Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 5–10

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf23053d04654.51745769

A.V. Belousov¹,², R.B. Bahtiosin², M.A. Kolyvanova¹, G.A. Krusanov¹,³, L.I. Shulepova⁴, V.N. Morozov¹

Calculation of the Depth Dependence of Relative Biological Effectiveness for Clinical Proton Beams

1. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Faculty of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia;
3. D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia;
4. Federal High-Tech Center for Medical Radiology of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Dimitrovgrad, Russia

A.V. Belousov – Assoc. Prof., PhD Phys.-Math.;
R.B. Bahtiosin – Student;
M.A. Kolyvanova – Head of Lab.;
G.A. Krusanov – Research Fellow;
L.I. Shulepova – Director General; V.N. Morozov – Research Fellow

Abstract

Purpose: Accurate establishing the value of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for high energy protons is one of the main challenges of modern radiotherapy. The purpose of the study is to calculate the depth dependence of RBE for proton beams forming a spread-out Bragg peak.

Material and methods: Spatial distributions of absorbed dose and dose-average linear energy transfer (LET) for 50-100 MeV (0.5 MeV energy step) monochromatic proton beams were obtained by Monte-Carlo computer simulation using Geant4 software. A linear dependence of RBE on the dose-average LET was used. Absorbed dose distributions were obtained in a water phantom for monochromatic pencil proton beams of 2.5 mm radius. The absorbed dose and the dose-average LET values were calculated in voxels with dimensions of 2×2×0.2 mm.

Results: Calculations of depth dependencies of absorbed dose and dose-average LET for 50–100 MeV monochromatic proton beams were performed. Depth dependencies of RBE for these beams were established. The weighing coefficients values allowing to generate uniformspread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) were determined. Depth distribution of RBE-weighted dose and RBE values for SOBP were found.

Conclusion: The impact of the initial beam energy step on the degree of homogeneity of the modified Bragg curve was investigated. It was shown that a step up to 1.5 MeV is acceptable for generate a smooth Bragg curve. The depth dependence of the average RBE value is a complex function, which rapidly changes especially at the far end of the SOBP. RBE may vary up to 10–30 % compared to current clinical value. The linear model of RBE–LET dependence shown in the study can be easily used in dosimetric planning systems, that may will significantly improve the quality of proton radiotherapy.

Key words: proton radiotherapy, relative biological effectiveness, linear energy transfer, spread-out Bragg peak, Monte-Carlo method, Geant4

REFERENCES

1. Amaldi U. Future trends in cancer therapy with particle accelerators. Med Phys. 2004;14(1):7-16. DOI: 10.1078/0939-3889-00193.

2. Klimanov VA, Galjautdinova JJ, Zabelin MV. Proton radiotherapy: current status and future prospects. Med Fizika. 2017;2(74):89-121. (Russian).

3. Scholz M. Heavy ion tumour therapy. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B. 2000;161-163:76-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-583X(99)00669-2.

4. Paganetti H, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M, Gerweck LE, Goitein M, Loeffler JS, Suit HD. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(2):407-21. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02754-2.

5. Goodhead DT. Energy deposition stochastics and track structure: what about the target? Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006;122(1-4):3-15. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncl498.

6. Krämer M, Weyrather WK, Scholz M. The increased biological effectiveness of heavy charged particles: from radiobiology to treatment planning. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2003;2(5):427-36. DOI: 10.1177/153303460300200507.

7. Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(22):R419-72. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/R419.

8. Paganetti H, Giantsoudi D. Relative biological effectiveness uncertainties and implications for beam arrangements and dose constraints in proton therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2018;28(3):256-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2018.02.010.

9. Lühr A, von Neubeck C, Krause M, Troost EGC. Relative biological effectiveness in proton beam therapy – Current knowledge and future challenges. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018;9:35-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.006.

10. Wouters BG, Skarsgard LD, Gerweck LE, Carabe-Fernandez A, Wong M, Durand RE, et al. Radiobiological intercomparison of the 160 MeV and 230 MeV proton therapy beams at the Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory and at Massachusetts General Hospital. Radiat Res. 2015;183(2):174-87. DOI: 10.1667/RR13795.1.

11. Wedenberg M, Toma-Dasu I. Disregarding RBE variation in treatment plan comparison may lead to bias in favor of proton plans. Med Phys. 2014;41(9):091706. DOI: 10.1118/1.4892930.

12. Paganetti H. Relating proton treatments to photon treatments via the relative biological effectiveness should we revise current clinical practice? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(5):892-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.11.021.

13. Cortes-Giraldo MA, Carabe AA. Critical study of different Monte Carlo scoring methods of dose average linear-energy-transfer maps calculated in voxelized geometries irradiated with clinical proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(7):2645-69. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/7/2645.

14. Granville DA, Sawakuchi GO. Comparison of linear energy transfer scoring techniques in Monte Carlo simulations of proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(14):N283-91. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/N283.

15. Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric-kinetic theory of the dependence of the RBE for cell death on LET. Med Phys. 1998;25(7. Pt 1):1157-70. DOI: 10.1118/1.598307.

16. Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(13):2811-25. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/13/004.

17. Grassberger C, Trofimov A, Lomax A, Paganetti H. Variations in linear energy transfer within clinical proton therapy fields and the potential for biological treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(5):1559-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.027.

18. Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hårdemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter α/β of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes. Acta Oncol. 2013 Apr;52(3):580-8. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.705892.

19. Belousov AV, Krusanov GA, Chernyaev AP. Calculation of the proton biological efficiency in thin layer of biological tissues. Med Fizika. 2018;2(78):5-11. (Russian).

20. Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, Arce P, Asai M, Aso T, et al. Recent developments in Geant4. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2016;835:186-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125.

21. Sadovnichy VA, Tikhonravov AV, Voevodin VV, Opanasenko VY. “Lomonosov”: supercomputing at Moscow State University. In contemporary high-performance computing: from petascale toward exascale. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013.

22. Jette D, Chen W. Creating a spread-out Bragg peak in proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(11):N131-8. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/11/N01.

For citation: Belousov AV, Bahtiosin RB, Kolyvanova MA, Krusanov GA, Shulepova LI, Morozov VN. Calculation of the Depth Dependence of Relative Biological Effectiveness for Clinical Proton Beams. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):5-10. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf23053d04654.51745769

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

PDF (ENG) Full-text article (in English)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 19–31

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2306a3b26d6.36140627

A.A. Ivanov^1,2,3, T.M. Bichkova^1,2, O.V. Nikitenko^1,2, I.B. Ushakov¹

Radiobiological Proton Effects

1. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Institute of Biomedical Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia;
3. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

A.A. Ivanov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
T.M. Bychkova – Junior Researcher;
O.V. Nikitenko – Junior Researcher;
I.B. Ushakov – Chief Researcher, Academician of the RAS, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.

Abstract

The article contains an analysis of literature data and the author’s own results on the radiobiological effects of protons at the cellular, systemic (intercellular) and organismic levels, as applied to the practical tasks of radiation therapy of oncological diseases and the protons effects on the astronauts’ organism.

It is established that the proton RBE is a variable value, depending on the LET of the particles, the amount and dose rate, the presence or absence of oxygen. Proton RBE varies depending on the object of study, the type of tissue, proton energy and particle penetration depth, as well as the method for evaluating the biological efficiency of protons. which corresponds to general radiobiology.

In particular, it has been shown that the RBE of protons adopted in radiation therapy at the level of 1.1 is conditional. A firmly established and repeatedly confirmed is an increase in RBE with a decrease in proton energy and, accordingly, an increase in LET.

The use of elements of the physical protection of a spacecraft during exposure to protons with an energy of 170 MeV leads to an increase in LET and RBE of protons in terms of the cellularity of the bone marrow.
Pharmacological agents effective in photon irradiation are also effective when exposed to a proton beam. It has been shown that natural melanin pigment and recombinant manganese superoxide dismutase helps to preserve and accelerate the resumption of blood formation in animals irradiated by protons. The Grippol vaccine increases radioresistance during proton irradiation. Neuropeptide Semax has a positive effect on the central nervous system and the strength of the forepaws of animals irradiated with protons at Bragg’s peak.

Key words: protons, RBE, Bragg peak, central nervous system, hematopoiesis, chromosomal aberrations, survival, radioprotective agents, radiation therapy, space radiation, mice, rat

REFERENCES

1. Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and liners energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Nov 21;59(22): R419–72. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/R419.

2. Gazenko OG, Calvin M. Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine. Vol I. Space as a Habitat. Moscow: Nauka; 1975; 430 p. (Russian).

3. Nurlybaev K, Martinyuk Yu, Karakash A. Radiation Protection in Radiotherapy Using Electron Accelerators. ANRI. 2014;1(76):15-21. (Russian).

4. Grigor’ev YuG. The biological effect of high-energy protons. Moscow: Atomizdat. 1967; 508 p. (Russian).

5. Grigor’ev AI, Krasavin EA, Ostrovskij MA. Galactic heave charged particles damaging effect on biological structures. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology – Sechenov Physiology Journal. 2013; 99(3); 273-80. (Russian).

6. Fedorenko BS. Radiobiological effects of corpuscular radiation: radiation safety of space flight. Moscow: Nayka. 2006; 189 p. (Russian).

7. Cucinotta A, Durante M, Loeffler J. Editorial: Charged Particles in Oncology. Front Oncol. 2017 Dec 8;7:301. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00301.

8. Durante M, Tommasino F. Proton radiobiology. Cancers (Basel). 2015 Feb 12;7(1):353-81. DOI: 10.3390/cancers7010353.

9. Girdhani S, Sachs R, Hlatky L. Biological Effects of proton radiation: what we know and don’t know. Radiat Res. 2013 Mar;179(3):257-72. DOI: 10.1667/RR2839.1.

10. Butomo NV, Grebenyuk AN, Legeza VN, et al. Fundamentals of Medical Radiobiology. SPb.: Foliant. 2004; 258 p. (Russian).

11. Belli M, Bettega D, Calzolari P, et al. Inactivation of human normal and tumor cells irradiated with low energy protons. Int J Radiat Biol. 2000 Jun;76(6):831-9.

12. Ushakov I.B, Shtemberg A.S. The problems of studying the effects of far long-duration space mission factors on the higher nervous activity in model experiments with animals. Aerospace and Environmental Medicine. 2012; 46(1):5-16. (Russian).

13. Parihar VK, Allen B, Tran KK, et al. What happens to your brain on the way to Mars. Sci Adv. 2015 May 1;1(4). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400256.

14. Pyatkin EK, Baranov AE, Filyushkin IV, et al. Estimation of the dose and uniformity of radiation in acute human radiation lesions using the analysis of chromosomal aberrations. Guidelines. Moscow: USSR Ministry of Health, 1988; 25 p. (Russian).

15. Govorun RD, Deperas-Kaminska M, Zaitseva EM, et al. Study of chromosomal abnormalities in human cells after irradiation with a therapeutic beam of protons of the phasotron of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. Letters to ECHA. 2006;3(1):92-101. (Russian).

16. Dorozhkina OV, Bulynina TM, Ivanov AA. Effect of individual and group housing of mice on the level of radioresistance. Saratov. Nauch.-Med. Zh. 2015;60(5):653-6. (Russian).

17. Fedorenko BS, Shevchenko VA, Snigireva GP, et al. Cytogenetic studies of blood lymphocytes of cosmonauts after long-ter, space flights. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2000;40(5):596-602. (Russian).

18. Nugis VYu. Estimation of radiation dose from cytogenetic studies of peripheral blood and bone marrow. In: Radiation damage of humans. Ed. L.A. Ilyin. Moscow: Izd. At. 2001. Vol. 2:249-53 (Russian).

19. Hayata I. Biological dosimetry by chromosome analysis. Radiation and Risk. 1996;(7):72-5.

20. Voskanian KSh, Mitsyn GV, Gaevsky VN. Effectiveness of the biological action of protons and gamma-radiation on cells C3H10T1/2. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2005;39(5):50-3. (Russian).

21. Tang JT, Inoue T, Yamazaki H, et al. Comparison of radio­biological effective depths in 65 MeV modulated proton beams. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(2):220-5.

22. Calugaru V, Nauraye C, Noel G, et al. Radiobiological characterization of two therapeutic proton beams with different initial energy spectra used at the Institute Curie Proton Therapy Center in Orsay. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):1136-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.09.003.

23. Sgura A, Antoccia A, Cherubini R, et al. Micronuclei, CREST-positive micronuclei and cell inactivation induced in Chinese hamster cells by radiation with different quality. Int J Radiat Biol. 2000 Mar;76(3):367-74.

24. Gerelchuluun A, Hong Z, Sun L et al. Induction of in situ DNA double-strand breaks and apoptosis by 200 MeV protons and 10 MV X-rays in human tumour cell lines. Int J Radiat Biol. 2011 Jan;87(1):57-70. DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2010.518201.

25. Di Pietro C, Piro S, Tabbi G, Ragusa M, Di Pietro V, Zimmitti V, et al. Cellular and molecular effects of protons: apoptosis induction and potential implications for cancer therapy. Apoptosis. 2006 Jan;11(1):57-66.

26. Green LM, Tran DT, Murray DK, et al. Response of thyroid follicular cells to gamma irradiation compared to proton irradiation: II. The role of connexin 32. Radiat Res. 2002 Oct;158(4):475-85.

27. Ristic-Fira AM, Todorovic DV, Koricanac LB, et al. Response of a human melanoma cell line to low and high ionizing radiation. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2007 Jan;1095:165-74.

28. Lee KB, Lee JS, Park JW, et al. Low energy proton beam induces tumor cell apoptosis through reactive oxygen species and activation of caspases. Exp Mol Med. 2008 Feb 29;40(1):118-29.

29. Pawlik TM, Keyomarsi K. Role of cell cycle in mediating sensitivity to radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 15;59(4):928-42.

30. Moertel H, Georgi JC, Distel L, et al. Effects of low energy protons on clonogenic survival, DSB repair and cell cycle in human glioblastoma cells and B14 fibroblasts. Radiother Oncol. 2004 Dec;73 Suppl 2:S115-8.

31. Antoccia A, Sgura A, Berardinelli F, et al. Cell cycle perturbations and genotoxic effects in human primary fibroblasts induced by low-energy protons and X/gamma-rays. J Radiat Res. 2009 Sep;50(5):457-68.

32. Desouky O, Ding N, Zhou G. Targeted and non-targeted effects of ionizing radiation. J  Radiat  Res Appl Sci. 2015;8(2):247-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrras.2015.03.003.

33. Childs SK, Kozak KR, Friedmann AM, et al. Proton radiotherapy for parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcomes and late effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):635-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.048.

34. Sheets NC, Goldin GH, Meyer AM, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton therapy, or conformal radiation therapy and morbidity and disease control in localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2012. Apr 18;307(15):1611-20. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.460.

35. Yarmonenko SP, Weinson AA. Radiobiology of Humans and Animals. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. 2004. 549 p. (Russian).

36. Gerweck LE, Kozin SV. Relative biological effectiveness of proton beam in clinical therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1999 Feb;50(2):135-42.

37. Skarsgard LD. Radiobiology with heavy charged particles: a historical review. Phys Med Biol. 1998 Jul;14 Suppl 1:1-19.

38. Wambersie A, Menzel HG, Andreo P, et al. Isoeffective dose: a concept for biological weighting of absorbed dose in proton and heavier-ion therapies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Feb;143(2-4):481-6. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq410.

39. Kase Y, Yamashita W, Matsufuji N, et al. Microdosimetric calculation of relative biological effectiveness for design of therapeutic proton beams. J Radiat Res. 2013 May;54(3):485-93. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrs110.

40. Gueulette J, Bohm L, Slabbert JP, et al. Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for survival in mice alter thoracic irradiation with fractionated doses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jul 1;47(4):1051-8.

41. Tilly N, Johansson J, Isacsson U, et al. The influence of RBE variations in a clinical proton treatment plan for a hypopharynx cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2005 Jun 21;50(12):2765-77.

42. Giovannini G, Böhlen T, Cabal G, et al. Variable RBE in proton therapy: comparison of different model predictions and their influence on clinical-like scenarios. Radiat Oncol. 2016 May 17;11:68. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0642-6.

43. Matsumoto Y, Matsuura T, Wada M, et al. Enhanced radiobiological effects at the distal end of a clinical proton beam: in vitro study. J Radiat Res. 2014 Jul;55(4):816-22. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrt230.

44. Tronov VA, Vinogradova YuV, Poplinskaya VA, et al. Investigation of the adaptive response of the retina in mice to proton irradiation: connection with DNA repair and photoreceptor cell death. Letters to ECHA. 2015;12(1):241-55 (Russian).

45. Sapetsky AO, Ushakov IB, Sapetski NV, et al. Radiation neurobiology of distant space flights. Successes of Modern Biology. 2017;137(2):165-94 (Russian).

46. Taketa ST, Castle BL, Howard WH et al. Effects of acute exposure to high-energy protons on primates. Radiat Res Suppl. 1967;7:336-59.

47. Bushmanov AYu, Torubarov FS. Neurological aspects of radiation damage. Radiation Medicine. Ed. Ilyin L.A. Vol. 2. – Moscow: Izd. At. 2001; 275-305. (Russian).

48. Darenskaya NG. Reaction of the hematopoietic system. Radiation Medicine. Vol. 1. Moscow: Izd. At. 2004. P. 295-307. (Russian).

49. Darenskaya NG, Kozlova LB, Akoev IG, Nevskaya TF. Relative Biological Efficiency of Radiation. The Time Factor of Exposure. Moscow: Atomizdat. 1968. 376 p. (Russian).

50. Seraya VM. Investigation of hematopoietic systems in experimental animals irradiated with 120 MeV protons: PhD Med: Moscow. 1970. 155 p. (Russian).

51. Ryzhov NI. Biological Action of Protons. In: Ugolev A.M. editors. Biophysical bases of the action of cosmic radiation and accelerator radiation. L.: Science. 1989;60:170-8. (Russian).

52. Shmakova NL, Yarmonenko SP. Cytological analysis of the action of high-energy protons: 1. Cellular degeneration and mitotic activity of the bone marrow of mice subjected to proton irradiation. Radiobiology. 1963;3:291-3. (Russian).

53. Ware JH, Sanzari J, Avery S, et al. Effects of proton radiation dose, dose rate and dose fractionation on hematopoietic cells in mice. Radiat Res. 2010 Sep;174(3):325-30. DOI: 10.1667/RR1979.1.

54. Sanzary JK, Wan XS, Krigsfeld GS, et al. The effects of gamma and proton radiation exposure on hematopoietic cells counts in the ferret model. Gravit Space Res. 2013 Oct;1(1):79-94.

55. Rithidech KN, Honikel LM, Reungpatthanaphong P, et al. Effects of 100 MeV protons delivered at 0,5 or 1 cGy/min on the in vivo induction of early and delayed chromosomal damage. Mutat Res. 2013 Aug 30;756(1-2):127-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.06.001.

56. Gridley DS, Pecaut MJ, Dutta-Roy R, Nelson GA. Dose and dose rate effects of whole-body proton irradiation on leukocyte populations and lymphoid organs: Part I. Immunol Lett. 2002 Jan 1;80(1):55-66.

57. Vorozhtsova SV, Bulynina TM, Molokanov AG, Ivanov AA. Cytogenetic damage to the corneal epithelium of mice due to the in vivo exposure to ionizing radiation with different levels of linear energy transfer. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2015;49(1):50-6  (Russian).

58. Ando K, Furusawa Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relative Biological Effectiveness of the 235 MeV Proton Beams at the National Cancer Center Hospital East. J Radiat Res. 2001 Mar;42(1):79-89.

59. Ivanov AA, Molokanov AG, Ushakov IB, et al. Radiobiological effects of total mice irradiation with bragg’s peak protons. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2013;47(6):49-54 (Russian).

60. Ivanov AA, Bulynina TM, Molokanov AG, et al. Demonstration of likelihood of the negative effect of physical protection during total proton irradiation of mice. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2015;49(4):26-30. (Russian).

61. Maks CJ, Wan XS, Ware JH, et al. Analysis of White Blood Cell Counts in Mice after Gamma- or Proton-Radiation Exposure. Radiat Res. 2011 Aug;176(2):170-6. DOI: 10.1667/RR2413.1.

62. Gueulette J, Slabbert JP, Böhm L, et al. Proton RBE for early intestinal tolerance in mice after fractionated irradiation. Radiother Oncol. 2001 Nov;61(2):177-84.

63. Ilyin LA, Rudny NM, Suvorov NN, Chernov GA. Indralin is an emergency radio protector. Anti-radiation properties, pharmacology, mechanism of action, clinic. Moscow. 1994. 436 p. (Russian).

64. Vasin MV. Means of Prevention and Treatment of Radiation Injuries. Moscow: VTSMK Protection. 2006. 340 p. (Russian).

65. Zherebin YuM, Bondarenko NA, Makan SYu, et al. Pharma­colo­gical properties of enomelanin pigments. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. Series 5. 1984;(3):64-7. (Russian).

66. Zorina ZA, Poletaeva II. Zoopsychology. Elementary thinking of animals: study guide. Moscow: Aspect-Press. 2008. 320 p. (Russian).

67. Ivanov AA, Andrianova IE, Bulynina TM, et al. Pharmacological effects of melanin in irradiated mice. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2015;60(5):5-11. (Russian).

68. Ivanov AA, Abrosimova AN, Bulynina TM. Effects of the vaccine Grippol on resistance of mice after irradiation by protons. Saratov. Nauch.-Med. Zh. 2015;11(4):656-8. (Russian).

69. Ambesi-Impiombato FS, Ivanov AA, Mancini A, et al. Effect of recombinant manganese superoxide dismutase (rMnSOD) on the hematologic status in mice irradiated by protons. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2014;59(6):5-11.

70. Lyakhova KN, Ivanov AA, Molokanov AG, et al. Effect of neuropeptide semax on the exploratory behavior reaction and strength of skeletal musculature of proton-irradiated mice. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2018;52(4):71-6. (Russian).

For citation: Ivanov AA, Bichkova TM, Nikitenko OV, Ushakov IB. Radiobiological Proton Effects. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):19-31. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2306a3b26d6.36140627

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 11–18

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf237bf846b67.57514871

A.Yu. Bushmanov¹, I.N. Sheino¹, A.A. Lipengolts^1,3, A.N. Solovev², S.N. Koryakin²

Prospects of Proton Therapy Combined Technologies in the Treatment of Cancer

1. A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk , Russia;
3. N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Moscow, Russia

A.Yu. Bushmanov – Deputy Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
I.N. Sheino – Head of the Lab., PhD Phys-Math.;
A.A. Lipengolts – Senior Researcher, PhD Phys-Math.;
A.N. Solovev – Head of the Lab., PhD Phys-Math.;
S.N. Koryakin – Head of the Lab., PhD Biol.

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluating the possibilities to increase proton radiotherapy therapeutic efficacy by means of combined (binary) technologies: simultaneous application of proton radiation and special drugs.

Material and methods: Published studies assessing antitumor efficacy of proton radiation together with simultaneous tumor radiosensitizing chemical compounds administration in treating cancer are being reviewed and analyzed.
Results: Two approaches to increase therapeutic efficacy of proton radiotherapy using drugs, which have abnormally large value of proton interaction cross section comparing to soft tissues, can be outlined recently. They are: 1) utilization of proton induced nuclear reactions producing high LET secondary radiation to increase absorbed dose in tumor; 2) utilization of protons and proton track’s secondary electrons interaction with high-Z nanoparticles (Z>52), that leads to redistribution of released proton energy in soft tissues and its localization in tumor volume.

Limited number of the studies devoted to application of 11B(p,3a) nuclear reaction in proton therapy and contradictoriness of the obtained result do not allow to judge so far about the future prospects of the boron containing drugs utilization in proton therapy to increase its antitumor efficacy. However, this approach looks very attractive because of the already existing boron drugs successfully being applied in boron neutron capture therapy. Analysis of the metal nanoparticle application in radiotherapy showed that despite of the promising results showing impressive tumor suppression increase represented in many scientific papers only three pharmaceuticals based on nanoparticles reached Phase I/II Clinical Trials. Radiosensitizing mechanism of metal nanoparticles in radiotherapy is still unrevealed, unstudied and not formalized thus interfering nanoparticle based pharmaceuticals to be approved for Clinical Trials. Quantitative relationship between nanoparticles’ properties (i.e. chemical composition, shape, surface coating etc.), irradiation parameters and final biological effect (therapeutic efficacy) is still undetermined.

Conclusion: Fundamental and applied studies should be carried out to determine and describe the processes underlying in the basis of combined methods of proton radiotherapy. That would allow to perform both proper treatment planning, similar to conventional radiotherapy, as well as the prognosis of the therapy final outcomes in curing malignant tumors.

Key words: proton therapy, radiosensitization, radioenhancement, boron-11, nanomedicine , nanoparticles

REFERENCES

1. Brahme A. Development of radiation therapy optimization. Acta Oncologica. 2000;39:479-595.

2. Van Dyk J. Advances in Modern Radiation Therapy. In: The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology Vol.2. Madison: Medical Physics Pub Corp. 2005. 514 p.

3. Fryback DG, Craig BM. Measuring economic outcomes of cancer. J Nat Cancer Inst Monog. 2004;33:134-41.

4. Lipscomb J, Donaldson MS, Arora NK, Brown ML, Clauser SB, Potosky AL, et al. Cancer outcomes research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs. 2004;(33):178-97.

5. Mohan R, Grosshans D. Proton therapy – present and future. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017;109:26-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.11.006.

6. Hu M, Jiang L, Cui X, Zhang J, Yu J. Proton beam therapy for cancer in the era of precision medicine. J Hematol Oncol. 2008;11(1):136. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-018-0683-4.

7. Connell PP, Hellman S. Advances in radiotherapy and implications for the next century: a historical perspective. Cancer Res. 2009 Jan 15;69(2):383-92. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6871.

8. Lehnert S. Radiosensitizers and radiochemotherapy in the treatment of cancer. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor&Francis Gr., 2015, 548 p.

9. Sheino IN, Izhevskij PV, Lipengolts AA, Kulakov VN, Wagner AA, Sukhikh ES, et al. Development of binary technologies of radiotherapy of malignant neoplasms: condition and problems. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2017;16(3):192-209. DOI: 10.20538/1682-0363-2017-3-192-209. (Russian).

10. Kulakov VN, Lipengol’ts AA, Grigor’eva EYu, Shimanovskii NL. Pharmaceuticals for binary radiotherapy and their use for treatment of malignancies (a review). Pharm Chem J Sep. 2016;50(6):388-93. DOI: 10.1007/s11094-016-1457-3. (Russian).

11. Seiwert TY, Salama JK, Vokes EE. The concurrent chemoradiation paradigm–general principles. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007;4:86-100.

12. Connell PP, Hellman S, Advances in radiotherapy and implications for the next century: a historical perspective. Cancer Res. 2009;69:383-92.

13. Sauerwein W, Wittig A, Moss R, Nakagawa Y (eds). Neutron Capture Therapy: Principles and Applications. Berlin: Springer; 2012. 553 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31334-9.

14. Sheino IN. Dose-supplementary therapy of malignant tumors. In: Advances in Neutron Capture Therapy 2006. Proc. 12th Intern. Congress on Neutron Capture Therapy. “From the Past to the Future”, October 9–13, 2006; Takamatsu, Kagawa. Ed.: Nakagawa Y, Kobayashi T, Fukuda H. Japan, 2006:531-4.

15. Lipengolts AA, Cherepanov AA, Kulakov VN, Grigor’eva EYu, Merkulova IB, Sheino IN. Comparison of the antitumor efficacy of bismuth and gadolinium as dose-enhancing agents in formulations for photon capture therapy. Pharm Chem J. Sep 2017;51(9):783-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11094-017-1693-1. (Russian).

16. Bergs JW, Wacker MG, Hehlgans S, Piiper A, Multhoff G, Rödel C, et al. The role of recent nanotechnology in enhancing the efficacy of radiation therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015 Aug;1856(1):130-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.06.008.

17. King R, McMahon S, Hyland W, Jain S, Butterworth K, Prise K, et al. An overview of current practice in external beam radiation oncology with consideration to potential benefits and challenges for nanotechnology. Cancer Nanotechnology. 2017;8:3. DOI: 10.1186/s12645-017-0027-z.

18. Brun E, Sicard-Roselli C. Actual questions raised by nanoparticle radiosensitization. Radiat Phys Chem. 2016;128:134-42.

19. Yoon D, Jung J, Suh T. Application of proton boron fusion reaction to radiation therapy: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Appl Phys Lett. 2014;105:223507.

20. Jung JY, Yoon DK, Barraclough B, Lee HC, Suh TS, Lu B. Comparison between proton boron fusion therapy (PBFT) and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT): a Monte Carlo study. Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 13;8(24):39774-39781. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15700.

21. Cirrone GAP, Manti L, Margarone D, Petringa G, Giuffrida L, Minopoli A, et al. First experimental proof of Proton Boron Capture Therapy (PBCT) to enhance protontherapy effectiveness . Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 18;8(1):1141. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19258-5.

22. Willers H, Allen A, Grosshans D, McMahon SJ, Neubeck C, Wiese C, et al Toward a variable RBE for proton beam therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jul;128(1):68-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.05.019.

23. Koldaeva EYu, Grigorieva EYu, Kulakov VN, Sauerwein W. BSH for BNCT of B-16 Melanoma in a Murine Model. In: “New Challenges in neutron capture therapy 2010” Proc. 14th Intern. Congress on Neutron Capture Therapy. October 25–29, 2010, Buenos Aires:CNEA:144-6.

24. Mazzone A, Finocchiaro P, Lo Meo S, Colonna N. On the (un)effectiveness of Proton Boron Capture in Proton Therapy. arXiv:1802.09482v2 [physics.med-ph].

25. Kim JK, Seo SJ, Kim KH, Kim TJ, Chung MH, Kim KR, et al. Therapeutic application of metallic nanoparticles combined with particle-induced X-ray emission effect. Nanotechnology. 2010 Oct 22;21(42):425102. DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/21/42/425102.

26. Kim JK, Seo SJ, Kim HT, Kim KH, Chung MH, Kim KR, et al. Enhanced proton treatment in mouse tumors through proton irradiated nanoradiator effects on metallic nanoparticles. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(24):8309-23. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/24/8309.

27. Dollinger G. Comment on ‘Therapeutic application of metallic nanoparticles combined with particle-induced x-ray emission effect. Nanotechnology. 2011 Jun 17;22(24):248001; discussion 248002. DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/22/24/248001.

28. Polf JC, Bronk LF, Driessen WHP, Arap W, Pasqualini R, Gillin M. Enhanced relative biological effectiveness of proton radiotherapy in tumor cells with internalized gold nanoparticles. Appl Phys Lett. 2011;98:193702. DOI: 10.1063/1.3589914.

29. Li S, Penninckx S, Karmani L, Heuskin AC, Watillon K, Marega R, et al. LET-dependent radiosensitization effects of gold nanoparticles for proton irradiation. Nanotechnology. 2016 Nov 11;27(45):455101.

30. Jeynes JCG, Merchant MJ, Spindler A, Wera A-C, et al. Investigation of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization mechanisms using a free radical scavenger and protons of different energies. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:6431-43.

31. Wälzlein C, Scifoni E, Krämer M, Durante M. Simulations of dose enhancement for heavy atom nanoparticles irradiated by protons. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:1441-58. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/6/1441.

32. Lacombe S, Porcel E, Scifoni E. Particle therapy and nanomedicine: state of art and research perspectives. Cancer Nano. 2017;8:9. DOI 10.1186/s12645-017-0029-x.

33. Ahmad R, Royle G, Lourenço A, Schwarz M, Fracchiolla F, Ricketts K. Investigation into the effects of high-Z nano materials in proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jun 21;61(12):4537-50. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/12/4537.

34. Cho J, Gonzalez-Lepera C, Manohar N, Kerr M, Krishnan S, Cho SH. Quantitative investigation of physical factors contributing to gold nanoparticle-mediated proton dose enhancement Phys Med Biol. 2016 Mar 21;61(6):2562-81. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/6/2562.

35. Verkhovtsev AV, Korol AV, Solov’yov AV. Electron production by sensitizing gold nanoparticles irradiated by fast ions. J Phys Chem C. 2015;119:11000-13. DOI: 10.1021/jp511419n.

36. Tran HN, Karamitros M, Ivanchenko VN, Guatelli S, McKinnon S, Murakami K, et al. Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation of absorbed dose and radiolysis yields enhancement from a gold nanoparticle under MeV proton irradiation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact with Mater Atoms. 2016;373:126-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2016.01.017.

37. Martínez-Rovira I, Prezado Y. Evaluation of the local dose enhancement in the combination of proton therapy and nanoparticles. Med Phys. 2015;42(11):6703-10. DOI: 10.1118/1.4934370.

38. Lin Y, McMahon SJ, Paganetti H, Schuemann J. Biological modeling of gold nanoparticle enhanced radiotherapy for proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(10):4149-68. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/10/4149.

39. Haume K, Rosa S, Grellet S, Śmiałek MA, Butterworth KT, Solov’yov AV, et al. Gold nanoparticles for cancer radiotherapy: a review. Cancer Nanotechnol. 2016;7:8. DOI: 10.1186/s12645-016-0021-x.

40. Schlathölter T, Eustache P, Porcel E, Salado D, Stefancikova L, Tillement O, et al. Improving proton therapy by metal-containing nanoparticles: nanoscale insights. Int J Nanomed. 2016;11:1549-56.

41. Her S, Jaffray DA, Allen C. Gold nanoparticles for applications in cancer radiotherapy: Mechanisms and recent advancements. Adv Drug Deliver Rev. 2017;109:84-101.

42. Durante M, Orecchia R, Loeffler JS. Charged-particle therapy in cancer: clinical uses and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug;14(8):483-95. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.30.

43. Liu Y, Zhang P, Li F, Jin X, Li J, Chen W, Li Q. Metal-based NanoEnhancers for future radiotherapy: radiosensitizing and synergistic effects on tumor cells. Theranostics. 2018;8(7):1824-49. DOI: 10.7150/thno.22172.

44. Yang C, Bromma K, Di Ciano-Oliveira C, Zafarana G, van Prooijen M. Chithrani DB. Gold nanoparticle mediated combined cancer therapy. Cancer Nano. Dec 2018. 9:4. DOI: 10.1186/s12645-018-0039-3.

45. Falk M. Nanodiamonds and nanoparticles as tumor cell radiosensitizers-promising results but an obscure mechanism of action. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5:18.

46. Dimitriou NM, Tsekenis G, Balanikas EC, Pavlopoulou A, Mitsiogianni M, Mantso T, et al. Gold nanoparticles, radiations and the immune system: Current insights into the physical mechanisms and the biological interactions of this new alliance towards cancer therapy. Pharmacol Therapeut. 2017;178:1-17.

47. Ricketts K, Ahmad R, Beaton L, Cousins B, Critchley K, Davies M, et al. Recommendations for clinical translation of nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20180325. DOI: org/10.1259/bjr.20180325.

48. Libutti SK, Paciotti GF, Byrnes AA, Alexander HR, Gannon WE, Walker M, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic studies of Cyt-6091, a novel PEGylated colloidal gold-RhTNF nanomedicine. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 15;16(24):6139-49. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0978.

49. Lux F, Tran VL, Thomas E, Dufort S, Rossetti F, Martini M, et al. AGuIX® from bench to bedside—Transfer of an ultrasmall theranostic gadolinium-based nanoparticle to clinical medicine. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20180365.

50. Bonvalot S, Le Pechoux C, De Baere T, Kantor G, Buy X, Stoeckle E, et al. First-in human study testing a new radioenhancer using nanoparticles (NBTXR3) activated by radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:908-17. DOI: 10. 1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1297.

51. Rodallec A, Benzekry S, Lacarelle B, Ciccolini J, Fanciullino R. Pharmacokinetics variability: Why nanoparticles are not just magic-bullets in oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Sep. 2018;129:1-12.

For citation: Bushmanov AYu, Sheino IN, Lipengolts AA, Solovev AN, Koryakin SN. Prospects of Proton Therapy Combined Technologies in the Treatment of Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):11-8. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf237bf846b67.57514871

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 32–39

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf22ff1aea865.52579823

A.B. Mayzik¹, I.P. Korenkov², A.G. Tsovyanov², T.N. Laschenova^2,3, V.N. Klochkov²

Comprehensive Organizational and Methodical Approaches to Decommissioning of Radwaste Repositories

1. SC “A.A. Bochvar High-tech Research Institute of Inorganic Materials”, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia;
3. RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

A.B. Mayzik – Deputy Chief Engineer, Chief of Service, Post-Graduate Student;
I.P. Korenkov – Chief Researcher, PhD Tech., Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
A.G. Tsovyanov – Head of Lab.;
T.N. Laschenova – Leading Researcher, PhD Chem., Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
V.N. Klochkov – Chief Researcher, Dr. Sci. Tech., Associate Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: Development of comprehensive organizational and methodical approaches to decommissioning of shallow radwaste (RW) repositories.

Material and methods: The following researches were conducted during assessment of radiation and hygiene situation:
– assessing the state of physical barriers of repositories (tanks) of solid and liquid RW;
– assessing radiation situation at the repository site before and after remediation;
– measuring specific activity of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in ground and subsurface water, core sample, soils, building structures.
Methods: on foot gamma survey; gamma-ray spectrometric measurement of radionuclides in environmental samples using a stationary spectrometer; radiochemical extraction of radionuclides and their radiometry.

Results: The surveys were performed in 2014–2016. They delivered data on gamma dose rate at the RW repository site, specific activity of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in ground and subsurface water, core sample, soils, building structures.
The surveys showed that content of ⁹⁰Sr in subsurface water varied from 0.25 to 0.4 Bq/kg, while content of ¹³⁷Cs was below the detection threshold (0.01 Bq per sample). It was founded that distribution of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in soil (core sample) forming the top layer of the area is highly uneven. In some cases specific activity of soil exceeded 1000 Bq/kg (С-23 well at the depth of 2.75 m and С-24 well at the depth of 5 m). In all other cases specific activity of the core sample did not exceed 10 Bq/kg, and specific activity of soil was up to 50 Bq/kg which is over background values. The ambient dose equivalent rate at the site varied from 0.1 to 0.3 µSv/h.

More than 6700 measurements were performed (more than 2400 measurements of the ambient dose equivalent rate, more than 4100 measurements of beta-contamination of work surfaces and equipment, and more than 200 measurements of specific and volumetric activity of environmental samples).
After remediation activities content of radionuclides in soil and subsurface water was at the levels of background values.

Conclusions: This work allowed to substantiate technical solutions, procedure of RW accounting and control, using of shelters and mobile systems for radiation safety of the personnel and environmental protection.
It was demonstrated that average external radiation doses for the workers involved in decommissioning activities did not exceed 0.7 mSv (variation from 0.16 to 1.7 mSv), while internal radiation doses varied from 0.35 to 3.3 µSv.
Density of beta-contamination of the site did not exceed 38 beta-particles/(cm2∙min) which corresponds to background values. The ambient dose equivalent rate of the site was within 0.09–0.15 µSv/h after the work has been done.

Key words: liquid and solid radioactive waste, repositories, specific and volumetric activity, decontamination, remediation

REFERENCES

1. Abramov AA. Final results of implementation of the NRB FTP and challenges for the future. The 15th anniversary Russian scientific conference. Moscow, IBRAE, 2015. P. 15–21. (Russian).
2. RF Government Regulation of the 15 December 2016 No. 1248 “Nuclear and radiation safety for 2016–2020 and till 2030”.
3. Engatov IA, Mashkovich VP, Orlov YuV, et al. Radiation safety at decommissioning of civil- and military-oriented nuclear facilities. Moscow, Atomizdat, 1997. 213 p. (Russian).
4. Agapov AM, Linge II, Melikhov EM, et al. Radiation and new safety issues. Problems related to nuclear legacy and their solutions. Moscow, Papers of the Conference in honor of the 15th anniversary of IBRAE, 2012. P. 13-7. (Russian).
5. Bylkin BK, Engatov IA. Decommissioning of nuclear reactor systems. Moscow, National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, 2018, 223 p. (Russian).
6. Volkov VG, Danilovich AS, Zverkov YuA, et al. The experience of decontamination of radioactive soil at the site of National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”. Atomnaya Energia, 2011;110(2):106-112. (Russian).
7. Korenkov IP, Shandala NK, Laschenova TN, Sobolev AI. Environmental protection at operation and decommissioning of radiation-hazardous facilities. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media, 2014, 432 p. (Russian).
8. Best foreign practices of site decommissioning and remediation. Vol. 1. Eds.: Linge II, Abramov AA. IBRAE, 2017, 336 p. (Russian).
9. Best foreign practices of site decommissioning and remediation. Vol. 2. Eds.: Linge II, Abramov AA. IBRAE, 2017, 187 p. (Russian).
10. GOST R 8.563-2009. State system for ensuring the uniformity of measurements. Procedures of measurements. Moscow, Standartinform, 2010. (Russian).
11. Korenkov IP, Laschenova TN, Shandala NK, Kiselev MM. Guidance on radiation and hygienic monitoring of the environment. Eds.: Ilyin LA, Samoylov AS. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media, 2018. 459 p. (Russian).
12. Guidance manual on calculation of emissions from uncontrolled sources in the industry. ZAO NIMIOTSTROM. Novosibirsk, 2002. 30 p. (Russian).

For citation: Mayzik AB, Korenkov IP, Tsovyanov AG, Laschenova TN, Klochkov VN. Comprehensive Organizational and Methodical Approaches to Decommissioning of Radwaste Repositories. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):32-9. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf22ff1aea865.52579823

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)