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. № 1
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-48-57
M.V. Osipov1, F. Ria2, P.S. Druzhinina3, M.E. Sokolnikov1
Comparative Assessment of the Absorbed Doses Resulted
from Occupational Exposure and Computed Tomography
1Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Russia
2Duke University, North Caroline, Durham, US
3P.V. Ramzaev Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Saint Petersburg, Russia
Contact person: M.V. Osipov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
A comparative assessment of the absorbed doses resulted from computed tomography (CT) examinations, and the dose resulted from occupational external gamma exposure of the “Mayak” workers was carried out. The patients’ diagnostic radiation dose was reconstructed using Monte-Carlo simulation on a population of 58 virtual adult phantoms across 13 CT protocol categories. Archival records of CT examinations of patients were used for the dose reconstruction. Information on technical parameters of scanning was extracted from DICOM files. The study sample has been linked to the Mayak worker register database to identify persons who had professional contact with ionizing radiation. Annual occupational dose records for the Mayak workers were obtained from the Dose-2013 dosimetry system.
In this study, information on 212 patients was collected from 303 records. Among them, 42 Mayak employees were identified, including 24 persons who had non-zero dose of external gamma radiation, and 16 persons with internal alpha radiation dose due to occupational intake of 239Pu. Individual doses absorbed in the organs resulted from exposure to computed tomography and occupational activities has been compared.
The results showed significant variability of the absorbed organ dose depending on the area of CT examination. The brain and lens were subjected to the highest radiation exposure during head CT. The average absorbed dose in brain was 24.5 mGy per single examination (the maximum brain dose accumulated over the entire study period was 82.3 mGy), and 27.7 mGy for the lens of the eye (the maximum lens dose reached 92.9 mGy).
Relevant comparison of the absorbed dose of diagnostic and occupational exposure, accumulated during one year, has been performed. The average estimate of cumulative radiation dose absorbed in the organs during computed tomography was an order of magnitude lower than the one from occupational external gamma exposure of Mayak personnel, except brain dose. Annual CT dose equivalent of external gamma radiation was 2.82.
Keywords: computed tomography, X-ray, occupational exposure, absorbed dose, “Mayak” PA, employees
For citation: Osipov MV, Ria F, Druzhinina PS, Sokolnikov ME. Comparative Assessment of the Absorbed Doses Resulted from Occupational Exposure and Computed Tomography. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(1):48–57. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-48-57
References
1. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 102. Managing Patient Dose in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT). Ann. ICRP. 2007;37;1:1-79.
2. Barkovskiy A.N., Bratilova A.A., Kormanovskaya T.A., Akhmatdinov R.R. Trends in the Doses of the Population of the Russian Federation in 2003–2018. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2020;12;4:96-122 (In Russ.).
3. Druzhinina P.S., Chipiga L.A., Ryzhov S.A., Vodovatov A.V., Berkovich G.V., Smirnov A.V., Yaryna D.V., Yermolina Ye.P., Druzhinina Yu.V. Proposals for the Russian Quality Assurance Program in Computed Tomography. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2021;14;1:17-33. https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2021-14-1-17-33 (In Russ.).
4. Zapolneniye Form Federalnogo Gosudarstvennogo Statisticheskogo Nablyudeniya № 3-DOZ = Filling in the Forms of the Federal State Statistical Observation No. 3-DOZ: Methodological Recommendations for Ensuring Radiation Safety. Approved by the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare on February 16, 2007 No. 0100/1659-07-26 (In Russ.).
5. Rȕhm W., Harrison R.M. High CT Doses Return to the Agenda. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2020;59:3-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-019-00827-9.
6. Chipiga L., Bernhardsson C. Patient Doses in Computed Tomography Examinations in Two Regions of the Russian Federation. Rad. Prot. Dosim. 2016;169;1-4:240-244.
7. Brambilla M., Vassileva J., Kuchcinska A., Rehani M.M. Multinational Data on Cumulative Radiation Exposure of Patients from Recurrent Radiological Procedures: Call for Action. European Radiology. 2020;30;5:2493-2501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06528-7.
8. National Research Council (US), Board on Radiation Effects Research. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase I, Letter Report (1998). Washington, National Academies Press (US), 1998.
9. National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase II. Washington, National Academies Press (US), 2006.
10. Shao Yu-H., Tsai K., Kim S., Yu J., Demissie K. Exposure to Tomographic Scans and Cancer Risks. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2020;4;1:pkz072. doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkz072.
11. Mattsson S. Need for Individual Cancer Risk Estimates in X-Ray and Nuclear Medicine Imaging. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016;169;1-4:1-6. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncw034.
12. Golikov V.Yu., Vodovatov A.V., Chipiga L.A., Shatskiy I.G. Assessment of Radiation Risk in Patients During Medical Examinations in the Russian Federation. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2021;14;3:56-68 (In Russ.).
13. Osipov M.V., Vazhenin A.V., Domozhirova A.S., Chernova O.N., Aksenova I.A. Computed Tomography as a Risk Factor in Cancer Patients With Professional Radiation Exposure. Rossiyskiy Elektronnyy Zhurnal Luchevoy Diagnostiki = Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2019;9;1:142-147 (In Russ.).
14. Hunter N., Kuznetsova I.S., Labutina E.V., Harrison J.D. Solid Cancer Incidence other than Lung, Liver and Bone in Mayak Workers: 1948-2004. Br. J. Cancer. 2013;109;7:1989-96. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.543.
15. Fisher D.R., Fahey F.H. Appropriate Use of Effective Dose in Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment. Health Phys. 2017;113;2:102-109. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000674.
16. Osipov M.V., Shkarednykh V.Yu., Loginov V.S., Melnikov V.V., Druzhinina P.S., Sokolnikov M.E. Retrospective Analysis of Cancer Morbidity among Patients after Computed Tomography. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2021;14;3:80-90. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2021-14-3-80-90 (In Russ).
17. Lee C., Kim K.P., Bolch W.E., Moroz B.E., Folio L. NCICT: a Computational Solution to Estimate Organ Doses for Pediatric and Adult Patients Undergoing CT Scans. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2015;35;4:891-909. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/35/4/891.
18. Koshurnikova N.A., Shilnikova N.S., Okatenko P.V. Characteristics of the Cohort of Workers at the Mayak Nuclear Complex. Radiation Research. 1999;152;4:352-363.
19. Vostrotin V., Birchall A., Zhdanov A., Puncher M., Efimov A., Napier B., et al. The Mayak Worker Dosimetry System (MWDS-2013): Internal Dosimetry Results. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2017;176;1-2:190-201. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncw268.
20. Vasilenko E.K., Khokhryakov V.F., Miller S.C., Fix J.J., Eckerman K., Choe D.O., et al. Mayak Worker Dosimetry Study: an Overview. Health Phys. 2007;93:190–206.
21. Stata, Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0, Stata Corporation. College Station, 2001.
22. Birchall A., Puncher M., Harrison J., Riddell A., Bailey M.R., Khokryakov V., Romanov S. Plutonium Worker Dosimetry. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2010;49;2:203–212.
23. Sahbaee P.W., Segars P., Samei E. Patient-Based Estimation of Organ Dose for a Population of 58 Adult Patients Across 13 Protocol Categories. Medical Physics. 2014;41;7:072104. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4883778.
24. Lee C., Lodwick D., Hurtado J., Pafundi D., Williams J.L., Bolch W.E. The UF Family of Reference Hybrid Phantoms for Computational Radiation Dosimetry. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2010;55;2:339-363.
25. Hardy A.J., Bostani M., Kim G.H.J., Cagnon C.H., Zankl M.A., McNitt-Gray M. Evaluating Size-Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE) as an Estimate of Organ Doses from Routine CT Exams Derived from Monte Carlo Simulations. Med. Phys. 2021;48;10:6160-6173. doi: 10.1002/mp.15128.
26. SanPin 2.6.1.2523-09. Radiation Safety Standards (NRB(99/2009)). Moscow Publ., 2009 (In Russ.).
27. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP. 2007;37;2-4:332 p.
28. Nikupaavo U., Kaasalainen T., Reijonen V., Ahonen S.M., Kortesniemi M. Lens Dose in Routine Head CT: Comparison of Different Optimization Methods with Anthropomorphic Phantoms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015;204;1:117-123. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12763.
29. Poon R., Badawy M.K. Radiation Dose and Risk to the Lens of the Eye During CT Examinations of the Brain. Med. Imaging. Radiat Oncol. 2019;63;6:786-794. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12950.
30. Brenner A.V., Sugiyama H., Preston D.L., Sakata R., French B., Sadakane A., Cahoon E.K., Utada M., Mabuchi K., Ozasa K. Radiation Risk of Central Nervous System Tumors in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1958-2009. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020;35;6:591-600. doi: 10.1007/s10654-019-00599-y.
31. Osipov M.V., Sokolnikov M.E., Fomin Ye.P. Baza Dannykh Kompyuternoy Tomografii Naseleniya g. Ozersk («Registr KT») = Database of Computed Tomography of the Ozersk Population (“CT Register”). Registration Certificate No. 2020622807. 2020. URL: https://new,fips,ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=DB&DocNumber=2020622807&TypeFile=html (Accessed 22.02.2022)
(In Russ.).
32. Osipov M.V., Fomin Ye.P., Sokolnikov M.E. Evaluation of Effects of Diagnostic Exposure Using Data from Epidemiological Registry of Ozyorsk Population Exposed to Computed Tomography. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2020;65;4:65-73. DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2020-65-4-65-73 (In Russ.).
33. Brooks A.L. The Impact of Dose Rate on the Linear no Threshold Hypothesis. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2019;301:68-80. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2018.12.007.
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: 20.09.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2022.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 1
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-58-71
O.K. Kurpeshev
Threshold Thermal Dose of Local Hyperthermia in Thermoradiation Therapy of Tumors
Siberian Scientific Research Institute of Hyperthermia, Novosibirsk
Contact person: Orazakhmet Kurpeshev, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Contents
The review analyzes the damaging, radio- and chemosensitizing effects of various temperature regimes of hyperthermia on normal and tumor cells in the experiment and on the results of thermoradiation therapy for cancer patients. According to the criteria of minimum, average and maximum temperatures, as well as the cumulative equivalent time for heating 90 % of the tumor volume at 43 °C (CEM43T90), lower threshold thermal doses have been determined that significantly affect the immediate results of thermoradiation therapy. The maximum allowable temperatures for normal skin and with postoperative scars or radiation fibrosis have been established.
Keywords: hyperthermia, thermal dose, chemotherapy, thermoradiotherapy, thermochemotherapy. thermochemoradiotherapy
For citation: Kurpeshev OK. Threshold Thermal Dose of Local Hyperthermia in Thermoradiation Therapy of Tumors. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(1):58–71. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-58-71
References
1. Van der Zee J., Vujaskovic Z., Kondo M., Sugahara T. Part I. Clinical Hyperthermia. The Kadota Fund International Forum 2004 - Clinical Group Consensus. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2008;24;2:111-122.
2. Van der Heijden A.G., Dewhirst M.W. Effects of Hyperthermia in Neutralizing Mechanisms of Drug Resistance in Non-muscleinvasive Bladder Cancer. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2016;32;4:434–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2016.1155761.
3. Kurpeshev O.K., Van der Zee J. Experimental Basis for the Use of Hyperthermia in Oncology. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63;1:57-77. DOI: 10.12737/article_5a8556b4be3e24.36808227 (In Russ.).
4. Kurpeshev O.K., Van der Zee J. Analysis of the Results of Randomized Trials on Hyperthermia in Oncology. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63;2:52-67. DOI: 10.12737/article_5b179d60437d54.24079640 (In Russ.).
5. Linthorst M., Baaijens M., Wiggenraad R., Creutzberg C., Ghidey W., van Rhoon G.C., van der Zee J. Local Control Rate After the Combination of Reirradiation and Hyperthermia for Irresectable Recurrent Breast Cancer: Results in 248 Patients. Radiother. Oncol. 2015;117:217-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.04.019.
6. Bakker A., Van der Zee J., Van Tienhovena G., Kok H.P., Rasch C.R.N., Crezee H. Temperature and Thermal Dose During Radiotherapy and Hyperthermia for Recurrent Breast Cancer are Related to Clinical Outcome and Thermal Toxicity: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2019;36;1:1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2019.1665718.
7. Ademaj A., Veltsista D.P., Ghadjar P., Marder D., Oberacker E., Ott O.J., Wust P., Puric E., Hälg R.A., Rogers S., Bodis S., Fietkau R., Crezee H., Riesterer O. Clinical Evidence for Thermometric Parameters to Guide Hyperthermia Treatment. Cancers. 2022;14;3:625. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030625.
8. Sapareto S.A., Dewey W.C. Thermal Dose Determination in Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1984;10:787-800.
9. Roizin-Towle L., Pirro J.P. The Response of Human and Rodent Cells to Hyperthermia. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1991;20:751–756.
10. Ben-Hur E., Elkind M.M., Bronk B.V. Thermally Enhanced Radioresponse of Cultured Chinese Hamster Cells: Inhibition of Repair of Sublethal Damage and Enhancement of Lethal Damage. Radiat. Res. 1974;58;1:38-51. DOI:10.2307/3573947.
11. Robinson J.E., Wizenberg M.J. Thermal Sensitivity and the Effect of Elevated Temperatures on the Radiation Sensitivity of Chinese Hamster Cells. Acta Radiologica: Therapy Physics Biology. 1974;13;3:241-248. DOI: 10.3109/02841867409129880.
12. Urano M., Kuroda M., Nishimura Y. Invited Rview. For the Clinical Application of Thermochemotherapy Given at Mild Temperatures. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1999;15;2:79-107.
13. Dewhirst M.W., Sim D.A., Sapareto S., Connor W.G. Importance of Minimum Tumor Temperature in Determining Early and Long-Term Responses of Spontaneous Canine and Feline Tumors to Heat and Radiation. Cancer Res. 1984;44;1:43-50.
14. Thrall D.E., LaRue S.M., Yu D., Samulski T., Sanders L., Case B., Rosner G., Azuma C., Poulson J., Pruitt A.F., Stanley W., Hauck M.L., Williams L., Hess P., Dewhirst M.W. Thermal Dose is Related to Duration of Local Control in Canine Sarcomas Treated with Thermoradiotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005;11;14:5206-5214.
15. Leopold K.A., Dewhirst M.W., Samulski T.V., Dodge R.K., George S.L., Blivin J.L., Prosnitz L.R., Oleson J.R. Cumulative Minutes with T90 Greater than Tempindex is Predictive of Response of Superficial Malignancies to Hyperthermia and Radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1993;25:841-847.
16. De Bruijne M., Van der Holt B., Van Rhoon G.C., Van der Zee J. Evaluation of CEM43°CT90 Thermal Dose in Superficial Hyperthermia. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2010;186;8:436-443.
17. Dunlop P.R.C., Hand J.W., Dickinson R.J., Field S.B. An Assessment of Local Hyperthermia in Clinical Practice. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1986;2:39–50.
18. Seegenschmiedt H., Karrisson U.L., Sauer R., Brady L.W., Herbst M., Amendola B.E., et al. Superficial Chest Wall Reccurences of Breast Cancer: Prognostic Treatment Factors for Combined Radiation Therapy and Hyperthermia. Radiology. 1989;173:551-558.
19. Kapp D.S., Petersen I.A., Cox R.S., Hahn G.M., Fessenden P., Prionas S.D., Bagshaw M.A. Two or Six Hyperthermia Treatments as an Adjunct to Radiation Therapy Yield Similar Tumor Responses: Results of a Randomized Trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1990;19;6;1481-1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(90)90361-M.
20. Phromratanapongse P., Steeves R.A., Severson S.B., Paliwal B.R. Hyperthermia and Irradiation for Locally Recurrent Previously Irradiated Breast Cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 1991;167;2:93-97.
21. Kapp D.S., Cox R.S. Thermal Treatment Parameters are Most Predictive of Outcome in Patients with Single Tumor Nodules Per Treatment Field in Recurrent Adenocarcinoma of the Breast. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1995;33:887–899.
22. Lee С.K., Song С.W., Rhee J.G., Foy J.A., Seymour B.A., Levitt H. Clinical Experience Using 8 MHz Radiofrequency Capacitive Hyperthermia in Combination with Radiotherapy: Results of a Phase I/Ii Study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1995;32;3:733-745.
23. Amichetti M., Romano M., Busanaa L., Bolnera A., Fellin G., Pania G., et al. Hyperfractionated Radiation in Combination with Local Hyperthermia in the Treatment of Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Phase I-II Study. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 1997;45:155-158.
24. Hand J.W., Machin D., Vernon C.C., Whaley J.B. Analysis of Thermal Parameters Obtained During Phase III Trials of Hyperthermia as an Adjunct to Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Breast Carcinoma. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1997;13;4:343-364.
25. Sherar M., Liu F.F., Pintilie M., Levin W., Hunt J., Hill R.I., et al. Relationship Between Thermal Dose and Outcome in Thermoradiotherapy Treatments for Superficial Recurrences of Breast Cancer: Data From a Phase III Trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1997;39;2:371–380. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00333-7.
26. Lee H.K., Antell A.G., Perez C.A., Straube W.L., Ramachandran G., Myerson R.J., et al. Superficial Hyperthermia and Irradiation for Recurrent Breast Carcinoma of the Chest Wall: Prognostic Factors in 196 Tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1998;40:365–375. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00740-2.
27. Myerson R.J., Straube W.L., Moros E.G., Emami N., Lee H.K., Perez C.A., Taylor M.E., et al. Simultaneous Superficial Hyperthermia and External Radiotherapy: Report of Thermal Dosimetry and Tolerance to Treatment. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1999;15;4:251-266.
28. Maguire P.D., Samulski T.V., Prosnitz L.R. A Phase II Trial Testing the Thermal Dose Parameter CEM43°T90 as a Predictor of Response in Soft Tissue Sarcomas Treated with Pre-Operative Thermoradiotherapy. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2001;17;4:283-290.
29. Li G., Mitsumori M., Ogura M., Horii N., Kawamura S., Masunaga S.-I., et al. Local Hyperthermia Combined with External Irradiation for Regional Recurrent Breast Carcinoma. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;9:179–183. DOI 10.1007/s10147-004-0395-3.
30. Jones E.L., Oleson J.R., Prosnitz L.R., Samulski T.V., Vujaskovic Z., Yu D., et al. Randomized Trial of Hyperthermia and Radiation for Superficial Tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:3079–3085.
31. Gabriele P., Ferrara T., Baiotto B., Garibaldi E., Marini P.G., Penduzzu G., et al. Radio Hyperthermia for Retreatment of Superficial Tumours. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2009;25;3:189–198.
32. Perez C.A., Pajak T., Emami B., Hornback N.B., Tupchong L., Rubin P. Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Irradiation and Hyperthermia with Irradiation Alone in Superficial Measurable Tumors. Final report by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1991;14;2:133–141.
33. Datta N.R., Puric E., Klingbiel D., Gomez S., Bodis S. Hyperthermia and Radiation Therapy in Locoregional Recurrent Breast Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016;94:1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.12.361.
34. Dragovic J., Seydel H.G., Sandhu T., Kolosvary A., Blough J. Local Superficial Hyperthermia in Combination with Low-Dose Radiation Therapy for Palliation of Locally Recurrent Breast Carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 1989;7;1:30–35.
35. Van der Zee J., Van der Holt B., Rietveld P.J.M., Helle P.A., Wijnmaalen A.J., Van Putten W.L.J., Van Rhoon G.C. Reirradiation Combined with Hyperthermia in Recurrent Breast Cancer Results in a Worthwhile Local Palliation. Br. J. Cancer. 1999;79;3/4:483–490.
36. Dewhirst M.W., Sim D.A. The Utility of Thermal Dose as a Predictor of Tumor and Normal Tissue Responses to Combined Radiation and Hyperthermia. Cancer Research. 1984;44;10:4772s-4780s.
37. Leopold K.A., Dewhirst M., Samulski T., Harrelson J., Tucker J.A., George S.L., Dodge R.K., Grant W., Clegg S., Prosnitz L.R., Oleson J.R. Relationships Among Tumor Temperature, Treatment Time, and Histopathological Outcome Using Preoperative Hyperthermia with Radiation in Soft Tissue Sarcomas. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phis. 1992;22:989-998.
38. Fajardo L.F. Pathological Effects of Hyperthermia in Normal Tissues. Cancer Research. 1984;44:4826s–4835s.
39. Kurpeshev O.K., Lebedeva T.V., Svetitsky P.V., Mardynsky Yu.S., N.A. Chushkin. Experimental basis for the use of hyperthermia in oncology. – Rostov-on-Don: NOK Publishing House, 2005. 164 pp.
40. Haveman J., Sminia P., Wondergem J., Van der Zee J., Hulshof MCCM. Effects of Hyperthermia on the Central Nervous System: What Was Learnt from Animal Studies? Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2005;21;5:473-487. doi: 10.1080/02656730500159079.
41. Hume S.P., Marigold J.C., Michalowski A. The Effect of Local Hyperthermia on Non-Proliferative, Compared with Proliferative, Epithelial Cells of the Mouse Intestinal Mucosa. Radiat. Research. 1983;94:252–262.
42. Peck J.W., Gibbs Jr.F.A., Dethlefsen L.A. Localized Hyperthermia and X-Irradiation of Murine Jejunum in Situ: A New Method. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1986;2;3:277-298. DOI: 10.3109/02656738609016486.
43. Haveman J., Van Der Zee J., Wondergem J., Hoogeveen J.F., Hulshof MCCM. Effects of Hyperthermia on the Peripheral Nervous System: A Review. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2004;20;4:3713-3791. doi: 10.1080/02656730310001637631.
44. Ichinoseki-Sekine N., Naito H., Saga N., Ogura Y., Shiraishi M., Giombini A., Giovannini V., Katamoto S. Changes in Muscle Temperature Induced by 434 MHz Microwave Hyperthermia. Br. J. Sports Med. 2007;41:425–429. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.032540.
45. Lyng H., Monge O.R., Bohler P.J., Rofstad E.K. Relationships Between Thermal Dose and Heat-Induced Tissue and Vascular Damage after Thermoradiotherapy of Locally Advanced Breast Carcinoma. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1991;3:403-415.
46. Sharma S., Sandhu A.P., Patel F.D., Ghoshal S., Gupta B.D., Yadav N.S. Side-Effects of Local Hyperthermia Results of a Prospectively Randomized Clinical Study. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1990;6;2:279–285.
47. Varma S., Myerson R., Moros E., Taylor M., Straube W., Zoberi I. Simultaneous Radiotherapy and Superficial Hyperthermia for High-Risk Breast Carcinoma: A Randomised Comparison of Treatment Sequelae in Heated Versus Non-Heated Sectors of the Chest Wall Hyperthermia. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2012;28;7:583-590. DOI:10.3109/02656736.2012.705216.
48. Van der Zee J., Gonzales Gonzales D., Van Rhoon G.C., Van Dijk J.D.P., Van Putten W.L.J., Hart A.A.M., Dutch Deep Hyperthermia Group. Comparison of Radiotherapy Plus Hyperthermia in Locally Advanced Pelvic Tumors: A Prospective, Randomised, Multicentre Trial. The Lancet. 2000;355:1119–1125.
49. Dewhirst M.W., Vujaskovic Z., Jones E., Thrall D. Re-Setting the Biologic Rationale for Thermal Therapy. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2005;21;8:779-790.
50. Ben-Yosef R., Sullivan D.M., Kapp D.S. Peripherial Neuropathy and Myonecrosis Following Hyperthermia and Radiation Therapy for Recurrent Prostatic Cancer: Correlation of Damage with Predicted SAR Pattern. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1992;8;2:173-185. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656739209021773.
51. Engin K., Tupchong L., Waterman F.M., McFarlane J.D., Hoh L.L., Leeper D.B. Predictive Factors for Skin Reactions in Patients Treated with Thermoradiotherapy. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1995;11;3:357-364. DOI: 10.3109/02656739509022471.
52. Balzer S., Schneider D.T., Bernbeck M.B., Jäger M., Mils O., Schaper J., et al. Avascular Osteonecrosis after Hyperthermia in Children and Adolescents with Pelvic Malignances: A Retrospective Analysis of Potential Risk Factors. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2006;22;6:451-461.
53. Kurpeshev O.K., Andreyev V.G., Pankratov V.A., Gulidov I.A., Orlova A.V. Comparative Results of Conservative Chemoradiation and Thermochemioradiotherapy of Locally Advanced Laryngeal Cancer. Voprosy Onkologii = Problems in Oncology. 2014;60;5:602-606 (In Russ.).
54. Kurpeshev O.K., Mardynskiy Yu.S., Maksimov S.A. Combined Treatment of Patients with Oral Cancer Using the “Conditionally Dynamic” Regimen of Fractionation of Radiation Therapy and Loco-Regional Hyperthermia. Sibirskoye Meditsinskoye Obozreniye = Siberian Medical Review. 2011;67;1:80-84 (In Russ.).
55. Field S.B., Hume S.P., Law M.P., Myers R. The Response of Tissue to Combined Hyperthermia and X-rays. Brit. J. Radiol. 1977;50;1:129-134.
56. Bakker A., Holman R., Rodrigues D.B., Trefná H.D., Stauffer P.R., van Tienhoven G., et al. Analysis of Clinical Data to Determine the Minimum Number of Sensors Required for Adequate Skin Temperature Monitoring of Superficial Hyperthermia Treatments. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2018;34;7:910-917.
57. Cox R.S., Kapp D.S. Correlation of Thermal Parameters with Outcome in Combined Radiation Therapy-Hyperthermia Trials. Int. J. Hyperthermia. 1992;8:719–732. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656739209005020.
58. Kurpeshev O.K., Van der Zeye Ya., Kavagnaro M. Hyperthermia for Deep Seated Tumours – Possibilities of Heating with Capacitive Devices. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64;4:64–75. DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-4-64-75 (In Russ.).
59. Kurpeshev O.K. Radiobiological Analysis of the Use of Low Dose Rates in Radiation Therapy. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya. 1980;25;8:68-74 (In Russ.).
60. Beitler J.J., Zhang Q., Fu K.K., Trotti A., Spencer S.A., Jones C.U., et al. Final Results of Local-Regional Control and Late Toxicity of RTOG 9003: A Randomized Trial of Altered Fractionation Radiation for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2014;89;1:13-20.
61. Kolesnikova A.I., Kurpeshev O.K., Konoplyannikov A.G., Lepekhina L.A. Induction of Thermotolerance in Clonogenic Lewis Lung Carcinoma Cells. Eksperimentalnaya Onkologiya (Kiyev, Naukova Dumka). 1986;4:66-67 (In Russ.).
62. Kurpeshev O.K., Konoplyannikov A.G. Restoration of the Skin of Mice after Damage Caused by Ionizing Radiation and Hyperthermia. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya. 1986;31;3:31-36 (In Russ.).
63. Van Rhoon G.C. Is CEM43 Still a Relevant Thermal Dose Parameter for Hyperthermia Treatment Monitoring? Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2016;32;1:50–62. DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2015.1114153.
64. Liu T., Ye Y.-W., Zhu A.-L., Yang Z., Fu Y., Wei C., et al. Hyperthermia Combined with 5-Fluorouracil Promoted Apoptosis and Enhanced Thermotolerance in Human Gastric Cancer Cell Line SGC-7901. Onco. Targets Ther. 2015;8:1265-1270. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S78514.
65. Bettaieb A., Averill-Bates D.A. Hyperthermia Combined with 5-Fluorouracil Promoted Apoptosis and Enhanced Thermotolerance in Human Gastric Cancer Cell Line SGC-7901. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2015;1853;1:52–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2014.09.016.
66. Datta N.R., Marder D., Datta S., Meister A., Puric E., Stutz E., et al. Quantification of Thermal Dose in Moderate Clinical Hyperthermia with Radiotherapy: A Relook Using Temperature–Time Area Under the Curve (AUC). Int. J. Hyperthermia. 2021;38;1:296-307. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2021.1875060.
67. Trefná H.D., Crezee H., Schmidt M., Marder D., Lamprecht U., Ehmann M. et al. Quality assurance guidelines for superficial hyperthermia clinical trials: I. Clinical requirements. Int. J. Hyperthermia 2017;33:471–482.
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: 20.09.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2022.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 1
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-78-85
A.V. Petryakova1,2, L.A. Chipiga1,3,4, M.S. Tlostanova3, A.A. Ivanova3,
D.A. Vazhenina3, A.A. Stanzhevsky3, D.V. Ryzhkova4, V.Yu. Sukhov5, I.V. Boikov6,
Yu.N. Priporova6, A.A. Balabanova7, D.V. Zakhs7, G.M. Mitusova2, E.M. Zykov8,
А.I. Pronin9, O.D. Ryzhova9
Method of Experts’ Quality Evaluation of the PET Images of the Patients
1P.V. Ramzaev Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Saint Petersburg, Russia
2Saint Petersburg Hospital No 40 of the Resort District, Saint Petersburg, Russia
3A.M. Granov Russian Research Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies, Saint Petersburg, Russia
4V.A. Almazov National Medical Research Center, Saint Petersburg, Russia
5A.M. Nikiforov Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Saint Petersburg, Russia
6S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Saint Petersburg, Russia
7N.P. Bechtereva Institute of Human Brain, Saint Petersburg, Russia
8Saint Petersburg Clinical Research Center of Specialized Type of Care (Oncology), Saint Petersburg, Russia
9N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: A.V. Petryakova
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To develop the method of experts’ quality evaluation of the PET images as an additional quality control method for accurate, comparable, and reproducible PET diagnostics results, and to conduct image quality evaluation in different PET departments used this method.
Material and methods: 60 PET images (without CT) of the patients who underwent whole body PET/CT with 18F-FDG were collected from 12 PET/CT scanners in 9 PET departments. Experts’ quality evaluation was conducted with questioning of the experts. Each expert evaluated the image quality by five-point scale and filled out the special form which include three image quality criteria: image clarity, artefacts, and general image quality. There were 28 experts from 8 different PET departments who have work experience in radiology from 1 to 32 years. The results of experts’ quality evaluation of the PET images were examined for correlations with parameters of acquisition and reconstruction protocols, examination methods. The results were also examined for dependance of subjective factors such as work experience and work conditions of experts. The minimum required number of experts were defined. The results were analyzed used statistical methods.
Results: The PET images obtained by 8 PET/CT scanners had mean quality value more than 4 points (good quality). PET/CT scanners, which had the lowest quality value, have the obsolete or unusual settings and reconstruction parameters. The correlations between experts’ quality evaluation of the PET images and acquisition parameters (acquisition time per bed, multiplication of injected activity and acquisition time per bed), and examination methods (injected activity and uptake time) were established. The results of experts’ quality evaluation of the PET images were dependent on work experience and work conditions of experts.
Conclusion: The method of experts’ quality evaluation of the PET images of the patients based on the questioning of the experts working in PET was developed and demonstrated in the current study. The results showed this method has the potential to compare the PET images obtained by different acquisition and reconstruction protocols, and it can be applied during the optimization of examination method and for the determination of obsolete and unusual settings of PET/CT. Experts’ evaluation of the PET images should include the opinion of at least six experts with different work experience in PET from several PET departments.
Key words: positron emission tomography, experts’ evaluation, diagnostics quality, image quality control
For citation: Petryakova AV, Chipiga LA, Tlostanova MS, Ivanova AA, Vazhenina DA, Stanzhevsky AA, Ryzhkova DV, Sukhov VYu, Boikov IV, Priporova YuN, Balabanova AA, Zakhs DV, Mitusova GM, Zykov EM, Pronin АI, Ryzhova OD. Method of Experts’ Quality Evaluation of the PET Images of the Patients. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(1):78–85. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-78-85
References
1. Onishchenko G.G., Popova A.Yu., Romanovich I.K., Vodovatov A.V., Bashketova N.S., Istorik O.A., et al. Modern Principles of the Radiation Protection from Sources of Ionizing Radiation in Medicine. Part 1. Trends, Structure of x-Ray Diagnostics and Doses from Medical Exposure. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2019;12;1:6-24. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-1-6-24 (In Russ.).
2. Boellaard R., Delgado-Bolton R., Oyen W.J., Giammarile F., Tatsch K., Eschner W., et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM Procedure Guidelines for Tumour Imaging: Version 2.0. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2015;42;2:328-354. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.
3. Mansor S., Pfaehler E., Heijtel D., Lodge M.A., Boellaard R., Yaqub M. Impact of PET/CT System, Reconstruction Protocol, Data Analysis Method, and Repositioning on PET/CT Precision: An Experimental Evaluation Using an Oncology and Brain Phantom. Med. Phys. 2017;44;12:6413-6424. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12623.
4. Chipiga L.A., Zvonova I.A., Ryzhkova D.V., Menkov M.A., Dolgushin M.B. Levels of Patients Exposure and a Potential for Optimization of The PET Diagnostics in the Russian Federation. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2017;10;4:31-43. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2017-10-4-31-43 (In Russ.).
5. Hristova I., Boellaard R., Galette P., Shankar L.K., Liu Y., Stroobants S., et al. Guidelines for Quality Control of PET/CT Scans in a Multicenter Clinical Study. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4;1:23. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-017-0190-7.
6. De Jong E.E.C., van Elmpt W., Hoekstra O.S., Groen H.J.M., Smit E.F., Boellaard R., et al. Quality Assessment of Positron Emission Tomography Scans: Recommendations for Future Multicentre Trials. Acta Oncol. 2017;56;11:1459-1464. DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1346824.
7. Schaefferkoetter J.D., Osman M., Townsend D.W. The Importance of Quality Control for Clinical PET Imaging. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2017;45;4:265-266. DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.198465.
8. Chipiga L.A., Vodovatov A.V., Katayeva G.V., Ryzhkova D.V., Dolgushin M.B., Menkov M.A., et al. Proposals of Quality Assurance in Positron Emission Tomography in Russia. Meditsinskaya Fizika = Medical Physics. 2019;82;2:78–92 (In Russ.).
9. Inozemtsev K.O., Narkevich B.Ya., Menkov M.A., Dolgushin M.B. The Development of Quality Assurance Program for Combined PET/CT-scanner. Meditsinskaya Fizika = Medical Physics. 2013;57;1:65-77 (In Russ.).
10. Klimanov V.A. Yadernaya Meditsina. Radionuklidnaya Diagnostika = Nuclear Medicine. Radionuclide Diagnostics. Textbook. Moscow, Yurayt Publ., 2018. 307 p. (In Russ.).
11. Vinogradova Yu.N., Tlostanova M.S., Ivanova A.A., Pakhomov A.Yu., Ilin N.V. Methodological Aspects of Measuring Metabolic Tumor Volume in Patients with Diffuse B-Cell Large Cell Lymphoma by PET/CT with 18F-FDG. Onkologicheskiy Zhurnal: Luchevaya Diagnostika, Luchevaya Terapiya = Journal of Oncology: Diagnostic Radiology and Radiotherapy. 2021;4;4:28-39. DOI: 10.37174/2587 7593 2021 4 4 28-39
(In Russ.).
12. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2018: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs (PETS). National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Washington, 2018.
13. Kaalep A., Sera T., Oyen W., Krause B.J., Chiti A., Liu Y., et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT Accreditation - Summary Results from the First 200 Accredited Imaging Systems. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2018;45;3:412-422. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7.
14. Vodovatov A.V., Kamyshanskaya I.G., Drozdov A.A. New Approach for The Determination of The Standard Patient to Be Used for The Optimization of The Medical Exposure Protection. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2014;7;4:104-116 (In Russ.).
15. International Atomic Energy Agency. PET/CT Atlas on Quality Control and Image Artefacts. IAEA Human Health Series No. 27. Vienna: IAEA, 2014.
16. International Atomic Energy Agency. Standard Operating Procedures for PET/CT: a Practical Approach for Use in Adult Oncology. IAEA Human Health Series No. 26, Vienna: IAEA, 2013.
17. Messerli M., Stolzmann P., Egger-Sigg M., Trinckauf J., D’Aguanno S., Burger I.A., et al. Impact of a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm on Image Quality in Novel Digital PET/CT: Clinical Implications for the Assessment of Lung Tumors. EJNMMI Phys. 2018;5;1:27. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-018-0223-x.
18. Sah B.R., Stolzmann P., Delso G., Wollenweber S.D., Hüllner M., Hakami Y.A., Queiroz M.A., et al. Clinical Evaluation of a Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization Reconstruction Algorithm in 18F-FDG PET/CT Studies. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2017;38;1:57-66. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000604.
19. Akamatsu G., Ishikawa K., Mitsumoto K., Taniguchi T., Ohya N., Baba S., et al. Improvement in PET/CT Image Quality with a Combination of Point-Spread Function and Time-of-Flight in Relation to Reconstruction Parameters. J. Nucl. Med. 2012;53;11:1716-1722. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103861.
20. Van Sluis J., Boellaard R., Dierckx R.A.J.O., Stormezand G.N., Glaudemans A.W.J.M., Noordzij W. Image Quality and Activity Optimization in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET Using the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System. J. Nucl. Med. 2020;61;5:764-771. DOI: 10.2967/
jnumed.119.234351.
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: 20.09.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2022.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 1
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-72-77
A.A. Lemaeva, I.A. Gulidov
Radiation Therapy and Pregnancy (Literature Review)
A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre, Obninsk, Russia
Contact person: A.A. Lemaeva, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The possibility of radiation therapy during pregnancy remains a subject of discussion, in most cases, specialists try to avoid the use of radiation therapy in a pregnant woman. Currently, there is insufficient data confirming the safety of intrauterine radiation even with the use of modern methods of radiation therapy.
The purpose of this literature review is to summarize current clinical data on the appropriateness of the use and clinical results of the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of the most commonly diagnosed tumors in pregnant women.
Based on the literature data, it can be said that the possibility of using radiation therapy in the treatment of oncological diseases in pregnant women depends on the localization of the tumor, gestational age, the estimated total focal dose, the size of the irradiation field, the distance from the irradiation field to the fetus, the preferences of the patient.
Keywords: radiation therapy, pregnancy
For citation: Lemaeva AA, Gulidov IA. Radiation Therapy and Pregnancy (Literature Review). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(1):72–77. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-72-77
References
1. Donegan W.L. Cancer and Pregnancy. CA Cancer J. Clin. 1983;33:194–214.
2. Hay A.E., Klimm B., Chen B.E., et al. An Individual Patient-Data Comparison of Combined Modality Therapy and ABVD Alone for Patients with Limited-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma. Ann. Oncol. 2013;24:3065–3069.
3. Mazzola R., GiajLevra N., Alongi F. Radiation Dose-Response Relationship for Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Survivors of Hodgkin Lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34;24:2940–2941.
4. Perez C.A., Grigsby P.W., Chao K.S., et al. Tumor Size, Irradiation Dose, and Longterm Outcome of Carcinoma of Uterine Cervix. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1998;41;2:307–317.
5. Corradini S., Niyazi M., Niemoeller O.M., et al. Adjuvant Radiotherapy after Breast Conserving Surgery – a Comparative Effectiveness Research Study. Radiother. Oncol. 2015;114;1:28–34.
6. Mazzola R., Ricchetti F., Fiorentino A., et al. Weekly Cisplatin and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Radical Treatment of Advanced Cervical Cancer in Elderly Patients: Feasibility and Clinical Preliminary Results. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. 2017;16;3:310–315.
7. Nutting C.M., Morden J.P., Harrington K.J., et al. Parotid-Sparing Intensity Modulated Versus Conventional Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (PARSPORT): a Phase 3 Multicentrerandomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12;2:127–136.
8. Mazzola R., Ferrera G., Alongi F., et al. Organ Sparing and Clinical Outcome with Step-and-Shoot IMRT for Head and Neck Cancer: a Mono-Institutional Experience. Radiol. Med. 2015;120;8:753–758.
9. GiajLevra N., Sicignano G., Fiorentino A., et al. Whole Brain Radiotherapy with Hippocampal Avoidance and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Brain Metastases: a Dosimetric Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Study. Radiol. Med. 2016;121;1:60–69.
10. Giaj-Levra N., Sciascia S., Fiorentino A., et al. Radiotherapy in Patients with Connective Tissue Diseases. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17;3:109–117.
11. Yoshimoto Y., Kato H., Schull W.J. Risk of Cancer among Children Exposed in Utero to A-Bomb Radiations. Lancet. 1988;2;8612:665–669.
12. Stovall M., Blackwell C.R., Cundiff J., et al. Fetal Dose from Radiotherapy with Photon Beams: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 36. Medical Physics. 1995;22;1:63–82.
13. Nakagawa K., Aoki Y., Kusama T. Radiotherapy During Pregnancy: Effects on Fetuses and Neonates. Clinical Therapeutics. 1997;19:770–777.
14. Yonekura Y., Tsujii H., Hopewell, J.W., et al. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 127: Radiological Protection in Ion Beam Radiotherapy. Annals of the ICRP. 2014;43;4:5–113.
15. Otake M., Schull W.J. In Utero Exposure to A-Bomb Radiation and Mental Retardation: a Reassessment. The British Journal of Radiology. 1984;57: 409–414.
16. Miller R.W., Mulvihill J.J. Small Head Size after Atomic Irradiation. Teratology. 1976;14:355–358.
17. Mazzolaa R., Corradinib S., Eidemüeller M. Modern Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment During Pregnancy. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2019;136:13-19.
18. Stewart A., Webb J., Giles D., et al. Malignant Disease in Childhood and Diagnostic Radiation in Utero. Lancet. 1956;1;271;6940:447.
19. Stewart A., Webb J., Hewitt D. A Survey of Childhood Malignancies. British Medical Journal. 1958;1;5086:1495–1508.
20. Bithell J.F., Draper G.J., Sorahan T., et al. Childhood Cancer Research in Oxford I: the Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancers. British Journal of Cancer. 2018;119;6:756–762.
21. Wakeford R., Little M.P. Risk Coefficients for Childhood Cancer after Intrauterine Irradiation: a Review. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2003;79;5:293–309.
22. Chen Z., King W., Pearcey R., et al. The Relationship between Waiting Time for Radiotherapy and Clinical Outcomes: a Systematic Review of the Literature. Radiother Oncol. 2008;87;1:3–16.
23. Antypas C., Sandilos P., Kouvaris J., et al. Fetal Dose Evaluation During Breast Cancer Radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1998;1;40;4:995–999.
24. Ngu S.L., Duval P., Collins C. Foetal Radiation Dose in Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer. Aust. Radiol. 1992;36;4:321–322.
25. Van der Giessen P.H. Measurement of the Peripheral Dose for the Tangential Breast Treatment Technique with Co-60 Gamma Radiation and High Energy X-Rays. Radiother. Oncol. 1997;42;3:257–264.
26. Antolak J.A., Strom E.A. Fetal Dose Estimates for Electron-Beam Treatment to the Chest Wall of a Pregnant Patient. Med. Phys. 1998;25;12:2388–2391.
27. Van Calsteren K., Heyns L., De Smet, F., et al. Cancer During Pregnancy: an Analysis of 215 Patients Emphasizing the Obstetrical and the Neonatal Outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010;28;4:683–689.
28. Suwanbut P., Liamsuwan T., Nantajit D., Masa-Nga W., et al. Assessment of Fetal Dose and Health Effect to the Fetus from Breast Cancer Radiotherapy During Pregnancy. Life (Basel). 2022;12;1:84.
29. Galimberti V., Ciocca M., Leonardi M.C., et al. Is Electron Beam Intraoperative Radiotherapy (ELIOT) Safe in Pregnant Women with Early Breast Cancer? In Vivo Dosimetry to Assess Fetal Dose. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2009;16;1:100–105.
30. Leonardi M., Cecconi A., Luraschi R., et al. Electron Beam Intraoperative Radiotherapy (ELIOT) in Pregnant Women with Breast Cancer: from in Vivo Dosimetry to Clinical Practice. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12;6:396–400.
31. Amant F., Deckers S., Van Calsteren K., et al. Breast Cancer in Pregnancy: Recommendations of an International Consensus Meeting. Eur. J. Cancer. 2010;46;18:3158–3168.
32. Amouzegar Hashemi F. Radiotherapy in Pregnancy-Associated Breast Cancer. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2020;1252:125-127.
33. Gustaffson D.C., Kottmeier H.L. Carcinoma of the Cervix Associated with Pregnancy. A Study of the Radiumhemmet’s Series of Invasive Carcinoma During the Period 1932-1956. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 1962;41:1–21.
34. Prem K.A., Makowski E.L., McKelvey J.L. Carcinoma of the Cervix Associated with Pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1966;95;1:99–108.
35. Hunter M.I., Tewari K., Monk B.J. Cervical Neoplasia in Pregnancy. Part 2: Current Treatment of Invasive Disease. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008;199:10–18.
36. Sood A.K., Sorosky J.I., Mayr N., et al. Radiotherapeutic Management of Cervical Carcinoma that Complicates Pregnancy. Cancer. 1997;80;6:1073–1078.
37. Woo S.Y., Fuller L.M., Cundiff J.H., et al. Radiotherapy During Pregnancy for Clinical Stages IA-IIA Hodgkin’s Disease. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1992;23;2:407–412.
38. Lishner M., Zemlickis D., Degendorfer P., et al. Maternal and Foetal Outcome Following Hodgkin’s Disease in Pregnancy. Br. J. Cancer. 1992;65;1:114–117.
39. Evens A.M., Advani R., Press O.W., et al. Lymphoma Occurring During Pregnancy: Antenatal Therapy, Complications, and Maternal Survival in a Multicenter Analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013;31;32:4132–4139.
40. Haba Y., Twyman N., Thomas SJ., et al. Radiotherapy for Glioma During Pregnancy: Fetal Dose Estimates, Risk Assessment and Clinical Management. Clin. Oncol. (R Coll Radiol). 2004;16:210–214.
41. Mazonakis M., Damilakis J., Theoharopoulos N., et al. Brain Radiotherapy During Pregnancy: an Analysis of Conceptus Dose Using Anthropomorphic Phantoms. Br. J. Radiol. 1999;72:274–278.
42. Podgorsak M., Meiler R., Kowal H., et al. Technical Management of a Pregnant Patient Undergoing Radiation Therapy to the Head and Neck. Med. Dosim. 1999;24;2:121-128.
43. Nuyttens J.J., Prado K.L., Jenrette J.M., Williams T.E. Fetal Dose During Radiotherapy: Clinical Implementation and Review of the Literature. Cancer Radiother. 2002;6:352–357.
44. Sharma D.S., Jalali R., Tambe C.M., et al. Effect of Tertiary Multileaf Collimator (MLC) on Foetal Dose During Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) of a Brain Tumour During Pregnancy. Radiother Oncol. 2004;70:49–54.
45. Yu C., Jozsef G., Apuzzo ML, et al. Fetal Radiation Doses for Model C Gamma Knife Radiosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2003;52:687–693.
46. Magné N., Marcié S., Pignol J.P., et al. Radiotherapy for a Solitary Brain Metastasis During Pregnancy: a Method for Redu-
cing Fetal Dose. Br. J. Radiol. 2001;74:638–641.
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: 20.09.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2022.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 1
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-86-91
V.I. Chernov1,2, E.A. Dudnikova1, R.V. Zelchan1,2, O.D. Bragina1,2,
A.A. Medvedeva1, A.N. Rybina1, A.V. Muravleva1, T.L. Kravchuk1, V.E. Goldberg1
Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography with 99mTс-1-Thio-D-glucose in Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Prediction of the Results of Treatment of Lymphoproliferative Diseases
1Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Tomsk, Russia
2 Research Centrum for Oncotheranostics, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
Contact person: V.I. Chernov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Study of 99mTc-1-thio-D-glucose (99mTc-TG) SPECT using fore possibility to assess the effectiveness of therapy and predict the results of lymphomas treatment.
Material and methods: We analyzed 99mTc-TG SPECT data of 30 people with malignant lymphomas: before treatment (SPECT1), after two courses (SPECT2) and after completion of chemotherapy (SPECT3).
Results: By the results of SPECT2 analyzing, a complete metabolic response after two courses of chemotherapy (SPECT2–) was observed in 15 patients (50 %). In 15 patients, after 2 cycles of chemotherapy, a partial metabolic response (12 people) or no metabolic response
(3 people) was established. These patients constituted the SPECT2+ group.
After completion of chemotherapy, a complete metabolic response (SPECT3–) was diagnosed in 21 (70 %) patients. This effect was obtained in 15 (100 %) patients with SPECT2– and in 6 patients (40 %) with SPECT2+. Of the 15 patients in the SPECT2+ group, 9 (60 %) patients after completion of chemotherapy were diagnosed with a partial metabolic response (6 people) or metabolic progression (3 people).
By two-year follow-up of patients, show that remission was observed in 23 (77 %) patients (complete remission in 15 people, uncertain complete remission in 8 patients). The relapse group consisted of 7 (23 %) cases, while 4 patients had a relapse of the disease, and 3 had progression. In SPECT2+ group, relapse of the disease was observed in 6 (40 %) cases, and remission in 9 (60 %) patients. While in SPECT2– group 1 (7 %) person relapse was diagnosed and 14 (93 %) were in remission (p<0.05).
Conclusion: 99mTc-TG SPECT makes it possible to evaluate the results of lymphomas treatment with high efficiency. The presence of a complete metabolic response of the tumor after two courses of therapy indicates a high level of disease-free survival.
Keywords: 99mTc-1-thio-D-glucose, single photon emission computed tomography, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, lymphoma therapy, prognosis
For citation: Chernov VI, Dudnikova EA, Zelchan RV, Bragina OD, Medvedeva AA, Rybina AN, Muravleva AV, Kravchuk TL, Goldberg VE. Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography with 99mTс-1-Thio-D-glucose in Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Prediction of the Results of Treatment of Lymphoproliferative Diseases. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(1):86–91. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-1-86-91
References
1. Poddubnaya I.V., Savchenko V.G. Rossiyskiye Klinicheskiye Rekomendatsii po Diagnostike i Lecheniyu Zlokachestvennykh Limfoproliferativnykh Zabolevaniy = Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Malignant Lymphoproliferative Diseases. Мoscow Publ., 2018. 470 c. (In Russ.).
2. Barrington S.F., Mikhaeel N.G., Kostakoglu L., et al. Role of Imaging in the Staging and Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014;32:3048–3058. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5229.
3. Dreyling M., Thieblemont C., Gallamini A. et al. ESMO Consensus Conferences: Guidelines on Malignant Lymphoma. Part 2: Marginal Zone Lymphoma, Mantle Cell Lymphoma, Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:857–877. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds643.
4. Radford J., Illidge T., Counsell N. et al. Results of a Trial of PET-Directed Therapy for Early-Stage Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372;17:1598–1607. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1408648.
5. Chanchikova N.G., Chernov V.I., Dudnikova Ye.A., et al. The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Evaluation of Therapy Effectiveness and Prognosis of Lymphomas. Byulleten Sibirskoy Meditsiny = Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2021;20;2:120–129. DOI: org/10.20538/1682-0363-2021-2-120-129 (In Russ.).
6. Chernov V.I., Dudnikova Ye.A., Goldberg V.Ye., et al. Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63;6:41–50. DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8d72a8bb98.40545646 (In Russ.).
7. Chanchikova N.G., Dudnikova Ye.A., Karlova Ye.A., et al. Possibilities of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and staging of lymphomas. Voprosy Onkologii = Problems in Oncology. 2019;65;1:147–153. DOI: org/10.37469/0507-3758-2019-65-1-147-153 (In Russ.).
8. Chernov V.I., Dudnikova Ye.A., Goldberg V.Ye., et al. Single-Photon Emission Computerized Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64;3:58–63. DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3dfefe60b13.90120976 (In Russ.).
9. Zeltchan R., Medvedeva A., Sinilkin I., et al. Experimental Study of Radiopharmaceuticals Based on Technetium-99m Labeled Derivative of Glucose for Tumor Diagnosis. IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering. 2016. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/135/1/012054.
10. Zelchan R.V., Medvedeva A.A., Sinilkin I.G., et al. Study of Functional Suitability Tumor Tropism Radiopharmaceuticals 99mTc-1-Thio-D-Glucose in the Experiment. Molekulyarnaya Meditsina = Molecular Medicine. 2018;16;2:54–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29296/24999490-2018-03-11 (In Russ.).
11. Chernov V.I., Medvedeva A.A., Sinilkin I.G., et al. Development Radiopharmaceuticals for Nuclear Medicine in Oncology. Meditsinskaya Vizualizatsiya = Medical Visualization. 2016;2:63–66 (In Russ.).
12. Chernov V.I., Dudnikova Ye.A., Zelchan R.V., et al. The First Experience of Using 99mTc-1-Thio-d-Glucose for Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging of Lymphomas. Sibirskiy Onkologicheskiy Zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2018;17;4:81–87. DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2018-17-4-81-87 (In Russ.).
13. Dudnikova Ye.A., Chernov V.I., Muravleva A.V., et al. Metabolic Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography with the New Radiopharmaceutical 99mTc-1-Thio-D-Glucose in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of the Primary Breast Lymphoma (Case Report). Sibirskiy Onkologicheskiy Zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2020;19;5:145–153. doi: 10.21294/1814-4861-2020-19-5-145-153 (In Russ.).
14. Muravleva A.V., Chernov V.I., Dudnikova Ye.A., et al. Metabolic single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography with «99mTc-1-Thio-D-Glucose» - New Possibilities for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Staging. Rossiyskiy Elektronnyy Zhurnal Luchevoy Diagnostiki = Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2021;11;3:171–177. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2021-11-3-171-177 (In Russ.).
15. Chernov V., Dudnikova E., Zelchan R., et al. Phase I Clinical Trial Using [99mTc]Tc-1-Thio-D-Glucose for Diagnosis of Lymphoma Patients. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14061274.
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: 20.09.2022. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2022.