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. № 3
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-21-32
A.N. Koterov1, L.N. Ushenkova1, I.G. Dibirgadzhiev1 A.A. Wainson2, M.V. Kalinina1, A.P. Biryukov1
Excess Relative Risk of Cataractogenic Lense Disordes in Nuclear Workers: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
1A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
2N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Alexey N. Koterov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The lens cells are the most radiosensitive cells in the body, surpassing even lymphocytes in key parameters. Radiation damages in the lens can be observed at relatively low doses, in connection with which a number of authors attribute to these effects not a deterministic, but a stochastic nature.
Although cataractogenic consequences do not always affect visual acuity, and lens undergo successful surgical correction, when irradiating various professional groups, including workers in the nuclear industry, these consequences are regarded in importance immediately after malignant neoplasms and diseases of the circulatory system. The presented study showed that there are very few publications on the lens disorders in nuclear workers – only 20 sources were identified (1967–2022), and no data were found on the effects of low doses (0.1 Gy for low LET radiation).
When conducting a meta-analysis for ERR at 1 Gy/Sv for radiation damage in the lens of nuclear workers, three cohorts turned out to be relevant: a small group in the American study of transuranium elements processing, Mayak personnel and ROSATOM workers – liquidators of the Chernobyl accident. The sample was homogeneous, publication bias was unlikely, and, according to the results of a meta-analysis (Fixed effect model), ERR per 1 Gy/Sv was 0.30 (95 % confidence intervals: 0.25; 0.35).
Based on the earlier work (Koterov A.N. et al, 2022) of the mean cumulative dose of external exposure for nuclear workers as a world professional category, which amounted to 31.1 mSv, the calculation showed that with ERR = 0.3 per 1 Gy/Sv excess prevalence of cataracts for a group of ‘average’ workers is 0.0093. This corresponds to an increase in prevalence of 0.096 % over a background level of 10.3 % for potentially radiogenic cataracts (last value taken from a meta analysis by Hashemi H. et al., 2020). Such an increase is unlikely to have practical significance. Although for some cohorts (Sellafield, PO ‘Mayak’) there may be groups with significant cumulative doses and, therefore, with increased risks.
The importance of the risks of cataractogenic disorders in the lens in radiation workers may be due to a decrease in professional suitability, since the artificial lens, as a rule, is poorly capable of accommodation.
Keywords: nuclear workers, lens disorders, cataracts, systematic review, meta-analysis
For citation: Koterov AN, Ushenkova LN, Dibirgadzhiev IG, Wainson AA, Kalinina MV, Biryukov AP. Excess Relative Risk of Cataractogenic Lense Disorders in Nuclear Workers: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(3):21–32. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-21-32
References
1. Ashmore J.P., Krewski D., Zielinski J.M., Jiang H., Semenciw R., Band P.R. First Analysis of Mortality and Occupational Radiation Exposure Based on the National Dose Registry of Canada // Am. J. Epidemiol. 1998. V.148, No. 6. P. 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009682.
2. UNSCEAR 1972. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. Vol. I. ‘Level’. Annex C. Doses from Occupational Exposure. United Nations. New York, 1972. P. 173–186.
3. ICRP Publication 118. ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions and Early and Late Effects of Radiation in Normal Tissues and Organs – Threshold Doses for Tissue Reactions in a Radiation Protection Context. Annals of the ICRP. Ed. Clement C.H. Amsterdam – New York: Elsevier, 2012. 325 p.
4. Little M.P., Azizova T.V., Hamada N. Low- and Moderate-Dose Non-Cancer Effects of Ionizing Radiation in Directly Exposed Individuals, Especially Circulatory and Ocular Diseases: A Review of the Epidemiology // Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2021. V.97, No. 6. P. 782–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2021.1876955.
5. Della Vecchia E., Modenese A., Loney T., Muscatello M., Paulo M.S., Rossi G., Gobba F. Risk of Cataract in Health Care Workers Exposed to Ionizing Radiation: a Systematic Review // Med. Lav. 2020. V.111, No. 4. P. 269–284. https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v111i4.9045.
6. Elmaraezy A., Morra M.E., Mohammed A.T., Al-Habaa A., Elgebaly A., Ghazy A.A., et al. Risk of Cataract among Interventional Cardiologists and Catheterization Lab Staff: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis // Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Actions. 2017. V.90, No. 1.
P. 1–9. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27114.
7. Dauer L., Blakely E., Brooks A., Hoel D. Epidemiology and Mechanistic Effects of Radiation on the Lens of The Eye: Review and Scientific Appraisal of the Literature. Technical Report. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Newburgh: NY, 2014. 142 p.
8. Ainsbury E.A., Bouffler S.D., Dorr W., Graw J., Muirhead C.R., Edwards A.A., Cooper J. Radiation Cataractogenesis: a Review of Recent Studies // Radiat. Res. 2009. V.172, No. 1. P. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR1688.1.
9. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P.T., Rothstein H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009. 421 p.
10. Hamada N. Ionizing Radiation Sensitivity of the Ocular Lens and Its Dose Rate Dependence // Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2017. V.93, No. 10. P. 1024–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2016.1266407.
11. Hammer G.P., Scheidemann-Wesp U., Samkange-Zeeb F., Wicke H., Neriishi K., Blettner M. Occupational Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation and Cataract Development: a Systematic Literature Review and Perspectives on Future Studies // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2013. V.52, No. 3. P. 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-013-0477-6.
12. Thome C., Chambers D.B., Hooker A.M., Thompson J.W., Boreham D.R. Deterministic Effects to the Lens of the Eye Following Ionizing Radiation Exposure: Is there Evidence to Support a Reduction in Threshold Dose? // Health Phys. 2018. V.114, No. 3. P. 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000810.
13. Ainsbury E.A., Dalke C., Hamada N., Benadjaoud M.A., Chumak V., Ginjaume M., et al. Radiation-Induced Lens Opacities: Epidemiological, Clinical and Experimental Evidence, Methodological Issues, Research Gaps and Strategy // Environ. Int. 2021. No. 146. P. 106213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106213.
14. Ainsbury E.A., Barnard S., Bright S., Dalke C, Jarrin M, Kunze S et al. Ionizing Radiation Induced Cataracts: Recent Biological and Mechanistic Developments and Perspectives for Future Research // Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2016. V.770, No. Pt. B. P. 238–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.07.010.
15. Hamada N., Azizova T.V., Little M.P. An Update on Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure on the Eye // Br. J. Radiol. 2020. V.93, No. 1115. P. 20190829. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20190829.
16. Averbeck D., Salomaa S., Bouffler S., Ottolenghi A., Smyth V., Sabatier L. Progress in Low Dose Health Risk Research: Novel Effects and New Concepts in Low Dose Radiobiology // Mutat. Res. 2018. No. 776. P. 46–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2018.04.001.
17. Hamada N., Fujimichi Y., Iwasaki T., Fujii N., Furuhashi M., Kubo E., et al. Emerging Issues in Radiogenic Cataracts and Cardiovascular Disease // J. Radiat. Res. 2014. V.55, No. 5. P. 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rru036.
18. Shore R.E., Neriishi K., Nakashima E. Epidemiological Studies of Cataract Risk at Low to Moderate Radiation Doses: (Not) Seeing Is Believing // Radiat. Res. 2010. V.174, No. 6. P. 889–894. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR1884.1.
19. Rehani M.M., Vano E., Ciraj-Bjelac O., Kleiman N.J. Radiation and Cataract // Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2011. V.147, No. 1–2. P. 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr299.
20. ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP. Ed. Valentin J. Amsterdam – New York: Elsevier, 2007. 329 p.
21. Bannik K., Rossler U., Faus-Kessler T., Gomolka M., Hornhardt S., Dalke C. et al. Are Mouse Lens Epithelial Cells More Sensitive to γ-Irradiation than Lymphocytes? // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2013. V.52, No. 2. P. 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-012-0451-8.
22. Markiewicz E., Barnard S., Haines J., Coster M., van Geel O., Wu W. et al. Nonlinear Ionizing Radiationinduced Changes in Eye Lens Cell Proliferation, Cyclin D1 Expression and Lens Shape // Open Biol. 2015. V.5, No. 4. P. 150011. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.150011.
23. McCarron R.A., Barnard S.G.R., Babini G., Dalke C., Graw J., Leonardi S., et al. Radiation-Induced Lens Opacity and Cataractogenesis: a Lifetime Study Using Mice of Varying Genetic Backgrounds // Radiat. Res. 2022. V.197, No. 1. P. 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-20-00266.1.
24. Barnard S.G.R., Hamada N. Individual Response of the Ocular Lens to Ionizing Radiation // Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2023. V.99, No. 2. P. 138–154. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2022.2074166.
25. Nakashima E., Neriishi K., Minamoto A. A Reanalysis of Atomic-Bomb Cataract Data, 2000–2002: a Threshold Analysis // Health Phys. 2006. No. 902. P. 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hp.0000175442.03596.63.
26. Laskowski L., Williams D., Seymour C., Mothersill C. Environmental and Industrial Developments in Radiation Cataractogenesis // Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2020. No. 26. P. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1767820.
27. Cucinotta F.A., Manuel F.K., Jones J., Iszard G., Murrey J., Djojonegro B., Wear M. Space Radiation and Cataracts in Astronauts // Radiat. Res. 2001. V.156, No. 5. P. 460–466. https://doi.org/10.1667/0033-7587(2001)156[0460:sracia]2.0.co;2.
28. Rafnsson V., Olafsdottir E., Hrafnkelsson J., Sasaki H., Arnarsson A., Johansson F. Cosmic Radiation Increases the Risk of Nuclear Cataract in Airline Pilots // Arch. Opthalmol. 2005. V.123, No. 8. P. 1102–1105. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.123.8.1102.
29. Klein B.E., Klein R., Linton K.L., Franke T. Diagnostic X-Ray Exposure and Lens Opacities: the Beaver Dam Eye Study // Am. J. Public Health. 1993. V.83, No. 4. P. 588–590. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.83.4.588.
30. Klein B.E., Klein R.E., Moss S.E. Exposure to Diagnostic X-Rays and Incident Age-Related Eye Disease // Ophthalmic. Epidemiol. 2000. V.7, No. 1. P. 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1076/0928-6586(200003)711-2FT061.
31. Poon R., Badawy M.K. Radiation Dose and Risk to the Lens of the Eye During CT Examinations of the Brain // J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2019. V.63, No. 6. P. 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12950.
32. Picano E., Vano E., Domenici L., Bottai M., Thierry-Chef I. Cancer and Non-Cancer Brain and Eye Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Exposure // BMC Cancer. 2012. No. 12. P. 157. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-157.
33. Shore R.E. Radiation Impacts on Human Health: Certain, Fuzzy, and Unknown // Health Physics. 2014. V.106, No. 2. P. 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000000021.
34. Shore R.E. Radiation and Cataract Risk: Impact of Recent Epidemiologic Studies on ICRP Judgments // Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2016. V.770, P. Pt. B. P. 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.06.006.
35. Chylack L.T. Jr., Wolfe J.K., Singer D.M., Leske M.C., Bullimore M.A., Bailey I.L., et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group // Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993. V.111, No. 6. P. 831–836. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060119035.
36. Merriam G.R.Jr., Focht E.F. A Clinical Study of Radiation Cataracts and the Relationship to Dose // Am. J. Roentgenol. Radium. Ther. Nucl. Med. 1957. V.77, No. 5. P. 759–785.
37. Merriam G.R.Jr., Focht E.F. A Clinical and Experimental Study of the Effect of Single and Divided Doses of Radiation on Cataract Production // Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1962. No. 60. P. 35–52.
38. SparrowO J.M., Bron A.J., Brown N.A., Ayliffe W., Hill A.R. The Oxford Clinical Cataract Classification and Grading System // Int. Ophthalmol. 1986. V.9, No. 4. P. 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137534.
39. Klein B.E., Klein R., Linton K.L., Magli Y.L., Neider M.W. Assessment of Cataracts from Photographs in the Beaver Dam Eye Study // Ophthalmology. 1990. V.97, No. 11. P. 1428–1433. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32391-6.
40. Thylefors B., Chylack L.T. Jr., Konyama K., Sasaki K., Sperduto R., Taylor H.R., West S. A Simplified Cataract Grading System // Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2002. V.9, No. 2. P. 83–95. https://doi.org/110.1076/opep.9.2.83.1523.
41. Neriishi K., Nakashima E., Minamoto A., Fujiwara S., Akahoshi M., Mishima H.K., et al. Postoperative Cataract Cases among Atomic Bomb Survivors: Radiation Dose Response and Threshold // Radiat. Res. 2007. V.168, No. 4. P. 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR0928.1.
42. Su Y., Wang Y., Yoshinaga S., Zhu W., Tokonami S., Zou J., et al. Lens Opacity Prevalence among the Residents in High Natural Background Radiation Area in Yangjiang, China // J. Radiat. Res. 2021. V.62, No. 1. P. 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rraa073.
43. Worgul B.V., Kundiyev Y.I., Sergiyenko N.M. Chumak V.V., Vitte P.M., Medvedovsky C., et al. Cataracts among Chernobyl Clean-up Workers: Implications Regarding Permissible Eye Exposure // Radiat. Res. 2007. V.167, No. 2. P. 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1667/rr0298.1.
44. Бекман И.Н. Ядерная индустрия: Курс лекций. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2005. 867 с.
45. Berrington de Gonzalez A., Bouville A., Rajaraman P., Schubauer-Berigan M. Ionizing Radiation. Schottenfeld and Fraumeni Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. Ed. Thun M.J., Linet M.S., Cerhan J.R., Haiman C., Schottenfeld D. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. P. 227–248.
46. Breuer F., Strambi E. Evaluation and Rational Recording of Irradiation Doses of Nuclear Workers // Minerva Fisiconucl. 1966. V.10, No. 2. P. 165–170 (In Italian.).
47. IARC 1994. IARC Study Group on Cancer Risks among Nuclear Industry Workers. Direct Estimates of Cancer Mortality Due to Low Doses of Ionising Radiation: an International Study. IARC Study Group on Cancer Risk among Nuclear Industry Workers // Lancet. 1994. V.344, No. 8929. P. 1039–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91706-X.
48. Voelz G.L. Eye-Survey Study of Nuclear-Reactor Workers // J. Occup. Med. 1967. V.9, No. 6. P. 286–292.
49. Griffith T.P., Pirie A., Vaughan J. Possible Cataractogenic Effect of Radionuclides Deposited Within the Eye from the Blood Stream // Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1985. V.69, No. 3. P. 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.69.3.219.
50. Михайлина Т.Н., Виноградова М.В. О формировании лучевой и инволюционной катаракт у человека при радиационном воздействии // Вестник офтальмологии. 1992. Т.108, № 1. С. 40–48.
51. Okladnikova N.D., Pesternikova V.S., Sumina M.V., Doshchenko V.N. Occupational Diseases from Radiation Exposure at the First Nuclear Plant in the USSR // Sci. Total Environ. 1994. V.142, No. 1–2. P. 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(94)90067-1.
52. Гуськова А.К. 50 лет атомной промышленности России – глазами врача // Атомная энергия. 1999. Т.87, № 6. С. 479–485.
53. Гуськова А.К. Атомная отрасль страны глазами врача. М.: Реальное Время, 2004. 240 с.
54. Jacobson B.S. Cataracts in Retired Actinide-Exposed Radiation Workers // Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2005. V.113, No. 1. P. 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch427.
55. Muksinova K., Kirillova E.N., Zakharova M.L., et al. A Repository of Bio-Specimens from Mayak Workers Exposed to Protracted Radiation // Health Phys. 2006. V.90, No. 3. P. 263–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000175441.68227.ff.
56. Окладникова Н.Д., Сумина М.В., Пестерникова В.С., Азизова Т.В., Кабашева Н.Я. Отдаленные последствия внешнего γ-облучения по результатам наблюдения за персоналом первого в стране предприятия атомной промышленности // Клин. медицина. 2007. Т.85, № 10. С. 21–26.
57. Okladnikova N.D., Sumina M.V., Pesternikova V.S. Long-Term Effects of External γ-Irradiation Based on the Results of Monitoring the Personnel of the Country›s First Nuclear Industry Enterprise // Wedge. the Medicine. 2007. No. 10. P. 21–26.
58. Azizova T.V., Bragin E.V., Hamada N., Bannikova M.V. Risk of Cataract Incidence in a Cohort of Mayak PA Workers Following Chronic Occupational Radiation Exposure // PLoS One. 2016. V.11, No. 10. P. e0164357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164357.
59. Брагин Е.В., Азизова Т.В., Банникова М.В. Заболеваемость катарактой в когорте работников, подвергшихся профессиональному облучению // Офтальмология. 2016. Т.13, № 2. С. 115–121. https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2017133257-63.
60. Туков А.Р., Шафранский И.Л., Капитонова Н.В. и др. Риск развития катаракты в условиях острого и хронического облучения // Саратовский научно-медицинский журнал. 2016. Т.12, № 4. С. 678–684.
61. Туков А.Р., Шафранский И.Л., Прохорова О.Н., Зиятдинов М.Н. Риск развития радиационной катаракты у работников атомной промышленности – участников ликвидации последствий аварии на ЧАЭС // Радиация и риск. 2019. Т.28, № 1. С. 37–46. https://doi.org/10.21870/0131-3878-2019-28-1-37-46.
62. Брагин Е.В., Азизова Т.В., Банникова М.В. Риск заболеваемости старческой катарактой у работников предприятия атомной промышленности // Вестник офтальмологии. 2017. Т.133, № 2. С. 57–63. https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2017133257-63.
63. Азизова Т.В., Брагин Е.В., Хамада Н., Банникова М.В. Оценка риска заболеваемости старческой катарактой в когорте работников предприятия атомной промышленности ПО «Маяк» // Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2018. Т.63, № 4. С. 15–21. https://doi.org/10.12737/article-5b83b0430902e8.35861647.
64. Azizova T.V., Hamada N., Grigoryeva E.S., Bragin E.V. Risk of Various Types of Cataracts in a Cohort of Mayak Workers Following Chronic Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation // Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2018. V.33, No. 12. P. 1193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0450-4.
65. Азизова Т.В., Хамада Н., Григорьева Е.С., Брагин Е.В. Риск катаракты различных типов в когорте работников, подвергшихся профессиональному хроническому облучению // Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2020. Т.65, № 4. С. 48–57. https://doi.org/10.12737/1024-6177-2020-65-4-48-57.
66. Azizova T.V., Hamada N., Bragin E.V., et al. Risk of Cataract Removal Surgery in Mayak PA Workers Occupationally Exposed to Ionizing Radiation Over Prolonged Periods // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2019. V.58, No. 2. P. 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-019-00787-0.
67. Казымбет П.К., Джанабаев Д.Д., Сайфулина Е.A., Кашкинбаев Е.T., Ибраева Д.С., Хусаин Ш.К. Оценка риска соматических заболеваний в когорте работников урановой промышленности, подвергающихся радиационному воздействию в малых дозах. Сообщение II // Наука и Здравоохранение. 2019. Т.21, № 5. С. 81–87.
68. Park S., Lee D.N., Jin Y.W., et al. Non-Cancer Disease Prevalence and Association with Occupational Radiation Exposure among Korean Radiation Workers // Sci. Rep. 2021. V.11, No. 1. P. 22415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01875-2.
69. Котеров А.Н. От очень малых до очень больших доз радиации: новые данные по установлению диапазонов и их экспериментально-эпидемиологические обоснования // Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2013. Т.58, № 2. С. 5–21.
70. Котеров А.Н., Вайнсон А.А. Конъюнктурный подход к понятию о диапазоне малых доз радиации с низкой ЛПЭ в зарубежных обзорных источниках: нет изменений за 18 лет // Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2022. Т.67, № 5. С. 33–40. https://doi.org/10.33266/1024-6177-2022-67-5-33-40.
71. Seals K.F., Lee E.W., Cagnon C.H., Al-Hakim R.A., Kee S.T. Radiation-Induced Cataractogenesis: a Critical Literature Review for the Interventional Radiologist // Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2016. V.39, No. 2. P. 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-015-1207-z.
72. Chodick G., Bekiroglu N., Hauptmann M., Alexander B.H., Freedman D.M., Doody M.M., et al. Risk of Cataract after Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: a 20-Year Prospective Cohort Study among US Radiologic Technologists // Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008. V.168, No. 6. P. 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn171.
73. Milacic S. Risk of Occupational Radiation-Induced Cataract in Medical Workers // Med. Lav. 2009. V.100, No. 3. P. 178–186.
74. Rajabi A.B., Noohi F., Hashemi H., et al. Ionizing Radiation-Induced Cataract in Interventional Cardiology Staff // Res. Cardiovasc. Med. 2015. V.4, No. 1. P. e25148. https://doi.org/10.5812/cardiovascmed.25148.
75. Andreassi M.G., Piccaluga E., Guagliumi G., Del Greco M., Gaita F., Picano E. Occupational Health Risks in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Workers // Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016. V.9, No. 4. P. e003273. https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.115.003273.
76. Lian Y., Xiao J., Ji X., Guan S., Ge H., Li F., Ning Li., Liu J. Protracted Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cataract in a Cohort of Chinese Industry Radiographers // Occup. Environ. Med. 2015. V.72, No. 9.
P. 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102772.
77. Ozasa K., Shimizu Y., Suyama A., Kasagi F., Soda M., Grant E.J., et al. Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: an Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases // Radiat. Res. 2012. V.177, No. 3. P. 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2629.1.
78. Anderson J.L., Bertke S.J., Yiin J., Kelly-Reif K., Daniels R.D. Ischaemic Heart and Cerebrovascular Disease Mortality in Uranium Enrichment Workers // Occup. Environ. Med. 2020. V.78, No. 2. P. 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106423.
79. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement // PLoS Med. 2009. V.6, No. 7. P. e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
80. Омельяновский В.В., Авксентьева М.В., Сура М.В., Хачатрян Г.Р., Федяева В.К. Методические рекомендации по проведению мета-анализа. М.: ФГБУ «ЦЭККМП» Минздрава России, 2017. 28 с.
81. Little M.P. Radiation and Circulatory Disease // Mutat Res. 2016. V.770, No. Pt B. P. 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.07.008.
82. Bernstein J., Dauer L., Dauer Z., Hoel D., Woloschak G. Cardiovascular Risk from Low Dose Radiation Exposure: Review and Scientific Appraisal of the Literature. Technical Report // EPRI. 2020. 144 p. https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002018408.
83. Котеров А.Н., Туков А.Р., Ушенкова Л.Н., Калинина М.В., Бирюков А.П. Средняя накопленная доза облучения для работников мировой ядерной индустрии: малые дозы, малые эффекты. Сравнение с дозами для медицинских радиологов // Радиационная биология. Радиоэкология. 2022. Т.62, № 3. С. 227–239. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869803122030043.
84. Hashemi H., Pakzad R., Yekta A., et al. Global and Regional Prevalence of Age-Related Cataract: a Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis // Eye. 2020. V.34, No. 8. P. 1357–1370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0806-3.
85. Котеров А.Н., Ушенкова Л.Н., Калинина М.В., Бирюков А.П. Сравнение риска смертности от солидных раков после радиационных инцидентов и профессионального облучения // Медицина катастроф. 2021. № 3. С. 34–41. https://doi.org/10.33266/2070-1004-2021-3-34-41.
86. Ong H.S., Evans J.R., Allan B.D.S. Accommodative Intraocular Lens Versus Standard Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Cataract Surgery // Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014. No 5. P. CD009667. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009667.pub2.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The work was carried out on the budget topic of the research of the FMBA of Russia and was not supported by any other sources of funding.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.01.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.02.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 3
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-33-38
A.V. Rumyantseva, T.V. Azizova, M.V. Bannikova
Incidence Rates of Malignant Neoplasms of Female Genital Organs
in the Cohort of Females Occupationally Exposed to Ionizing Radiation
Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Russia
Contact person: A.V. Rumyantseva, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To assess the association of incidence rates of malignant neoplasms of female genital organs (MNs of FGO) in women who were chronically occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation (IR) with radiation and non-radiation factors.
Material and methods: To perform the study, the cohort of females employed at the Mayak PA during 1948–1982 and followed up until 31 December 2018 was considered. All members of the considered cohort were chronically exposed to IR.
Results: 83.6 % of females were first diagnosed with a MN of FGO at age after 50 years. More than 50 % of MNs of FGO were reported during 1991–2010. Standardized rates of MNs FGO varied with the calendar period with the highest rates observed during 1996–2005. The analysis of the variation of the standardized rates with time demonstrated a significant tendency to increase by the end of the follow-up (R²=0.67, p=0.03). The incidence rates of MNs of FGO on average increased annually by 1.0 % (95 % CI 0.3–1.6). The standardized rates of MNs of FGO were significantly higher in females who had been diagnosed with endometriosis prior to MNs of FGO. The standardized rates of MNs of FGO were significantly higher in females externally exposed to gamma-rays at uterus absorbed dose of 0.2–0.5 Gy and above 0.5 Gy compared to females who had been exposed at lower doses.
MNs of the uterine body were the most common among total MNs of FGO. More than 90 % of MNs of the uterine body were registered during menopause. The standardized rate of MNs of the uterine body in females of the study cohort was 0.37 ± 0.05. The decrease in the standardized rate of the MNs of the uterine body was observed in 1986–1995 calendar period. The spline regression analysis of the variation of the standardized rate of MNs of the uterine body demonstrated the annual increment by 0.9 % (95 % CI 0.7–2.5) on average. The analysis demonstrated a tendency of the standardized rate of MNs of the uterine body to increase in the study cohort of females (R²=0.46, p=0.16). The standardized rates of MNs of the uterine body were significantly higher in females who had been diagnosed with endometriosis prior to MNs of the uterine body. Standardized rates of MNs of the uterine body were significantly higher in females externally exposed to gamma rays at the cumulative uterus absorbed dose above 0.5 Gy compared to females exposed at lower doses.
Conclusion: MNs of FGO were associated with both known non-radiation factors (age, calendar period, endometriosis) and the cumulative uterus absorbed dose from chronic occupational exposure to ionizing radiation.
Keywords: malignant neoplasms, female genital organs, female workers of the Mayak production association, occupational ionizing radiation exposure, incidence rates
For citation: Rumyantseva AV, Azizova TV, Bannikova MV. Incidence Rates of Malignant Neoplasms of Female Genital Organs in the Cohort of Females Occupationally Exposed to Ionizing Radiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(3):33–38.
(In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-33-38
References
1. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V., Gretsova O.P., Aleksandrova L.M. Malignant Tumors of the Female Genitals in Russia: State of the Art and Problems. Arkhiv Akusherstva i Ginekologii im. V.F. Snegireva = V.F. Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;1;2:44-47 (In Russ.).
2. Odintsova I.N., Pisareva L.F., Pikalova L.V., Kudyakov L.A. Epidemiological Aspects of Gynecologic in Tomsk Region. Sibirskiy Onkologicheskiy Zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2017;16;5:48-54. DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2017-16-5-48-54 (In Russ.).
3. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Shakhzadova A.O. Sostoyaniye Onkologicheskoy Pomoshchi Naseleniyu Rossii v 2021 Godu = Status of the Oncology Care to the Population of the Russian Federation in 2021. Мoscow Publ., 2022. 239 p. (In Russ.).
4. Suleymanova N.D. Risk Factors of Malignant Neoplasms of Female Genital Organs (Review of Literature). Vestnik Novykh Meditsinskikh Tekhnologiy = Journal of New Medical Technologies. 2014;21;1:115-121. DOI: 10.12737/3326 (In Russ.).
5. Chimitdorzhieva T.N. Cervical Cancer in Women of the Far Eastern Federal District (Morbidity and Mortality). Opukholi Zhenskoy Reproduktivnoy Sistemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2020;16;2:50-54. DOI: 10.17650 /1994 4098 2020 16 2 50 54
(In Russ.).
6. Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer as a Public Health Problem. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2020.
7. Karelina O.B., Artymuk N.V., Fetisova T.I. Risk Factors of Ovarian Cancer and Possible Preventive Strategies. Fundamentalnaya i Klinicheskaya Meditsina = Fundamental and Clinical Medicine. 2018;3;3:91-96. DOI: 10.23946/2500-0764-2018-3-3-91-96 (In Russ.).
8. Utada M., Brenner A.V., Preston D.L., Cologne J.B., Sakata R., Sugiama H., et al. Radiation Risk of Ovarian Cancer in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009. Radiation Research. 2020;195;1:60-65. DOI: 10.1667/RADE-20-00170.
9. Napier B.A. The Mayak Worker Dosimetry System (MWDS-2013): an Introduction to the Documentation. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2017;176;1-2:6-9. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncx020. PMID: 28338990.
10. Rumyantseva A.V., Azizova T..V, Pikulina M.V. Descriptive Characteristics of Cohort of Females Professionally Exposed to Radiation. Problemy Reproduktsii = Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2015;20;5:29-37 (In Russ.).
11. Azizova T.V., Teplyakov I.I., Grigoryeva E.S., Vlasenko E.V., Sumina M.V., Druzhinina M.B, et al. «Clinic» Medical Dosimetric Database for Mayak PA Personnel and Its Families. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2009;54;5:26-35. (In Russ.).
12. Rumyantseva A.V., Azizova T.V., Bannikova M.V. Descriptive Characteristics of Gynecological Malignant Neoplasms. Opukholi Zhenskoy Reproduktivnoy Sistemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2021;17;3:79-88. DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2021-17-3-79-88
(In Russ.).
13. Merkov A.M., Polyakov L.E. Sanitarnaya Statistika = Sanitary Statistics. Manual for Doctors. Мoscow, Atomizdat Publ., 1975. 245 p.
(In Russ.).
14. Zar J.H. Biostatistical Analysis. New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1999. 663 p.
15. Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. URL: https://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint (accessed: 16.11.2020).
16. Minakov S.N. Morbidity and Mortality from Breast Cancer and Female Genital Organs (Cervix, Uterus, Ovaries) in the Moscow Region in 2015. Zlokachestvennyye Opuholi = Malignant Tumoursis. 2017;7;1:67-69. DOI: 10.18027/2224–5057–2017–1–67–69 (In Russ.).
17. Yarmolinskaya M.I., Molotkov A.S., Protasova A.E., Tsypurdeyeva A.A., Berlev I.V., Raskin G.A. Ovarian Cancer in Patients with Endometriosis. Onkoginekologiya = Gynecologic Oncology. 2018;3;27:23-31. DOI: 10.52313/22278710_2018_3_23 (In Russ.).
18. Istrate-Ofiţeru A.M., Pirici D., Niculescu M., Berceanu C., Berceanu S., Voicu N.L., et al. Clinical, Morphological and Immunohistochemical Survey in Different Types of Endometriosis. Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology. 2018;59;4:1133-1153.
19. Capilna M.E., Szabo B., Puscasiu L., Aron T., Cosmin R. Endometriosis and Gynecological Cancer. Current Women`s Health Reviews. 2012;8;2:150-157. DOI: 10.2174/157340412800194867.
20. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation et al. Biological Mechanisms of Radiation Actions at Low Doses. New York, NY, United Nations, 2012.
21. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. Sostoyanie Onkologicheskoj Pomoshchi Naseleniyu Rossii v 2018 Godu = Status of the Oncology Care to the Population of the RussianFederation in 2018. Мoscow Publ., 2019. 236 p. (In Russ.).
22. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. Zlokachestvennyye Novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2017 godu (Zabolevaemost i Smertnost) = Malignant Neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (Morbidity and Mortality). Мoscow Publ., 2018. 250 с. (In Russ.).
23. Utada M., Brenner A.V., Preston D.L., Cologne J.B., Sakata R., Sugiyama H., et al. Radiation Risks of Uterine Cancer in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2018;2;4:pky081. DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pky081.
24. Kostyuchek D.F., Anichkov N.M., Pechenikova V.A. Adenomyosis as an Optional Risk Factor for Uterine Cancer. Zhurnal Akusherstva i Zhenskikh Bolezney = Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases. 2004;53;4:11-18. (In Russ.).
25. Boice J.D. Jr., Engholm G., Kleinerman R.A., Blettner M., Stovall M., Lisco H., et all. Radiation Dose and Second Cancer Risk in Patients Treated for Cancer of the Cervix. Radiation Research. 1988;116;1:3-55. DOI: 10.2307/3577477.
26. Sakata R., Kleinerman R.A., Mabuchi K., Stovall M., Smith S.A., Weathers R., et all. Cancer Mortality Following Radiotherapy for Benign Gynecologic Disorders. Radiation Research. 2012;178;4:266-79. DOI: 10.1667/rr2845.1.
27. Inskip P.D., Monson R.R., Wagoner J.K., Stovall M., Davis F.G., Kleinerman R.A., et all. Cancer Mortality Following Radium Treatment for Uterine Bleeding. Radiation Research. 1990;123;3:331-344.
28. Atkinson W.D., Law D.V., Bromley K.J., Inskip H.M. Mortality of Employees of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, 1946-97. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 2004;61;7:577-85. DOI: 10.1136/oem.2003.012443.
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: 20.01.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.02.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 3
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-52-56
A.Sh. Pattokhov1, Yu.M. Khodjibekova1, M.Kh. Khodjibekov2
Choise of Statistical Processing Methods for the Results
of Radcomic Analysis of CT Images of Head and Neck Tumors
1 Tashkent state dental institute, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , Tashkent, Uzbekistan
2 Tashkent medical academy, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Contact person: Marat Khudaykulovich Khodjibekov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Selection of the optimal method for statistical processing of the results of texture analysis of conventional CT images in patients with head and neck tumors.
Material and methods: A total of 118 patients aged from 4 to 80 years with a verified diagnosis of 37 benign and 81 malignant head and neck tumors were studied. Texture analysis was performed using LIFEx program, version 7.10, with statistical processing using SPSS, MedCalc, XLSTAT, R.
Results: The 39 texture indicators extracted from CT images were subjected to statistical processing by different methods, including Mann-Whitney U test, correlation matrix, factor analysis, LASSO-regression, ending with the development of a logistic classification model. Of the multiple processing methods, LASSO-regression followed by logistic model was optimal; according to its results, the percentage of correct classification of benign and malignant patient groups was – 81.3 %, area under the ROC curve was 0.902±0.029 (p<0.0001), sensitivity – 82.7 %, specificity – 87.5 %.
Conclusion: Texture analysis of medical images allows non-invasive prediction of benign or malignant nature of the imaged head and neck mass. The choice of the correct method for statistical processing of texture analysis results is critical to assess and classify patients according to the nature of the tumor.
Keywords: CT images, head and neck tumors, radiomics, texture analysis, statistical processing
For citation: Pattokhov ASh, Khodjibekova YuM, Khodjibekov MKh. Choise of Statistical Processing Methods for the Results of Radcomic Analysis of CT Images of Head and Neck Tumors. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(3):52–56. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-52-56
References
1. Petralia G., Bonello L., Viotti S., Preda L., d’Andrea G., Bellomi M. CT Perfusion in Oncology: How to Do It. Cancer Imaging. 2010;10;1:8-19. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2010.0001.
2. Gerashchenko T.S., Denisov E.V., Litvyakov N.V., Zavyalova M.V., Vtorushin S.V., Tsyganov M.M., Perelmuter V.M., Cherdyntseva N.V. Intratumor Heterogeneity: Nature and Biological Significance. Biokhimiya = Biochemistry. 2013;78;11:1531–1549 (In Russ.).
3. Lin G., Keshari K.R., Park J.M. Cancer Metabolism and Tumor Heterogeneity: Imaging Perspectives Using MR Imaging and Spectroscopy. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017;2017:6053879. doi: 10.1155/2017/6053879.
4. Nioche C., Orlhac F., Boughdad S., Reuzé S., Goya-Outi J., Robert C., Pellot-Barakat C., Soussan M., Frouin F., Buvat I. LIFEx: a Freeware for Radiomic Feature Calculation in Multimodality Imaging to Accelerate Advances in the Characterization of Tumor Heterogeneity. Cancer Research. 2018;78;16:4786-4789. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0125.
5. Nailon W.H. Texture Analysis Methods for Medical Image Characterisation. Biomedical Imaging. Ed. Mao Y. London, IntechOpen, 2010. URL: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/10175. doi: 10.5772/8912.
6. Wu J., Aguilera T., Shultz D., Gudur M., Rubin D.L., Loo B.W.Jr., Diehn M., Li R. Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Quantitative Imaging Characteristics of (18)F Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT Allow Prediction of Distant Metastasis. Radiology. 2016;281;1:270-278. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151829.
7. Romeo V., Cuocolo R., Ricciardi C., Ugga L., Cocozza S., Verde F., et al. Prediction of Tumor Grade and Nodal Status in Oropharyngeal and Oral Cavity Squamous-Cell Carcinoma Using a Radiomic Approach. Anticancer Res. 2020;40:271–280. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13949.
8. Bogowicz M., Riesterer O., Ikenberg K., Stieb S., Moch H., Studer G., Guckenberger M, Tanadini-Lang S. Computed Tomography Radiomics Predicts HPV Status and Local Tumor Control After Definitive Radiochemotherapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017;99;4:921-928. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.002.
9. Ren J., Qi M., Yuan Y., Duan S., Tao X. Machine Learning-Based MRI Texture Analysis to Predict the Histologic Grade of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2020;15;5:1184-1190. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.22593.
10. Zhang Y., Chen C., Tian Z., Feng R., Cheng Y., Xu J. The Diagnostic Value of MRI-Based Texture Analysis in Discrimination of Tumors Located in Posterior Fossa: a Preliminary Study. Front. Neurosci. 2019;13:1113. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.0111.
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: 20.01.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.02.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 3
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-39-45
E. Rasskazova1, A. Zikiryakhodzhaev1, 2, 3, E. Khmelevsky1
Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer pT1–3N0–1M0 after Mastectomy or Subcutaneous/Skin-Preserving Mastectomy with Reconstruction. Literature Review
1P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre, Moscow, Russia
2I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
3Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
Contact person: E. Rasskazova, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The literature review analyzes publications over the past decades on the need for radiation therapy after mastectomy or subcutaneous/skin-preserving mastectomy with reconstruction.
Results: Risk factors for breast cancer recurrence were analyzed. The effect of radiation therapy on the recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy, subcutaneous and skin-preserving mastectomy with reconstruction was evaluated depending on the stage, lymph node lesions, and the presence of unfavorable molecular biological types. Indications for radiation therapy are described. The effect of radiation therapy on early and late complications of the reconstructed breast and options for reducing the percentage of complications were analyzed.
Conclusion: The exclusion of radiation therapy from the breast cancer treatment plan is a decrease in the percentage of complications caused by radiation therapy, for example, during implant reconstruction – a decrease in capsular contractures. And, as a result, improving the quality of life of patients, reducing repeated operations in case of complications, which means it is economically profitable. In recent years, due to the increasing need for various breast reconstruction options, the surgeon and radiotherapist have faced the task of choosing the optimal sequence of breast reconstruction, as well as reducing the risk of post-radiation complications. Radiation therapy, along with reducing the risk of relapse of the disease, increases the risk of complications after breast reconstruction, and vice versa, the reconstructed mammary gland can cause difficulties for the radiologist to correctly deliver the required dose of radiation. Minimizing the frequency and severity of complications after radiation therapy on the reconstructed gland without compromising oncological or cosmetic results is an important and common interdisciplinary goal for oncologists and radiotherapists.
Keywords: breast cancer, mastectomy, subcutaneous mastectomy, skin-preserving mastectomy, breast reconstruction, simultaneous reconstruction, radiation therapy, relapse, rehabilitation, capsular contracture, quality of life
For citation: Rasskazova E, Zikiryakhodzhaev A, Khmelevsky E.Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer pT1–3N0–1M0 after Mastectomy or Subcutaneous/Skin-Preserving Mastectomy with Reconstruction. Literature Review. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(3):39-45. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-39-45
References
1. Montero A., Ciérvide R., García-Aranda M., Rubio C. Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Early Breast Cancer: Utility or Futility? Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2020;147:10288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.102887.
2. Agha R.A., Omran Y.Al., Wellstead G., Sagoo H. Systematic Review of Therapeutic Nipple-Sparing Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy. BJS Open. 2018;3;2:135-145. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50119.
3. McGale P., Taylor C., Correa C. et al. Effect of Radiotherapy after Mastectomy and Axillary Surgery on 10-Year Recurrence and 20-Year Breast Cancer Mortality: Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data For 8135 Women in 22 Randomised Trials. Lancet. 2014;383;9935:2127-2135. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60488-8.
4. Wang K., Jin X., Wang W.J., et al. The Role of Postmastectomy Radiation in Patients with Ypn0 Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis. BMC Cancer. 202;21;1:728. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08423-1.
5. Nikyara N., Tegneliusb E., Valachis A. Adjuvant Locoregional Radiation Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients with Pathologic Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology. 2022;33:45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2021.12.010.
6. Weber W.P., Shaw J., Pusic A., et al. Oncoplastic Breast Consortium Recommendations for Mastectomy and Whole Breast Reconstruction in the Setting of Post-Mastectomy Radiation Therapy. Breast. 2022;63:123-139. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.03.008.
7. Hehr Th., Baumann R., Budach W. Radiotherapy after Skin-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Intermediate-Risk Breast Cancer: Indication and Technical Considerations. Strahlenther Onkol. 2019;195;11:949-963. doi: 10.1007/s00066-019-01507-9.
8. Cihan Y.B., Sarigoz T. Role of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients with T1-2 And 1-3 Positive Lymph Nodes. Onco. Targets. Ther. 2016;9:5587-5595. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S106871.
9. Chen F., Pu F. Role of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy in Early-Stage (T1-2N0-1M0) Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. Onco. Targets. Ther. 2017;10:2009-2016. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S123803.
10. Jaoude J.A., Azambuja E., Makki M., et al. Post-Mastectomy Radiation Therapy in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Breast Cancer Patients: Analysis of the HERA Trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2020;106;3)503-510. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.022.
11. Деньгина Н.В. Особые показания к адъювантной лучевой терапии при раке молочной железы T2N1M0 после радикальной мастэктомии // Эффективная фармакотерапия. 2017. № 6. С. 12-15. [Dengina N.V. Special Indications for Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer T2N1M0 after Radical Mastectomy. Effektivnaya Farmakoterapiya = Effective Pharmacotherapy. 2017;6:12-15 (In Russ.)].
12. Forissier V., Tallet A., Cohen M. ,et al. Is Post-Mastectomy Radiation Therapy Contributive in pN0-1mi Breast Cancer Patients? Results of a French Multi-Centric Cohort. Eur. J. Cancer. 2017;87:47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.004
13. Xu F-F., Cao L., Xu Ch., et al. Practical Model to Optimize the Strategy of Adjuvant Postmastectomy Radiotherapy in T1-2N1 Breast Cancer With Modern Systemic Therapy. Front Oncol. 2022;12:789198. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.789198.
14. Frandsen J.E., Cannon G., Kokeny K.E., et al. Is Radiation Indicated for Young Women with Early Stage, Node-Negative Breast Cancer after Mastectomy? A Multi-Institution, Retrospective Review. Breast J. 2018;24;1:7-11. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12827.
15. Miyashita M., Tada H., Suzuki A. Minimal Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Locoregional Recurrence for Breast Cancer Patients with 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Nodes in the Modern Treatment Era. Surg. Oncol. 2017;26;2:163-170. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2017.03.003.
16. Галченко Л.И., Маточкин В.В. Лучевые осложнения при лучевой терапии: Учебное пособие для студентов. Иркутск: ИГМУ, 2015. 30 с. [Galchenko L.I., Matochkin V.V. Luchevyye Oslozhneniya pri Luchevoy Terapii = Radiation Complications in Radiation Therapy. A Textbook for Students. Irkutsk Publ., 2015. 30 p. (In Russ.)].
17. Montero A., Ciérvide R., García-Aranda M., Rubio C. Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Early Breast Cancer: Utility or Futility? Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2020;147:10288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.102887.
18. Гулян И.С., Никифорова Н.О., Кустов В.Н. и др. Генерация вторичного излучения на поверхности эндопротезов, используемых для реконструкции молочной железы при мастэктомии, после проведения лучевой терапии // Тихоокеанский медицинский журнал. 2020. № 4. С. 59–62. doi: 10.34215/1609-1175-2020-4-59-62. [Gulyan I.S., Nikiforova N.O., Kustov V.N., et al. Generation of Secondary Radiation on the Surface of Endoprostheses Used for Breast Reconstruction During Mastectomy, after Radiation Therapy. Tikhookeanskiy Meditsinskiy Zhurnal = Pacific Medical Journal. 2020;4:59–62. doi: 10.34215/1609-1175-2020-4-59-62 (In Russ.)].
19. Mitchell M.P., Wagner J., Butterworth J. Subcutaneous Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction, a Modern Challenge in Postmastectomy Radiation Planning. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2018;8;3:153-156. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2017.09.001.
20. Elswick S.M., Harless Ch.A., Bishop S.N., et al. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018;142;1:1-12. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004453.
21. Chopra Sh., Al-Ishaq Z., Vidya R. The Journey of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Through Time. World J. Plast. Surg. 2021;10;2:3-13. doi: 10.29252/wjps.10.2.3.
22. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Breast Cancer. Version 4.2022. 2022.
23. Hershenhouse K.S., Bick K., Shauly O., et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Immediate Versus Delayed Autologous Breast Reconstruction in the Setting of Post-Mastectomy Adjuvant Radiation Therapy. J. Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74;5:931-944. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.11.027.
24. Zernov K.Y., Dashyan G.A., Krivorotko P.V., et al. Breast Reconstruction and Radiotherapy. Malignant Tumours. 2017;1:30–36. DOI: 10.18027/2224–5057–2017–1–30–36.
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: 20.01.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.02.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 3
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-46-51
M.V. Lukin1, E.A. Brui2, A.G. Levchuk1, A.A. Borshevetskaya1, V.A. Fokin1,
V.M. Puchnin2, A.V. Shchelokova2, N.A. Anokhina1, L.E. Galyautdinova1,
V.S. Egorova1, K.S. Anpilogova1
An Innovative Approach to Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Wrist
1 V.A. Almazov National Medical Research Centre, St. Petersburg, Russia
2 National Research University IFMO, Faculty of Physics and Technology, St. Petersburg, Russia
Contact person: K.S. Anpilogova, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Determination of the diagnostic capabilities of a specialized metadevice designed to detect magnetic resonance signs of pathological changes in the hands (including early ones) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Material and methods: The study considered a metadevice for imaging of hands with magnetic induction 1.5 T. 26 people were examined, 10 of whom were studied using a standard coil for examining the knee joint and 16 using a metadevice, magnetic resonance images T1-VI, T2-VI, PD FS-VI were obtained. The images were evaluated by radiologists on a 5-point scale Likert.
Results: The images acquired using the metadevice had acceptable and peer-reviewed absolute and relative signal-to-noise ratios with images obtained using a standard pattern at the same resolution deviation and measuring input power at an average of 18 times for 1.5 T. In terms of image quality criteria for the presence/absence of arthritis, the average score for the metadevice (4.33) is slightly higher than the score for the specialized coil (4.25). The lower score of the standard coil, including on the issue of artifacts, indicates a lower susceptibility of the metadevice to various factors that give artifacts on MRI.
Discussion: The analysis of the collected assessments of independent experts indicates that the diagnostic characteristics of magnetic resonance images of the hand obtained using wire-based metadevices (for 1.5 T) are of good and average levels, and are comparable, and also surpass the standard approaches in all criteria.
Conclusions/Conclusion: The assessment of the quality of the obtained images demonstrates the acceptable quality of imaging and reflects the possibility of their application in clinical practice, taking into account ongoing improvements and optimization of the entire set of pulse sequences for MRI of the hand.
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, rheumatoid arthritis,specialized metadevice, hands
For citation: Lukin MV, Brui EA, Levchuk AG, Borshevetskaya AA, Fokin VA, Puchnin VM, Shchelokova AV, Anokhina NA, Galyautdinova LE, Egorova VS, Anpilogova KS. An Innovative Approach to Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Wrist. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(3):46–51. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-3-46-51
References
1. Revmatoidnyy Artrit = Rheumatoid Arthritis. Clinical Recommendations. Moscow Publ., 2021. (In Russ.).
2. Makarova D.V., Kushnir K.V. Standardized Protocol for Describing the Results of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography of the Hand in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Klinicheskaya Meditsina = Clinical Medicine. 2015;7;4:135-140. doi: 10.17691/stm2015.7.4.18 (In Russ.).
3. Østergaard M., Boesen M. Imaging in Rheumatoid Arthritis: the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography. La Radiologia Medica. 2019;124:1128–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01014-y.
4. Webb A.G. Dielectric Materials in Magnetic Resonance. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance. Part A. 2011;38A;4:148–184.
5. Shchelokova A., Ivanov V., Mikhailovskaya A., et al. Ceramic Resonators for Targeted Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast. Nature Communications. 2020;11;1:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17598-3.
6. Rupprecht S., Sica C.T., Chen W., et al. Improvements of Transmit Efficiency and Receive Sensitivity with Ultrahigh Dielectric Constant (uHDC) Ceramics at 1.5 T and 3 T. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2018;79;5:2842–2851. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26943.
7. Radu X., Dardenne X., Craeye C. Experimental Results and Discussion of Imaging with a Wire Medium for MRI Imaging Applications. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium. 2007. P. 5499-5502.
8. Motovilova E., Sandeep S., Hashimoto M., et al. Watertunable Highly Sub-Wavelength Spiral Resonator for Magnetic Field Enhancement of MRI Coils at 1.5 T. IEEE Access. 2019;7:90304–90315.
9. Schmidt R., Slobozhanyuk A., Belov P., et al. Flexible and Compact Hybrid Metasurfaces for Enhanced Ultra High Field in Vivo Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Scientific Reports. 2017;7;1:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01932-9.
10. Zivkovic I., Teeuwisse W., Slobozhanyuk A., et al. High Permittivity Ceramics Improve the Transmit Feld and Receive Efficiency of a Commercial Extremity Coil at 1.5 Tesla. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2019;299:59-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2018.12.013.
11. Shchelokova A.V., Slobozhanyukab A.P., Bruinc P., et al. Experimental Investigation of a Metasurface Resonator for in Vivo Imaging at 1.5 T. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2018;286:78-81.
12. Brui E.A., Shchelokova A.V., Zubkov M., et al. Adjustable Subwavelength Metasurface‐Inspired Resonator for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Physica Status Solidi (a). 2018;215;5:1700788.
13. Shchelokova A.V., van den Berg C.A., Dobrykh D.A., et al. Volumetric Wireless Coil Based on Periodically Coupled Split-Loop Resonators for Clinical Wrist Imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2018;80;4:1726–1737.
14. Nasonov A., Tikhonov P., Shchelokova A. et al. Assessing Safety and Transceive Performance of a Body Coil Combined with a Volumetric Wireless Coil for Wrist MRI at 3 T. Applied Magnetic Resonance. 2022;53;12:1597-1607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00723-022-01502-x.
15. Brui E., Mikhailovskaya A., Solomakha G., et al. Volumetric Wireless Coil for Wrist MRI at 1.5 T as a Practical Alternative to Tx/Rx Extremity Coil: a Comparative Study. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2022;339:107209.
16. Brui E.A., Rapacchi S., Bendahan D., et al. Comparative Analysis of SINC-Shaped and SLR Pulses Performance for Contiguous Multi-Slice Fast Spin-Echo Imaging Using Metamaterial-Based MRI. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine. 2021;34;6:929–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-021-00937-w.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (project No. 075-15-2021-592).
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.01.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.02.2023.