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. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 45–49
Psychophysiological Adaptation of a Patient with Acute Radiated Sickness
of Average Degree and Acute Leukemia
N.A. Metlyaeva, A.Yu. Bushmanov, I.А. Galstyan, A.A. Davtyan, M.Yu. Sukhova, E.S. Skorobogatykh, O.V. Shcherbatykh
A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Nelya Andreevna Metlyaeva: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Clinical and psychophysiological assessment of the adaptation of a patient who suffered from acute radiation sickness of moderate severity after the Chernobyl accident and acute leukemia, which began 30 years after the transferred ARS.
Material and methods: A clinical and psychophysiological examination of a patient who suffered from acute radiation sickness of moderate severity after the Chernobyl accident and acute leukemia that occurred 30 years after the Chernobyl accident was carried out. The object of the study was the patient D.R.I., born in 1950, deputy. Head of the Chernobyl NPP workshop, participant in the liquidation of the consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. On April 26, 1986, during an emergency, he underwent relatively uniform beta-gamma radiation with the development of ARS II (moderate) severity. Within 3.5 hours after the accident was in the premises of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In the structure of ARS, bone marrow syndrome of the second degree and oropharyngeal syndrome of the first degree of severity were observed. The radiation dose, according to a cytogenetic study, was 3.4 Gy. A psychophysiological study was carried out using the MMPI methodology, the Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors Test, the Expert automated software and methodological complex, designed to study the personality characteristics of a person, the cognitive and intellectual characteristics of a person, the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, simple and complex sensorimotor reactions and reactions to a moving object, 15 (2001) and 30 years (2016) after the Chernobyl radiation accident.
Results: The clinical and psychophysiological assessment of the personality and the actual mental state made it possible to determine the demonstrative-hypochondriacal type of disturbance in the psychophysiological adaptation with the tendency for the anxiety-depressive behavior of the patient to progress to a state of increasing depression, more pronounced in dynamics.
Conclusion: The psychophysiological assessment of the personality and current mental state of the patient who had ARS, moderate and, 30 years after the Chernobyl accident, acute leukemia showed a demonstrative-hypochondria type of adaptation disorder, as a variant of a disharmonious combination of hypochondria, anxiety-depressive and demonstrative tendencies with a predominance of demonstrativeness (the first, second and third scale of the MMPI methodology) with a significant decrease on the ninth scale in the form of an increase in depression in dynamics. The prevalence of demonstrativeness over growing depression in a person with high intellect, good figurative and logical thinking, and a lack of sensorimotor inhibition is a manifestation of optimism and resistance to a serious illness.
Key words: acute radiation sickness, ionizing radiation, asthenia, depression, adaptation
For citation: Metlyaeva NA, Bushmanov AYu, Galstyan IА, Davtyan AA, Sukhova MYu, Skorobogatykh ES, Shcherbatykh OV.
sychophysiological Adaptation of a Patient with Acute Radiated Sickness of Average Degree and Acute Leukemia. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6): 45–49.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-45-49
References
1. Vorobe’v A.I., Domracheva E.V. Leukemia Induced by Radiation. Problems of Hematology and Blood Transfusion. 2000;4:5-15. (In Russian).
2. Gol’dberg E.D. Leukemia and Radiation. Tomsk Publ., 1963. 72 p. (In Russian).
3. Eds. Burnazyan A.I., Gus’kova A.K. Studying Consequences of Nuclear Explosions. Translated from English. Moscow, Medicine Publ. 1964. 480 p. (In Russian).
4. Suvorova L.A., Galstyan I.A., Nadezhina N.M., Nugis V.Yu. Oncohematological Diseases in Patients with Acute Radiation Sickness. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety 2008;53;5:26-34. (In Russian).
5. Ichimaru M., Ishimaru T.A. Review of Thirty Years Study of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors. J. Radiat. Res. 1975:89-96.
6. Pierce D.A., Shimizu Y., Preston D.L., et al. Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors. Rep. 12, Part 1. Cancer: 1950-1990. J. Radiat. Res. 1996;146;1:1-27.
7. Preston D.L., Mabuchi K., Kusumi S., et al. Leukemia Incidence in the Atomic Bomb Survivor Life Span Study, 1950-87. Proceed. of Intern. Conference on Radiation Effects and Protection; March 18-20. Japan Atomic Energy Research. Inst., 1992. P. 103-107.
8. Ishimaru M., Okhkita T., Ishimaru T. Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma and Malignant Lymphoma. GANN Monograph on Cancer Res. 1986;32:113-127.
9. Berezin F.B., Miroshnikov M.P., Sokolova E.D. Method of Multilateral Study of Personality. Structure, Basis of Interpretation, Some Areas of Application. 3 Edition, Amended and Updated. Moscow Publ., 2011. 320 p. (In Russian).
10. Sokolova E.D., Kalachev V.F., Dolnykova A.A. Clinical Aspects of Mental Adaptation Disorders. Mental Adaptation of a Person in the Conditions of the North. Vladivostok Publ., 1980. P. 77-96. (In Russian).
11. Korolenko Ts.P. Psychophysiology of a Person in Extreme Conditions. Leningrad, Meditsina Publ., 1978. P. 150.(In Russian).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing: research topic "Features of the subacute course of radiation sickness", code: "Subacute radiation sickness".
Contribution: development of the research concept, data analysis and interpretation of the results, writing the text of the article - N.A. Metlyaeva; development of the theoretical basis of the research - Bushmanov A.Yu., Galstyan I.A .; medical examination of the patient - Davtyan A.A., Sukhova M.Yu., Skorobogatykh E.S .; collection and analysis of literary material, text editing - Shcherbatykh O.V.
Article received: 16.04.2021.
Accepted for publication: 21.08.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 50–56
Comparison of Radiation Risk of Cancer Incidence
among PA Mayak Workers Hired at Different Calendar Periods
I.S. Kuznetsova
Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Russia
Contact person: Irina Sergeevna Kuznetsova: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: comparative epidemiological analysis of cancer incidence rates among PA Mayak workers hired at different calendar periods.
Material and Methods: The cohort of PA Mayak workers hired at reactors, radiochemical, plutonium, water preparing and repair plants in 1948-1982 was selected for analysis of solid cancer (except lung, liver and bone) incidence. The cohort was divided into two subcohorts 1948-1958 and 1959-1982 years of hire.
Regression models of relative risk included the description of background rates and excess radiation risk was used.
Results: The radiation relative risk per 1 Gy was (ERR/Gy: 0.11; 95 % CI: 0.02; 0.21) in the subcohort of workers hired in 1948–1958 and was close to the estimates from previous studies for the whole cohort.
In the subcohort of workers hired in 1959–1982 the point estimate of ERR/Gy was 3 times higher than in the subcohort 1948–1958 years of hire, but it was not statistically significant in the whole dose range. Restriction of doses up to 2 Gy allowed to get significant estimate of ERR/Gy (0.45; 95 % CI: 0.04; 0.95), which 4 times higher the estimate in the first subcohort calculated with the same restriction (0.11; 95 % CI: -0.01; 0.25).
All subcohorts differences were not statistically significant and we can say about point distinctions only.
Key words: radiation risk, cancer, occupation exposure, regular conditions, staff, Mayak PA
For citation: Kuznetsova IS. Comparison of Radiation Risk of Cancer Incidence (Except Lung, Liver And Bone Cancers) Among PA Mayak Workers Hired at Different Calendar Periods. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6): 50–56.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-50-56
References
1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. A review of human carcinogens. Lyon, IARC, 2012. 252 p.
2. Ilyin, L.A., Kiselev M.F., Panfilov A.P., et.al. Medical Dosimetric Registry of Russian Atomic Industry Employees: Current Status and Perspectives. Int. J. Low Radiation. 2006;2;3-4:207–218.
3. Richardson D.B., Cardis E., Daniels R.D., et al. Risk of Cancer from Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 2015;351:53-59.
4. Haylock R.G.E., Gillies M., Hunter N., et al. Cancer Mortality and Incidence Following External Occupational Radiation Exposure: an Update of the 3rd Analysis of the UK National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br. J. Cancer. 2018;119:631-637.
5. Radiation Safety Standards (NRB-99/2009). SanPiN 2.6.1.2523-09. Moscow Publ., 2009. 100 p. (In Russian).
6. Panfilov A.P. Evolution of the System Supporting Radiation Safety in Nuclear Industry of Russia and Its Current Status. Radiation and Risk. 2016;25;1:47-64. (In Russian).
7. Koshurnikova, N.A., et al., Characteristics of the Cohort of Workers at the Mayak Nuclear Complex. Radiat. Res. 1999;152;4:352-363.
8. Sokolnikov, M., et al., Radiation Effects on Mortality from Solid Cancers other than Lung, Liver, and Bone Cancer in the Mayak Worker Cohort: 1948-2008. Plos. One. 2015;10;2:E0117784.
9. Vasilenko, E.K., et al. Mayak Worker Dosimetry Study: an Overview. Health Phys. 2007;93;3:190-206.
10. Labutina E.V., Kuznetsova I.S. Radiation Risk of the Incidence of Malignant Neoplasms in Organs of Main Deposition for Plutonium with Regard to Histological Tumor Types in the Mayak Nuclear Workers. Radioactive Sources and Radiation Exposure Effects on the Mayak PA Workers and Population Living in the Area of Nuclear Facility Influence. Part IV, Ed. Kiselyov M.F., Romanov S.A. Chelyabinsk Publ., 2012. P. 93-112. (In Russian).
11. Preston D.L., Lubin J., Pierce D.A., McConney M.E., Shilnikova N.S. Epicure User Guide. Ottawa, Risk Sciences International, 2015. V.2.01.
12. 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;109:1989–1996.
13. Sokolnikov, M., et al., Radiation Effects on Mortality from Solid Cancers Other than Lung, Liver, and Bone Cancer in the Mayak Worker Cohort: 1948-2008. PLoS One. 2015;10;2:e0117784.
14. Haylock, R.G.E., Gillies, M., Hunter, N., et al. Cancer Mortality and Incidence Following External Occupational Radiation Exposure: an Update of the 3rd Analysis of the UK National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br. J. Cancer. 2018;119:631–637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0184-9.
15. Richardson David B., Cardis E., Daniels Robert D., Gillies Michael, O’Hagan Jacqueline A., Hamra Ghassan B., et al. Risk of Cancer from Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 2015;351:h5359. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136 /bmj.h5359.
16. Grant E.J., Brenner A., Sugiyama H., Sakata R., Sadakane A., Utada M., Cahoon E.K., Milder C.M., Soda M., Cullings H.M., Preston D.L., Mabuchi K., Ozasa K. Solid Cancer Incidence among the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009. Radiat. Res. 2017;187;5:513-537. doi: 10.1667/RR14492.1. Epub 2017 Mar 20. PMID: 28319463.
17. Ozasa K., et al. Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950-2003: an Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases. Radiat. Res. 2012;177:229–243.
18. Dauer L.T. Uncertainties in the Estimation of Radiation Risks and Probability of Disease Causation. NCRP Report No. 171. Med. Phys. 2014;41;4:047301. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4869175
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The author declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. The article was prepared by one author.
Article received: 26.01.2021.
Accepted for publication: 05.09.2021
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 63–70
Current Trends in Targeted Radionuclide Therapy Development
M.S. Vorontsova, T.A. Karmakova, A.A. Pankratov, A.D. Kaprin
P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute. Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Tatyana Anatolyevna Karmakova, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
CONTENT
Introduction
1. Features of Targeted Delivery of Therapeutic Radionuclides
2. Design of Pharmaceuticals for Targeted Radionuclide Therapy (TRT)
2.1. Radionuclides
2.2. Synthesis of Radioconjugates
2.3. Targeting Carriers
4. Subcellular Targeting of Radionuclides
5. TRT Dosimetry
Conclusion
Key words: cancer, solid tumors, targeted radionuclide therapy
For citation: Vorontsova MS, Karmakova TA, Pankratov AA, Kaprin AD. Current Trends in Targeted Radionuclide Therapy Development. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6):63–70.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-63-70
References
1. Krylov VV, Kochetova TYu, Garbuzov PI, Shurinov AYu, Borodavina EV. Radionuclide Therapy. Therapeutic Radiology. National Guide. Ed. Caprin A.D., Mardynsky Yu.S. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2019. P. 637-664. (In Russ.). [Крылов В.В., Кочетова Т.Ю., Гарбузов П.И., Шуринов А.Ю., Бородавина Е.В. Радионуклидная терапия // Терапевтическая радиология. Национальное руководство / Под ред. акад. РАН Каприна А.Д., чл.-корр. РАН Мардынского Ю.С. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2019. С. 637-664.].
2. Chernov VI, Medvedev AA, Sinilkin IG, Zelchan RV, Bragina OD, Choynzonov EL. Nuclear Medicine as a Tool for Diagnosis and Targeted Cancer Therapy. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2018;17;1:220–231. DOI: 10.20538/1682-0363-2018-1-220–231 (In Russ.). [Чернов В.И., Медведева А.А., Синилкин И.Г., Зельчан Р.В., Брагина О.Д., Чойзонов Е.Л. Ядерная медицина в диагностике и адресной терапии злокачественных новообразований // Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2018. Т.17, № 1. С. 220-231. DOI: 10.20538/1682-0363-2018-1-220–231].
3. Krylov VV, Kochetova TY, Belozerova MS, Voloznev LV. Features of the Use of Various Radiopharmaceuticals for the Treatment of Patients with Bone Metastases. Palliative Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2015;4:26-33. (In Russ.). [Крылов В.В., Кочетова Т.Ю., Белозерова М.С., Волознев Л.В. Особенности применения различных радиофармпрепаратов в лечении больных с метастазами в кости // Паллиативная медицина и реабилитация. 2015. № 4. С. 26-33].
4. Pattni BS, Torchilin VP. Targeted Drug Delivery Systems: Strategies and Challenges. Targeted Drug Delivery: Concepts and Design. Advances in Delivery Science and Technology. Ed. Devarajan P., Jain S. Springer, Cham, 2015. P. 1-38.
5. Bae YH, Park K. Targeted Drug Delivery to Tumors: Myths, Reality and Possibility. J. Control Release. 2011;153;3:198-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.06.001.
6. Keefe DMK, Bateman EH. Potential Successes and Challenges of Targeted Cancer Therapies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2019;2019;53:lgz008. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgz008.
7. Larson SM, Carrasquillo JA, Cheung NK, Press OW. Radioimmunotherapy of Human Tumours. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2015;15;6:347-60. DOI: 10.1038/nrc3925.
8. Peltek OO, Muslimov AR, Zyuzin MV, Timin AS. Current Outlook on Radionuclide Delivery Systems: from Design Consideration to Translation into Clinics. J. Nanobiotechnology. 2019;17;1:90. DOI: 10.1186/s12951-019-0524-9.
9. Chernov VI, Bragina OD, Sinilkin IG, Medvedeva AA, Zel’chan RV. Radionuclide Theranostics of Malignancies. Russian Journal of Radiology. 2016;97;5:306-313. DOI: 10.20862/0042-4676-2016-97-5-306-313. (In Russ.). [Чернов В.И., Брагина О.Д., Синилкин И.Г., Медведева А.А., Зельчан Р.В. Радионуклидная тераностика злокачественных образований // Вестник рентгенологии и радиологии. 2016. Т.9, № 5. С. 306–313. DOI: 10.20862/0042-4676-2016-97-5-306-313.].
10. Makvandi M, Dupis E, Engle JW, Nortier FM, Fassbender ME, et al. Alpha-Emitters and Targeted Alpha Therapy in Oncology: from Basic Science to Clinical Investigations. Target Oncol. 2018;13;2:189-203. DOI: 10.1007/s11523-018-0550-9.
11. Ku A, Facca VJ, Cai Z, Reilly RM. Auger Electrons for Cancer Therapy - a Review. EJNMMI Radiopharm Chem. 2019;4;1:27. DOI: 10.1186/s41181-019-0075-2.
12. Bavelaar BM, Lee BQ, Gill MR, Falzone N, Vallis KA. Subcellular Targeting of Theranostic Radionuclides. Front. Pharmacol. 2018;9:996. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00996.
13. Rosenkranz AA, Slastnikova TA, Georgiev GP, Zalutsky MR, Sobolev AS. Delivery Systems Exploiting Natural Cell Transport Processes of Macromolecules for Intracellular Targeting of Auger Electron Emitters. Nucl. Med. Biol. 2020;80;1:45-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2019.11.005.
14. Edem PE, Fonslet J, Kjær A, Herth M, Severin G. In Vivo Radionuclide Generators for Diagnostics and Therapy. Bioinorg. Chem. Appl. 2016;2016:6148357. DOI: 10.1155/2016/6148357.
15. Price EW, Orvig C. Matching Chelators to Radiometals for Radiopharmaceuticals. Chem Soc Rev. 2014;43;1:260-90. DOI: 10.1039/c3cs60304k.
16. Chernov VI, Bragina OD, Sinilkin IG, Titskaya AA, Zelchan RV. Radioimmunotherapy in the Treatment of Malignancies. Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2016;15;2:101–106. DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2016-15-2-101-106. (In Russ.). [Чернов В.И., Брагина О.Д., Синилкин И.Г., Тицкая А.А., Зельчан Р.В. Радиоиммунотерапия в лечении злокачественных образований // Сиб. Онкол. Жур. 2016. Т.15, № 2. С. 101-106. DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2016-15-2-101-106].
17. ClinicalTrials.gov: Database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov. 2019 Oct 07.
18. Yu S, Li A, Liu Q, Yuan X, Xu H, Jiao D, et al. Recent Advances of Bispecific Antibodies in Solid Tumors. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2017;10;1:155. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-017-0522-z.
19. Rosenblum D, Joshi N, Tao W, Karp JM, Peer D. Progress and Challenges Towards Targeted Delivery of Cancer Therapeutics. Nat. Commun. 2018;9;1:1410. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03705-y.
20. Altai M, Membreno R, Cook B, Tolmachev V, Zeglis BM. Pretargeted Imaging and Therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 2017;58;10:1553-1559. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.189944.
21. Shen G, Liu Z, Bao Y, Kuang A, Wu H From Darkness to Light: Pretargeted Radionuclide Imaging Driven by Tetrazine Bioorthogonal Chemistry. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2018;18;21:1851-1855. DOI: 10.2174/156802661821190104120031.
22. Stéen EJL, Edem PE, Nørregaard K, Jørgensen JT, Shalgunov V, Kjaer A, et al. Pretargeting in Nuclear Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy: Improving Efficacy of Theranostics and Nanomedicines. Biomaterials. 2018;179:209-245. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.06.021.
23. Cheal SM, Xu H, Guo HF, Patel M, Punzalan B, Fung EK, et al. Theranostic Pretargeted Radioimmunotherapy of Internalizing Solid Tumor Antigens in Human Tumor Xenografts in Mice: Curative Treatment of HER2-Positive Breast Carcinoma. Theranostics. 2018;8;18:5106-5125. DOI: 10.7150/thno.26585.
24. Bodet-Milin C, Bailly C, Touchefeu Y, Frampas E, Bourgeois M, Rauscher A, et al. Clinical Results in Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Suggest High Potential of Pretargeted Immuno-PET for Tumor Imaging and Theranostic Approaches. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2019;6:124. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00124.
25. Richards DA. Exploring Alternative Antibody Scaffolds: Antibody Fragments and Antibody Mimics for Targeted Drug Delivery. Drug. Discov. Today Technol. 2018;30:35-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ddtec. 2018.10.005.
26. Bragina OD, Larkina MS, Stasyuk ES, Chernov VI, Yusubov MS, et al. Development of highly specific radiochemical compounds based on 99m Tc-labeled recombinant molecules for targeted imaging of cells overexpressing Her-2/neu. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2017; 16(3):25–33. Russian. DOI 10.20538/1682-0363-2017-3-25–33. (In Russ.). [Брагина О.Д., Ларькина М.С., Стасюк Е.С., Чернов В.И., Юсубов М.С. и др. Разработка высокоспецифичного радиохимического соединения на основе меченых 99mТс рекомбинантных адресных молекул для визуализации клеток с гиперэкспрессией Her-2/neu // Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2017. Т.16, № 3. С. 25–33. DOI 10.20538/1682-0363-2017-3-25–33].
27. Mitran B, Güler R, Roche FP, Lindström E, Selvaraju RK, Fleetwood F, et al. Radionuclideimaging of VEGFR2 in Glioma Vasculature Using Biparatopic Affibody Conjugate:Proof-of-Principle in a Murine Model. Theranostics. 2018;8;16:4462-4476.DOI: 10.7150/thno.24395.
28. Soudy R, Byeon N, Raghuwanshi Y, Ahmed S, Lavasanifar A, Kaur K. Engineered Peptides for Applications in Cancer-Targeted Drug Delivery and Tumor Detection. Mini. Rev. Med. Chem. 2017;17;18:1696-1712. DOI: 10.2174/1389557516666160219121836.
29. Cives M, Strosberg J. Radionuclide Therapy for Neuroendocrine Tumors. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2017;19;2:9. DOI: 10.1007/s11912-017-0567-8.
30. Fani M, Nicolas GP, Wild D. Somatostatin Receptor Antagonists for Imaging and Therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 2017;58:61S-66S. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.186783.
31. Królicki L, Bruchertseifer F, Kunikowska J, Koziara H, Królicki B, Jakuciński M, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Targeted Alpha Therapy with 213Bi-DOTA-Substance P in Recurrent Glioblastoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2019;46;3:614-622. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4225-7.
32. Kue CS, Kamkaew A, Burgess K, Kiew LV, Chung LY, Lee HB. Small Molecules for Active Targeting in Cancer. Med. Res. Rev. 2016;36;3:494-575. DOI: 10.1002/med.21387.
33. Sun M, Niaz MO, Nelson A, Skafida M, Niaz MJ. Review of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Cureus. 2020;12;6:e8921. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.8921.
34. Violet J, Sandhu S, Iravani A, Ferdinandus J. Thang S.P., Kong G., et al. Long-Term Follow-up and Outcomes of Retreatment in an Expanded 50-Patient Single-Center Phase II Prospective Trial of 177Lu-PSMA-617 Theranostics in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2020;61;6:857-865. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.236414.
35. Umbricht CA, Benešová M, Schibli R, Müller C. Preclinical Development of Novel PSMA-Targeting Radioligands: Modulation of Albumin-Binding Properties to Improve Prostate Cancer Therapy. Mol Pharm. 2018;15;6:2297-2306. DOI:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut. 8b00152.
36. Mi Y, Shao Z, Vang J, Kaidar-Person O, Wang AZ. Application of Nanotechnology to Cancer Radiotherapy. Cancer Nanotechnol. 2016;7;1:11. DOI: 10.1186/s12645-016-0024-7.
37. Pouget JP, Lozza C, Deshayes E, Boudousq V, Navarro-Teulon I. Introduction to Radiobiology of Targeted Radionuclide Therapy. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2015;2:12. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00012.
38. Vallis KA, Reilly RM, Scollard D, Merante P, Brade A, Velauthapillai S, et al. Phase I Trial to Evaluate the Tumor and Normal Tissue Uptake, Radiation Dosimetry and Safety of (111)In-DTPA-Human Epidermal Growth Factor in Patients with Metastatic EGFR-Positive Breast Cancer. Am. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2014;4;2:181-92.
39. Violet JA, Farrugia G, Skene C, White J, Lobachevsky P, Martin R. Triple Targeting of Auger Emitters Using Octreotate Conjugated to a DNA-Binding Ligand and a Nuclear Localizing Signal. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2016;92;11:707-715.
40. Sobolev AS. Modular Nanotransporters for Nuclear-Targeted Delivery of Auger Electron Emitters. Front. Pharmacol. 2018;9:952. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00952.
41. Rosenkranz AA, Slastnikova TA, Durymanov MO, Georgiev GP, Sobolev AS. Exploiting Active Nuclear Import for Efficient Delivery of Auger Electron Emitters into the Cell Nucleus. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2020:1-11. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2020.1815889.
42. Sobolev AS. The Delivery of Biologically Active Agents into the Nuclei of Target Cells for the Purposes of Translational Medicine. Acta Naturae. 2020;12;4:47-56. DOI: 10.32607/actanaturae.11049.
43. Li T, Ao ECI, Lambert B, Brans B, Vandenberghe S, Mok GSP. Quantitative Imaging for Targeted Radionuclide Therapy Dosimetry - Technical Review. Theranostics. 2017;7;18:4551-4565. DOI: 10.7150/thno.19782.
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: 23.12.2020.
Accepted for publication: 20.01.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 57–62
Analysis of Relation Between Lifetime Rates and Incorporation of Plutonium-239
in Atomic Production Workers Regarding Tumor and Non-Tumor Causes of Death
V.I. Tel’nov, I.V. Legkikh, P.V. Okatenko
Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk region, Russia.
Contact person: Vitaly Ivanovich Telnov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The objective of the study was in quantitative assessment of the effect of internal exposure to lifetime in Mayak PA workers based on analyzing dependence of certain lifetime rates on incorporation of plutonium-239 regarding tumor and non-tumor causes of death.
Material and methods: The cohort of deceased Mayak PA workers employed in1948–1958 with known Pu-239 body burden comprising 2343 individuals, of them 1739 males and 604 females, was investigated. Using regression analysis we have assessed dependence of general lifetime and lifetime after start of work as well as of proportion of individuals who did not survive until standard age in general and after start of work from incorporated Pu-239 separately for workers of different age regarding tumor and non-tumor causes of death. Statistical values were defined using Statistica software.
Results: It was stated that in case of increase of plutonium-239 body burden in males and females reliably increased shortening of lifetime and lifetime after start of work was observed as well as increased proportion of individuals who did not survive until standard lifetime rate and until standard lifetime after start of work. Reliable regression equations for dependence of the studied lifetime values from radionuclide incorporation rate were obtained based on regression analysis. Generally, changes in the studied characteristics of lifetime after start of work were more evident than in general lifetime characteristics.
Conclusion: Reliable dependence of shortening of lifetime and lifetime after start of work, of increased proportion of individuals who did not survive until standard lifetime and lifetime after start of work among Mayak PA workers of different gender from incorporation of plutonium-239 regarding tumor and non-tumor causes of death was stated. Dependence of lifetime after start of work on incorporated plutonium-239 was higher than of general lifetime that could be probably due to direct contact of workers with radionuclide after start of work. The results obtained indicate feasibility of using not only general lifetime but also lifetime after start of work in assessment of lifetime among workers who are in contact with production hazardous factors.
Кey words: Mayak PA workers, plutonium-239, tumor and non-tumor causes of death, lifetime rates, regression analysis
For citation: Tel’nov VI, Legkikh IV, Okatenko PV. Analysis of Relation Between Lifetime Rates and Incorporation of Plutonium-239 in Atomic Production Workers Regarding Tumor and Non-Tumor Causes of Death. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6): 57–62.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-57-62
References
1. Ed. Valentin J. ICRP Publication 103: Recommendations of the ICRP. Annals of the ICRP. Elsevier, 2007. 332 p.
2. Yarmonenko SP, Vaynson AA. Human and Animal Radiobiology.: Study Guide. Moscow, Vys’shaya Shcola Publ., 2004. 549 p. (In Russian).
3. Moskalev YI. Late Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure. Moscow, Meditsina Publ., 1991. 464 p. (In Russian).
4. Buldakov LA, Lyubchanskiy ER, Moskalev YI, Nifatov AP. Aspects of Plutonium Toxicology. Moscow, Atomizdat Publ., 1969. 368 p. (In Russian).
5. Kalistratova VS, Belyaev IK, Zhorova ES, Parfenova IM, Tishchenko GS. Radiobiology of Incorporated Radionuclides. 2nd Edition. Ed. Kalistratova V.S. Moscow, A.I. Burnazyan FMBC Publ., 2016. 556 p. (In Russian).
6. Yoshinaga Sh., Mabuchi K, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Ron E. Cancer Risks Among Radiologists and Radiologic Technologists: Review of Epidemiologic Studies Radiology. 2004;233;2:313–321.
7. Cologne JB, Preston DL. Longevity of Atomic-Bomb Survivors. Lancet. 2000;356:303–311.
8. Mohan AK, Hauptmann M, Freedman DM, Ron E, Matanoski GM, Lubin JH et al. Cancer and Other Causes of Mortality among Radiologic Technologists in the United States. Int. J. Cancer. 2003;103;2:259–267.
9. Hauptmann M, Mohan AK, Doody MM, Linet MS, Mabuchi K. Mortality from Diseases of the Circulatory System in Radiologic Technologists in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003;157;3:239–248.
10. Warren S. Longevity and Causes of Death from Irradiation in Physicians. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1956;162;5:464–468.
11. Berrington A, Darby SC, Weiss HA, Doll R. 100 years of Observation on British Radiologists: Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes 1897-1997. Br. J. Radiol. 2001;74;882:507–519.
12. Wang JX, Inskip PD, Boice JDJr, Li BX, Zhang JY, Fraumeni JFJr. Cancer Incidence among Medical Diagnostic X-ray Workers in China, 1950 to 1985. Int. J. Cancer. 1990;45;5:889–895.
13. Shimizu Y, Kodama K, Nishi N., et al. Radiation Exposure and Circulatory Disease Risk: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivor Data, 1950-2003. BMJ. 2010;340:b5349. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5349.
14. Little MP, Tawn EJ, Tzoulaki I., et al. Review and Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Associations Between Low/Moderate Doses of Ionizing Radiation and Circulatory Disease Risks, and Their Possible Mechanisms. Radiat Environ. Biophys. 2010;49;2:139–153. doi: 10.1007/s00411-009-0250-z.
15. Vrijheid M, Cardis E, Ashmore P, et al. Mortality from Diseases other than Cancer Following Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Results from the 15-Country Study of Nuclear Industry Workers. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2007;36:1126–1135. doi:10.1093/ije/dym138.
16. Polednak AP, Stehney AF, Rowland RE. Mortality among Women First Employed Before 1930 in the U.S. Radium Dial-Painting Industry. A Group Ascertained from Employment Lists. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1978;107;3:179–195.
17. Spiess H. Life-Span Study on Late Effects of 224Ra in Children and Adults. Health Phys. 2010;99;3:286–291. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b 013e3181cb857f.
18. Smith PG, Doll R. Mortality among Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis after a Single Treatment Course with X Rays. BMJ. 1982;284;6314:449–460.
19. Saurov MM, Gneusheva GI, Kosenko MM. Demographic Studies in Radiation Hygiene. Ed. Buldakov L.A. Moscow Publ., 1987. 226 p. (In Russian).
20. Yakovleva VP, Kosenko MM. Lifetime in Population Subject to Chronic Radiation Exposure. Medical-Biological and Ecological Consequences of Radioactive Contamination of Techa River. Ed. Akleev A.V., Kiselev M.F. 2nd Edition, Revised and Updated. Moscow Publ., 2001. P. 298–304. (In Russian).
21. Tel’nov VI. Plutonium and Lifetime Shortening in Professional Workers. Hygiene and Sanitary. 2015;94;3:56–60. (In Russian).
22. Tel’nov VI, Tret’yakov FD, Okatenko PV. Plutonium-239 Incorporation and Lifetime Shortening in Mayak PA Workers Regarding Tumor and Non-Tumor Causes of Death. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2017;62;2:28–34. (In Russian).
23. Gavrilov LA, Gavrilova NS. Lifetime Biology. 2nd edition. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1991. 280 p. (In Russian).
24. Human Mortality Database. Electronic Source: http://www.mortality.org.
25. Russian Demographic Annuary. 2017: Statistical Digest. Rosstat. Moscow Publ., 2017. 263 p. (In Russian).
26. Tel’nov VI, Tret’yakov FD. Medical and Demographic Aspects of Public Health in Population of the Atomic Production Monocity Ozersk. Public Health in Industrial Monocities: Program and Material of the Inter-Disciplinary Conference with International Participation. April 24-25, 2014. Chelyabinsk Publ., 2014. P. 104-120. (In Russian).
27. Ed. Rybakovskiy LL. Practical Demography Moscow TsSP Publ., 2005. 280 p. (In Russian).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The author declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. The article was prepared by one author.
Article received: 17.07.2021.
Accepted for publication: 05.09.2021
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 71–74
Total Brain Irradiation for Metastatic Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients
A.S. Balkanov, V.В. Metelin, I.A. Vasilenko
M. F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow Russia
Contact person: Andrey Sergeevich Balkanov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
Purpose: Brain metastasis (BM) has a significant negative impact on the survival of breast cancer patients. An intensive search is underway for a multi-modal approach to identify the most effective methods of treating such patients.
Material and methods: The study included 40 patients with breast cancer who were diagnosed with BM on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. Total brain irradiation (TBI) up to 30 Gy (3 Gy) was used as the main treatment method. The median age was 48 (31–70) years. In 75 % of cases, a nonluminal subtype of breast cancer was found, in 57.5 % of cases–T2 breast cancer, in 70 % of cases–N0-1.
Results: The median survival after TBI was 12 months, 6-month survival rate was 70 %, and 12 – month survival rate was 47.5 %. The risk of death was significantly increased (HR=3.309; 95 % CI: 1,184 – 9,250, p=0.023) in patients whose time interval from the manifestation of 1 relapse to BM was ≤24 months. In these patients, the survival was only 9.5 months and was significantly lower (p=0.0136) than in the patients with the same time interval was >24 months – 30 months.
Conclusions: It was found that the effectiveness of total brain irradiation in patients with breast cancer brain metastasis is the highest if the time interval from the moment of manifestation of first relapse to brain metastasis is more than 24 months.
Keyword: breast cancer, brain metastases, total brain irradiation, time interval to brain metastasis, survival
For citation: Balkanov AS, Metelin VВ, Vasilenko IA. Total Brain Irradiation for Metastatic Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6):71–74.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-71-74
References
1. Cheng Y, Yan Y, Gong J, Yang N, Nie S. Trends in Incidence and Mortality of Female Breast Cancer During Transition in Central China. Cancer Manag. Res. 2018;10:6247-6255. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S182510.
2. Тorre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J. Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65;2:87-108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262.
3. Lee ES, Jung SY, Kim JY, Kim JJ, Yoo TK, Kim YG, Lee KS, Lee ES, Kim EK, Min JW, Han W, Noh DY, Moon HG. Identifying the Potential Long-Term Survivors among Breast Cancer Patients with Distant Metastasis. Ann. Oncol. 2016;27;5:828-833.
4. Mariotto AB, Zou Z, Zhang F, Howlader N, Kurian AW, Etzioni R. Can We Use Survival Data from Cancer Registries to Learn about Disease Recurrence? The Case of Breast Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27;11:1–10. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-1129.
5. Barnhoitz-Sloan JS, Sloan AE, Davis FG, et al. Incidence Proportions of Brain Metastases in Patients Diagnosed (1973-2001) in the Metropolitan Detroit Surveillance System. JCO. 2004;22;14:2865–2872.
6. Tham YL, Sexton K, Kramer R, Hilsenbeck S, Elledge R. Primary Breast Cancer Phenotypes Associated with Propensity for Central Nervous System Metastases. Cancer. 2006;107;4:696-704.
7. Bastos DCA, Maldaun MVC, Sawaya R, Suki D, Lang FF, Brown PD, Rao G, Weinberg JS, Prabhu SS. Biological Subtypes and Survival Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients with Brain Metastases in the Targeted Therapy Era. Neuro-Oncol. Pract. 2018;5;3:161-169. doi: 10.1093/nop/npx033.
8. Brosnan EM, Anders CK. Understanding Patterns of Brain Metastasis in Breast Cancer and Designing Rational Therapeutic Strategies. Ann. Transl. Med. 2018;6;9:163. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.04.35.
9. Polivka JJr, Kralickova M, Polivka J, Kaiser C, Kuhn W, Golubnitschaja O. Mystery of the Brain Metastatic Disease in Breast Cancer Patients: Improved Patient Stratification, Disease Prediction and Targeted Prevention on the Horizon? EPMA J. 2017;8;2:119-127. doi: 10.1007/s13167-017-0087-5.
10. Berghoff AS, Bargo-Horvath Z, IIhan-Mutlu A, et al. Brain Only Metastatic Breast Cancer Is a Distinct Clinical Entity Characterized by Favorable Median Overall Survival Time and a High Rate of Long-Term Survival. Br. J. Cancer. 2012;107;9:1454–1458.
11. Ibrahim H, Yaroko AA. Palliative External Beam Radiotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer Patients with Brain Metastasis in the University College Hospital Ibadan. Ann. Afr. Med. 2019;18;3:127-131. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_42_18.
12. Duchnowska R, Jassem J, Goswami C, et al. Predicting Early Brain Metastases Based on Clinicopathological Factors and Gene Expression Analisis in Advanced HER2-Positive Cancer Patients. J Neuro-Oncol. 2015;122;1:205–216.
13. Banov SM, Galanov AV, Zaitsev AM, Bekyashev AKh, Vetlovana ER, Durgaryan AA. Metastatic Brain Damage, Modern Treatment Standards. Russian Medical Journal. 2017:16.1181-1185 (In Russ.) [Банов С.М., Голанов А.В., Зайцев А.М., Бекяшев А.Х., Ветлована Е.Р., Дургарян А.А. Метастатическое поражение головного мозга, современные стандарты лечения // РМЖ. 2017. № 16. С. 1181-1185.].
14. Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D, Xu Z, Shanley R, Luo X, Sneed PK, Chao ST, Weil RJ, Suh J, Bhatt A, Jensen AW, Brown PD, Shih HA, Kirkpatrick J, Gaspar LE, Fiveash JB, Chiang V, Кnisely JPS, Sperduto CM, Lin N, Mehta M. Summary Report on the Graded Prognostic Assessment: an Accurate and Facile Diagnosis-Specific Tool to Estimate Survival for Patients with Brain Metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30;4:419–425. doi: 10.1200/JCO. 2011.38.0527.
15. Janssen S, Hansen HC, Dziggel L, Schild SE, Rades D. A New Instrument for Predicting Survival of Patients with Cerebral Metastases From Breast Cancer Developed in a Homogeneously Treated Cohort. Radiol. Oncol. 2019;53;2:219-224. doi: 10.2478/raon-2019-0020.
16. Zhang N, Li Q, Xu B, Yuan P, Ma F, Wang J, Fan Y. Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: Clinical and Prognostic Characteristics of Different Biological Subtypes. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2014;36;9: 697–702.
17. Badiyan SN, Regine WF, Mehta M. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Treatment of Brain Metastases. J. Oncol. Pract. 2016;12;8:703-712. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.012922.
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: 07.06.2021.
Accepted for publication: 20.09.2021.