the Decree of the Chief State Doctor of the Russian Federation 16.09. 2013 No. 43 (In Russ.).
11. Metodicheskoye Obespecheniye Radiatsionnogo Kontrolya v Shesti Tomakh = Methodological Provision of Radiation Monitoring in Six Volumes. Moscow, Doza Publ., 2015-2019 (In Russ.).
12. ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP. 2007;37;2-4.
13. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF-1. Fundamental Safety Principles: Safety Fundamentals. Vienna, IAEA, 2006.
14. ICRP Publication 147. Use of Dose Quantities in Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP. 2021;50;1.
15. ICRP Publication 130: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 1. Ann. ICRP. 2015;44; 2:5-188.
16. ICRP Publication 134: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 2. Ann. ICRP. 2016;45;3-4:7–349.
17. ICRP Publication 137: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 3. Ann. ICRP. 2017;46;3-4:1-486.
18. ICRP Publication 141: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 4. Ann. ICRP. 2019;48;2-3.
19. ICRP Publication 151. Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 5. Ann. ICRP. 2022;51; 1–2.
20. ICRP Publication 30. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. Part 1. Ann. ICRP. 1979;2;3-4.
21. ICRP Publication 30. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. Part 2. Ann. ICRP. 1980;4;3-4.
22. ICRP Publication 30. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. Part 3. Ann. ICRP. 1981;6;2-3.
23. ICRP Publication 30. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers: An Addendum. Part 4. Ann. ICRP. 1988;19;4.
24. ICRP Publication 30. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. Index. Ann. ICRP. 1982;8;4.
25. ICRP Publication 54. Individual Monitoring for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. Ann. ICRP. 1989;19;1-3.
26. ICRP Publication 68. Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. Ann. ICRP. 1994;24;4.
27. ICRP Publication 78. Individual Monitoring for Internal Exposure of Workers. Ann. ICRP. 1997;27;3-4.
28. ICRP Publication 150: Cancer Risk from Exposure to Plutonium and Uranium Exposure. Ann. ICRP. 2021;50;4:1-143.
29. ICRP Publication 126. Radiological Protection against Radon Exposure. Ann. ICRP. 2014;43;3.
30. ICRP Publication 115. Lung Cancer Risk from Radon and Progeny and Statement on Radon. Ann. ICRP. 2010;40;1.
31. ICRP Publication 109. Application of the Commission’s Recommendations for the Protection of People in Emergency Exposure Situations. Ann. ICRP. 2009;39;1.
32. ICRP Publication 111. Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency. Ann. ICRP. 2009;39;3.
33. ICRP Publication 146. Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident: Update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111. Ann. ICRP. 2020;49;4.
34. ICRP Publication 116. Conversion Coefficients for Radiological Protection Quantities for External Radiation Exposures. Ann. ICRP. 2010;40;2-5.
35. ICRP Publication 132. Radiological Protection from Cosmic Radiation in Aviation. Ann. ICRP. 2016;45;1:1–48.
36. ICRP Publication 142. Radiological Protection from Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Industrial Processes. Ann. ICRP. 2019;48;4.
37. ICRP Publication 152. Radiation Detriment Calculation Methodology. Ann. ICRP. 2022;51;3.
38. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014.
39. Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance: Safety Guide. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004. ISBN 92-0-109404-3.
40. Derivation of Activity Concentration Values for Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005. ISBN 92–0–113104–6.
40. IAEA-EPR. Actions to Protect the Public in an Emergency due to Severe Conditions at a Light Water Reactor. EPR-NPP-PPA. Vienna, IAEA, 2013.
41. ICRP Publication 111. Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency. Ann. ICRP. 2009;39;3.
42. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-2.10. Decommissioning after a Nuclear Accident: Approaches, Techniques, Practices and Implementation Considerations. Vienna, IAEA, 2019. STI/PUB/1811. ISSN 1995–7807.
43. IAEA-EPR. Actions to Protect the Public in an Emergency due to Severe Conditions at a Light Water Reactor. EPR-NPP-PPA. Vienna, IAEA, 2013.
44. ICRP Publication 111. Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency. Ann. ICRP. 2009;39;3.
45. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-2.10. Decommissioning after a Nuclear Accident: Approaches, Techniques, Practices and Implementation Considerations. Vienna, IAEA, 2019. STI/PUB/1811. ISSN 1995–7807.
46. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSG‑15. General Safety Guide. IAEA Safety Standards for protecting people and the environment. Remediation Strategy and Process for Areas affected by Past Activities or Events. IAEA, Vienna, 2022. STI/PUB 1969.
47. IAEA Nuclear Safety and Security Glossary. Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness and Response. Vienna, IAEA, 2022. ISBN 978–92–0–141122–8 (pdf).
48. International Nuclear Verification Series No. 3 (Rev. 1). IAEA Safeguards Glossary. 2022 Edition Vienna, IAEA, 2022. ISBN 978–92–0–122222–0 (pdf). STI/PUB/2003.
49. IAEA Safety Glossary. Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection. 2018 Edition. Vienna, IAEA, 2019. STI/PUB/1830. ISBN 978–92–0–104718–2.
50. IAEA Nuclear Safety and Security Glossary. Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness and Response. 2022. IAEA, Vienna, 2022. ISBN 978–92–0–141122–8 (pdf)
51. International Nuclear Verification Series No. 3 (Rev. 1). IAEA Safeguards Glossary. 2022 Edition IAEA, Vienna, 2022. ISBN 978–92–0–122222–0 (pdf). STI/PUB/2003.
52. Romanovich I.K., Vodovatov A.V., Biblin A.M., Kormanovskaya T.A. On the issue of the development of legislative and regulatory provision of the radiation safety of the public. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2022;15;1:88-95. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2022-15-1-88-95
(In Russ.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.