Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 46–53

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2364cb49523.98590475

M.O. Degteva¹, B.A. Napier², E.I. Tolstykh¹, E.A. Shishkina^1,3, N.G. Bougrov¹, L.Yu. Krestinina¹, A.V. Akleyev^1,3

Individual Dose Distribution in Cohort of People Exposed as a Result of Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River

1. Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, USA;
3. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

M.O. Degteva – Head of Lab., PhD Tech.;
B.A. Napier – Leading Researcher, UNSCEAR Member;
E.I. Tolstykh – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol.;
E.A. Shishkina – Senior Researcher, Senior Lecturer, PhD Biol.;
N.G. Bougrov – Senior Researcher, PhD Tech.;
L.Yu. Krestinina – Head of Lab., PhD Med.;
A.V. Akleyev – Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., UNSCEAR Member

Abstract

Purpose: Descriptive analysis of the distributions of organ/tissue doses for individuals exposed to radiation as a result of liquid waste releases into the Techa River by the Mayak Production Association (PA) in 1949–1956.

Material and methods: The dosimetry system TRDS-2016D has been used to compute individual doses of external and internal exposures. TRDS-2016D databases include information on radionuclide intakes and dose rates in air for settlements located in the contaminated areas of the Techa River and the East Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT). Combining these village-average data with the residence history and age of a particular person, the system produces an individual scenario of external exposure and individual radionuclide intakes and then calculates corresponding external and internal doses from the Techa River and EURT. Available 90Sr body-burden measurements and available information on individual household locations relative to the contaminated river have been used for refinement of individual dose estimates.

Results: Individual doses have been calculated for 29,647 persons included in the Techa River Cohort (TRC). According to residence history data, 5,280 members of the TRC were additionally exposed due to residency in the EURT villages. The cohort-average dose for the majority of extra-skeletal tissues does not exceed 100 mGy, while for the red bone marrow (RBM) it is equal to 350 mGy. In addition to the doses from the Techa River and EURT, individual thyroid doses for TRC members exposed to the Mayak PA atmospheric ¹³¹I releases have been calculated in a separate computer program. The cohort–average thyroid dose is 210 mGy. Maximum doses (about 1 Gy to the majority of extra-skeletal tissues and over 7 Gy to the thyroid and RBM) are observed for the persons who lived in their childhood and adolescence in the upper Techa region at close distance to the Mayak PA.

Conclusion: The TRC members were exposed to chronic radiation over a wide range of doses, but at low-to-moderate-dose rates. Estimates of absorbed doses can be used to analyze the dose dependences of the incidence of solid cancers and leukemias. This can make it possible to verify risk coefficients of low-dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation which can be used for radiation protection purposes.

Key words: dose reconstruction, Mayak Production Association, Techa river, East Urals Radioactive Trace, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Iodine-131

REFERENCES

1. Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Vorobiova MI, Shishkina EA, Tolstykh EI, Akleyev AV. Contemporary understanding of radioactive contamination of the Techa River in 1949–1956. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2016;56(5):523-34. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803116050039. (Russian).
2. Shagina NB, Vorobiova MI, Degteva MO, Peremyslova LM, Shishkina EA, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. Reconstruction of the contamination of the Techa River in 1949-1951 as a result of releases from the “MAYAK” Production Association. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2012;51:349-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-012-0414-0.
3. Consequences of Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River. Akleyev AV (ed). Chelyabinsk: Kniga; 2016. 400 p. (Russian).
4. Davis FG, Krestinina LYu, Preston D, Epifanova S, Degteva M, Akleyev AV. Solid Cancer Incidence in the Techa River Incidence Cohort: 1956–2007. Radiat Res. 2015;184:56-65. DOI: 10.1667/RR14023.1.
5. Krestinina LYu, Davis FG, Schonfeld S, Preston DL, Degteva M, Epifanova S, AkleyevAV. Leukaemia incidence in the Techa River Cohort: 1953–2007. Brit J Cancer. 2013;109:2886-93. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.614.
6. Schonfeld SJ, Krestinina LYu, Epifanova SB, Degteva MO, Akleyev AV, Preston DL. Solid cancer mortality in the Techa River Cohort (1950-2007). Radiat Res. 2013;179(2):183-9. DOI: 10.1667/RR2932.1.
7. Preston DL, Sokolnikov ME, Krestinina LYu, Stram DO. Estimates of radiation effects on cancer risks in the Mayak worker, Techa River and atomic bomb survivor studies. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2017;173(1):26-31. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncw316.
8. Ruhm W, Woloschak GE, Shore RE, Azizova TV, Grosche B, Niwa O, et al. Dose and dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the light of radiological protection. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015;54(4):379-401. DOI 10.1007/s00411-015-0613-6.
9. Degteva MO, Tolstykh EI, Vorobiova MI, Shagina NB, Shishkina EA, Bougrov NG, et al. Techa River Dosimetry System: Current status and future. Radiation Safety Issues. 2006;(1):66-80. (Russian).
10. Napier BA, Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Anspaugh LR. Uncertainty analysis for the Techa River Dosimetry System. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013;58(1):5-28. (Russian and English).
11. Degteva MO, Tolstykh EI, Suslova KG, Romanov SA, Akleyev AV. Analysis of the results of long-lived radionuclide body burden monitoring in residents of the Urals region. Radiation Hygiene. 2018;11(3):30-9. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2018-11-3-30-39. (Russian).
12. Tolstykh EI, Degteva MO, Peremyslova LM, Shagina NB, Shishkina EA, Krivoschapov VA, et al. Reconstruction of long-lived radionuclide intakes for Techa riverside residents: Strontium-90. Health Phys. 2011;101(1):28-47. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318206d0ff.
13. Shagina NB, Tolstykh EI, Degteva MO, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. Age and gender specific biokinetic model for strontium in humans. J Radiol Prot. 2015;35(1):87-127. DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/35/1/87.
14. Tolstykh EI, Peremyslova LM, Degteva MO, Napier BA. Reconstruction of radionuclide intakes for the residents of East Urals Radioactive Trace (1957-2011). Radiat Environ Biophys. 2017;56(1):27-45. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-016-0677-y.
15. Napier BA, Eslinger PW, Tolstykh EI, Vorobiova MI, Tokareva EE, Akhramenko BN, et al. Calculations of individual doses for Techa River Cohort members exposed to atmospheric radioiodine from Mayak releases. J Environ Radioact. 2017;178-179:156-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.08.013.
16. Tolstykh EI, Degteva MO, Peremyslova LM, Shagina NB, Vorobiova MI, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. Reconstruction of long-lived radionuclide intakes for Techa riverside residents: 137Cs. Health Phys. 2013;104(5):481-98. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318285bb7a.
17. Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Shishkina EA, Vozilova AV, Volchkova AY, Vorobiova MI, et al. Analysis of EPR and FISH studies of radiation doses in persons who lived in the upper reaches of the Techa River. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015;54:433-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-015-0611-8.
18. Akleyev AV, Krestinina LYu, Degteva MO, Tolstykh EI. Consequences of the radiation accident at the Mayak production association in 1957. J Radiol Prot. 2017;37:R19-R42. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aa7f8d.
19. Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Tolstykh EI, Bougrov NG, Zalyapin VI, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. An approach to reduction of uncertainties in internal doses reconstructed for the Techa River population. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2007;127:480-5. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncm410.
20. Shishkina EA, Volchkova AYu, Degteva MO, Napier BA. Evaluation of dose rates in the air at non-uniform vertical distribution of gamma-emitting radionuclides in different types of soil. Radiation Safety Issues. 2016;(3):43-52. (Russian).
21. Hiller MM, Woda C, Bougrov NG, Degteva MO, Ivanov O, Ulanovsky A, Romanov S. External dose reconstruction for the former village of Metlino (Techa River, Russia) based on environmental surveys, luminescence measurements and radiation transport modelling. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2017;56(2):139-59. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-017-0688-3.
22. Degteva MO, Shishkina EA, Tolstykh EI, Vozilova AV, Shagina NB, Volchkova AYu, et al. Application of EPR and FISH methods to dose reconstruction for people exposed in the Techa River area. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2017;57:30-41. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803117010052. (Russian).

For citation: Degteva MO, Napier BA, Tolstykh EI, Shishkina EA, Bougrov NG, Krestinina LYu, Akleyev AV. Individual Dose Distribution in Cohort of People Exposed as a Result of Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):46-53. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2364cb49523.98590475

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 58–63

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3dfefe60b13.90120976

V.I. Chernov¹, E.A. Dudnikova¹, V.E. Goldberg¹, T.L. Kravchuk¹, A.V. Danilova¹, R.V. Zelchan¹, A.A. Medvedeva¹, I.G. Sinilkin1, O.D. Bragina¹, Yu.V. Belevich¹, E.S. Koroleva²

Single-Photon Emission Computerized Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas

1. Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Tomsk, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, Russia

V.I. Chernov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
E.A. Dudnikova – Junior Researcher;
V.E. Goldberg – Head of the Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
T.L. Kravchuk – Hematologist, PhD Med.;
A.V. Danilova – Hematologist;
R.V. Zelchan – Radiologist, PhD Med.;
A.A. Medvedeva – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
I.G. Sinilkin – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
O.D. Bragina – Junior Researcher, PhD Med.;
Yu.V. Belevich – Junior Researcher;
E.S. Koroleva – Associate Professor, PhD Med.

Abstract

Despite the high efficiency of the use of ¹⁸F-FDG PET in the diagnosis, staging, monitoring and prognosis of treatment of lymphomas, the use of this method in our country is limited due to the high cost and the insufficient number of PET-centers. In this regard, it seems relevant to conduct research aimed at using known and developing original radiopharmaceuticals for lymphoma imaging with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). In this review, the main radiopharmaceuticals (⁶⁷Ga-citrate, ²⁰¹Tl, ¹⁹⁹Tl, ^99mTc-methoxy-isobutyl-isonitrile, ^99mTc-tetrofosmin, ¹¹¹In-octreotide), which are possible for SPECT lymphoma imaging are shown. Also mechanisms of their action, the possibility of their using for various morphological variants of lymphomas and localizations of the lesion are described. In addition, the results of the use of an innovative radiopharmaceutical based on glucose – ^99mTc-1-thio-D-glucose, which is promising for diagnostics, staging and monitoring of lymphoproliferative diseases, are presented.

REFERENCES

1. Aslanidi IP, Mukhortova OV, Shurupova IV, Derevyanko EP, Katunina TA, Pivnik AV, Stroyakovskii DL. Positron emission tomography: refining the stage of the disease in malignant lymphomas. Clinical Oncohematology. Fundamental Research and Clinical Practice. 2010;3(2):119-29. (Russian).

2. Chernov VI, Dudnikova EA, Goldberg VE, et al. Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):42-50. (Russian).

3. Front D, Israel O. Present state and future role of gallium-67 scintigraphy in lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1996;37(3):530-2.

4. Novikov SN, Girshovich MM. Diagnosis and staging of Hodgkin lymphoma. Problems of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases. 2007;8(2):65-72.

5. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith S.J. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and followup of lymphoma: is it time to shift gears? Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(10):1564-78.

6. Palumbo B, Sivolella S, Palumbo I, et al. 67Ga-SPECT/CT with a hybrid system in the clinical management of lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med and Molec Imaging. 2005;32(9):1011-7.

7. Lin J, Leung WT, Ho SKW, et al. Quantitative evaluation of thallium-201 uptake in predicting chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 1995;22(6):553-5.

8. Haas RLM, Vald´es-Olmos RA, Hoefnagel CA, et al. Thallium-201-chloride scintigraphy in staging and monitoring radiotherapy response in follicular lymphoma patients. Radiother and Oncol. 2003;69(3):323-8.

9. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. Lymphoma imaging: nuclear medicine. Cancer Treatment and Research. 2006;131:363-412.

10. Arbab AS, Koizumi K, Hiraike S, et al. Will thallium-201 replace gallium-67 in salivary gland scintigraphy? J Nucl Med. 1996;37(11):1819-23.

11. Lorberboym M, Estok L, Machac J, et al. Rapid differential diagnosis of cerebral toxoplasmosis and primary central nervous system lymphoma by thallium-201 SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1996;37(7):1150-4.

12. Lorberboym M, Wallach F, Estok L, et al. Thallium-201 retention in focal intracranial lesions for differential diagnosis of primary lymphoma and nonmalignant lesions in AIDS patients. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(8):1366-9.

13. Skiest DJ, Erdman W, Chang WE, et al. SPECT thallium-201 combined with Toxoplasma serology for the presumptive diagnosis of focal central nervous system mass lesions in patients with AIDS. J Infection. 2000;40(3):274-81.

14. Lishmanov YuB, Chernov VI, Krivonogov NG, Glukhov GG, Maslova LV. Perfusion scintigraphy of myocrdium with 199Tl-chloride in the experiment. Med Radiology and Radiation Safety. 1988;33(3):13-6. (Russian).

15. Lishmanov YuB, Chernov VI, Triss SV, Mazurin IYu. Scinti­graphy of the myocardium with thallium-199. Med Radiology. 1990(4):35-8. (Russian).

16. Chernov VI, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Zelchan RV, Bragina OD, Skuridin VS. Experience of developing innovative radiopharmaceuticals in the Tomsk Research Institute of Oncology. Siberian Oncol J. 2015 (Application 2):45-7. (Russian).

17. Chernov VI, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Zelchan RV, Bragina OD, Skuridin VS. Innovative radiopharmaceuticals for oncology: development of Tomsk National Research Medical Center. Malignant Tumors. 2017;7(S3):52-6. (Russian).

18. Lishmanov YuB, Chernov VI, Krivonogov NG, Efimova IYu, Vesnina ZhV, Zavadovsky KV. Radionuclide research methods in diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases. Siberian Med J (Tomsk). 2010;25(4-1):8-13. (Russian).

19. Karpov RS, Pavlyukova EN, Vrublevsky AV, Chernov VI, Usov VYu. Modern methods of diagnosing coronary atherosclerosis. Siberian Sci Med J. 2006;26(2):105-117. (Russian).

20. Chernov VI, Garganeyeva AA, Vesnina ZhV, Lishmanov YuB. Perfusion scintigraphy of myocardium in evaluation of the results of course treatment with trimetazidine in patients with ischemic heart disease. Cardiology. 2001;41(8):14-6. (Russian).

21. Titskaya AA, Chernov VI, Slonimskaya EM, Sinilkin IG. Imaging with 199Tl in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Siberian Oncol J. 2008(6):5-10. (Russian).

22. Zelchan RV, Chernov VI, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Bragina OD, Chizhevskaya SYu, Choinzonov EL. Use of single-photon emission computer tomography with 99mTc-MIBI and 199Tl-chloride in the diagnosis and evaluation of the efficacy of chemotherapy for primary and recurrent tumors of the larynx and larynx. Eurasian Cancer J. 2016;1(8):9-16. (Russian).

23. Kostakoglu L, Elahi N, K¨ıratl¨ı P, et al. Clinical validation of the influence of P-glycoprotein on technetium-99m-sestamibi uptake in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 1997;38(7):1003-8.

24. Rodriguez C, Commes T, Robert J, Rossi J-F. Expression of P-glycoprotein and anionic glutathione S-transferase genes in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leukemia Res. 1993;17(2):149-56.

25. Liu Q, Ohshima K, Kikuchi M. High expression ofMDR-1 gene and P-glycoprotein in initial and re-biopsy specimens of relapsed B-cell lymphoma. Histopathology. 2001;38(3):209-16.

26. Piwnica-Worms D, Chiu M.L, Budding M, et al. Functional imaging of multidrugresistant P-glycoprotein with an organotechnetium complex. Cancer Res. 1993;53(5):977-84.

27. Rao VV, Chiu ML, Kronauge JF, Piwnica-Worms D. Expression of recombinant human multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein in insect cells confers decreased accumulation of technetium-99m-sestamibi. J Nucl Med. 1994;35(3):510-515.

28. Song HC, Lee JJ, Bom HS, et al. Double-phase Tc-99m MIBI scintigraphy as a therapeutic predictor in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2003;28(6):457-62.

29. Kao CH, Tsai SC, Wang JJ, et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response using technetium-99m-sestamibi scintigraphy in untreated adult malignant lymphomas and comparison with other prognosis. BioMed Research International 11 factors: a preliminary report. Int J Cancer. 2001;95(4):228-31.

30. Liang JA, Shiau YC, Yang SN, et al. Using technetium-99m-tetrofosmin scan to predict chemotherapy response of malignant lymphomas, compared with P-glycoprotein and multidrug resistance related protein expression. Oncol Reports. 2002;9(2):307-12.

31. Lazarowski A, Dupont J, Fernández J, et al. 99mTechnetium-Sestamibi uptake inmalignant lymphomas. Correlation with chemotherapy response. Lymphatic Res Biol. 2006;4(1):23-8.

32. Kelly JD, Forster AM, Higley B, et al. Technetium-99m-tetrofosmin as a new radiopharmaceutical for myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 1993;34(2):222-7.

33. Ding HJ, Shiau YC, Tsai SC, et al. Uptake of 99mTc tetrofosmin in lymphoma cell lines: a comparative study with 99mTc sestamibi. Appl Radiat Isotop. 2002 Vol. 56(6):853-6.

34. Aigner RM, Fueger GF, Zinke W, Sill H. 99mTc-tetrofosmin scintigraphy in Hodgkin’s disease. Nucl Med Commun. 1997;18(3):252-7.

35. Chernov VI, Bragina OD, Zelchan RV, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Larkina MS, et al. Labeled analogues of somatostatin in the therapy of neuroendocrine tumors. Med Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2017;62(3):42-9. (Russian).

36. Chernov VI, Bragina OD, Sinilkin IG, Medvedeva AA, Zelchan RV. Radionuclide theranostics of malignant tumors. Bull Roentgenol Radiol. 2016;97(5):306-13. (Russian).

37. Ferone D, Semino C, Boschetti M, et al. Initial staging of lymphoma with octreotide and other receptor imaging agents. Sem Nucl Med. 2005;35(3):176-85.

38. Valencak J, Trautinger F, Raderer M, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in primary cutaneous T- and B-cell lymphomas. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(1):13-7.

39. Raderer M, Traub T, Formanek M, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy for staging and follow-up of patients with extraintestinal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of the mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT)-type. Brit J Cancer. 2001;85(10):1462-6.

40. Raderer M, Valencak J, Pfeffel F, et al. Somatostatin receptor expression in primary gastric versus nongastric extranodal B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue type. J Nat Cancer Institute. 1999;91(8):716-8.

41. Li S, Kurtaran A, Li M, et al. 111In-DOTA-DPhe1-Tyr3-octreotide. 111In-DOTA-lanreotide and 67Ga citrate scintigraphy for visualisation of extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of the MALT type: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Molec Imaging. 2003;30(8):1087-95.

42. Zeltchan R, Medvedeva A, Sinilkin I, Chernov V, Stasyuk E, Rogov A, et al. Study of potential utility of new radiopharmaceuticals based on technetium-99m labeled derivative of glucose. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2016;P.020072-1-020072-4.

43. Zeltchan R, Medvedeva A, Sinilkin I, Chernov V, Bragina O, Stasyuk E, 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;P. 012054.

44. Zelchan RV, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Bragina OD, Chernov VI, Stasyuk ES, et al. A study of the functional suitability of the tumor-neutral radiopharmaceutical 99mTc-1-tio-D-glucose in the experiment. Molecular Med . 2018;16(2):54-7. (Russian).

45. Chernov VI, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Zelchan RV, Bragina OD. Development of radiopharmaceuticals for radionuclide diagnostics in oncology. Med Visualization. 2016(2):63-6 (Russian).

46. Seidensticker M, Ulrich G, Muehlberg FL, et al. Tumor Cell Uptake of 99mTc-Labeled 1-Thio-β-D-Glucose and 5-Thio-D-Glucose in Comparison with 2-Deoxy-2-[18F]Fluoro-D-Glucose in vitro P. Kinetics, Dependencies, Blockage and Cell Compartment of Accumulation. Mol Imaging Biol. 2014(16):189-98.

47. Ganapathy V, Thangaraju M, Prasad PD. Nutrient transporters in cancer: relevance to Warburg hypothesis and beyond. Pharmacol Ther. 2009;121(1):29-40.

48. Ong LC, Jin Y, Song IC, et al. 2-[18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) uptake in human tumor cells is related to the expression of GLUT-1 and hexokinase II. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(10):1145-53.

49. Chernov VI, Dudnikova EA, Zelchan RV, et al. The first experience of using 99mTc-1-thio-D-glucose for single-photon emission computed tomography imaging of lymphomas. Siberian J Oncol. 2018;17 (4):81-7. DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2018-17-4-81-7. (Russian).

For citation: Chernov VI, Dudnikova EA, Goldberg VE, Kravchuk TL, Danilova AV, Zelchan RV, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Bragina OD, Belevich YuV, Koroleva ES. Single-Photon Emission Computerized Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):58-63. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3dfefe60b13.90120976

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 54–57

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf239edd98586.89544179

A.R. Tukov¹, I.L. Shafransky¹, A.G. Tsovyanov¹, A.P. Biriukov¹, I.V. Sidorin¹, O.N. Prokhorova¹, V.E. Zhuravleva¹, V.V. Uiba²

Estimation of Radiation Risk of the Initiation of Malignant Novelties in the Liquidators of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Workers of the Nuclear Industry,
with the Account of Doses of Various Types of Irradiation

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. Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia

A.R. Tukov – Head of Lab., PhD Med.;
I.L. Shafransky – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
A.G. Tsovyanov – Head of Lab.;
A.P. Biriukov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
I.V. Sidorin – Senior Researcher, PhD Phys-Math.;
O.N. Prokhorova – Senior Researcher;
V.E. Zhuravleva – Engineer;
V.V. Uiba – Head of the Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia, Dr. Sci. Med, Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: Estimate of the excess relative risk of malignant neoplasm disease (MND) in nuclear industry workers, participants in the elimination of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, taking into account the doses of various types of irradiation.
Material and methods: An epidemiological experiment was conducted in which the personal data of the information base of the Industry Register of persons exposed to radiation as a result of the Chernobyl accident, the doses of occupational exposure, and tabular data on the dose of natural exposure, presented in the reports on the radiation situation in populated areas ESKID, No. 4-DOZ) were used.
Results: It is shown that the risk assessment of the disease in the Chernobyl accident liquidators, obtained with the use of doses of different types of exposure, has different risk indicators (ERR at 1 Sv: the Chernobyl NPP radiation dose is 0.13, the ChNPP + professional dose is 1.13 and the ChNPP dose + professional + natural – 0.56).
Conclusions: Using any part of the total radiation dose of a person to calculate the risk of dose-induced diseases, we will get incorrect results is unknown how far from the truth. For a reliable assessment of the risk of the disease, an overall dose is required from a person from all types of radiation, which is required by the radiation safety directives.

Key words: cancer, liquidators, Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, radiation risk, doses of various types of irradiation, total dose

REFERENCES

1. Pierce D, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000 Aug;154(2):178-86.

2. Kato Kazuo, Sawada Shozo. Medical X-ray Doses’ Contributions to the Ionizing Radiation Exposures of Atomic-Bomb Survivors. J Radiat Res. 2016 Nov;57(6):583-95.

3. Chekin SYu, Maksyutov MA, Kashcheev VV, Menyajlo AN, Vlasov OK, Shchukina NV, et al. Prognosis of the long-term medical radiological consequences of the Chernobyl disaster for citizens of Russia and the Republic of Belarus on the main radiation-related diseases. Radiation and Risk. 2016;25(4):7-19. (Russian).

4. Ivanov VK, Rastopchin EM, Chekin SYu, Ryvkin VB. Oncological morbidity and mortality among participants in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster: an assessment of radiation risks. Radiation and Risk. 1995;6:123-55. (Russian).

5. Tukov AR, Biryukov AP, Shafranskij IL. The use of data on the doses of various types of irradiation in radiation epidemiology. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2014;59(1):43-9. (Russian).

6. Tsovyanov AG, Kosterev VV, Kryuchkov VP, Romanov VV, Pocyapun NP, Kuhta BA, Sivenkov AG. Informational and analytical reference book “Doses of exposure of personnel of organizations and the population in the territories served by FMBA of Russia and the Ministry of Defense of Russia in 2010”. Moscow. 2012. 86 p. (Russian).

7. EPICURE, Users Guide. Preston DL, Lubin JH, Pierce DA, McConney ME. HiroSoft International Corporation. Seattle, WA 98112, USA. 1993. 329 p.

8. Tsyb AF, Ivanov VK, Biryukov AP. Possibilities of radiation epidemiology in solving radiation safety problems of medical exposure. Radiation and Risk. 2008;17(2):50-62. (Russian).

9. Kato K, Antoku S, Russell WJ, Fujita S, Pinkston J.A, Hayabuchi N, et al. Radiation therapy among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Radiat Res. 1998 Jun;149(6):614-24.

For citation: Tukov AR, Shafransky IL, Tsovyanov AG, Birukov AP, Sidorin IV, Prohorova ON, Zhuravleva WE, Uiba VV. Estimation of Radiation Risk of the Initiation of Malignant Novelties in the Liquidators of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Workers of the Nuclear Industry, with the Account of Doses of Different Irradiation Species. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):54-7. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf239edd98586.89544179

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 64–73

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e4354d3276.60963732

D.V. Kuzmichev, Z.Z. Mamedli, A.A. Aniskin, A.V. Polinovskiy, J.M. Madyarov, S.I. Tkachev, A.V. Egorova, A.S. Aniskina

The Evolution of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Component of Treatment of Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

1. N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center, Moscow, Ruissia;
2. N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Ruissia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

D.V. Kuzmichev – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
Z.Z. Mamedli – Head of Dep., PhD Med.;
A.A. Aniskin – Resident;
A.V. Polinovskiy – Researcher, PhD Med.;
J.M. Madyarov – Doctor, PhD Med.;
S.I. Tkachev – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
A.V. Egorova – PhD Med., Prof.;
A.S. Aniskina – Resident

Abstract

The results of numerous single-center and multicenter randomized and non-randomized studies on the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) over a 70-year period are presented. The sequence of surgical, medicinal, radiation and chemoradiation treatment is represented. The doses and amount of radiation exposure are described, both in mono mode and with the use of various combinations of chemotherapeutic drugs in neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens. The evolution of complex treatment that has shifted has shifted the emphasis to the use of chemoradiation therapy in the neoadjuvant period, and the introduction of new chemotherapeutic drugs and regimens have significantly increased the survival rates among patients with LARC. The approaches to the treatment of patients with LARC are not static and are constantly being improved. This literature review shows the chronological sequence and major current trends in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant components of the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Key words: locally advanced rectal cancer, complex treatment, consolidation chemotherapy, induction chemotherapy, medical pathomorphosis

REFERENCES

1. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Petrova GV. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2015. Moscow, 2017:11-2 (Russian).

2. The Beyond TME Collaborative. Brit J Surg. 2013;2(100(8)):1009-14.

3. Aleksic M, Hennes N, Ulrich B. Surgical treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. Options and strategies. Dig Surg. 1998(15):342-6.

4. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy for rectal cancer: results from NSABP protocol R-01. J  Nat  Cancer Institute. 1988;80(1):21-9.

5. Treurniet-Donker AD, van Putten WL, Wereldsma JC, et al. Postoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer. An interim analysis of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in The Netherlands. Cancer. 1991;67(8):2042-8.

6. Balslev I, Pedersen M, Teglbjaerg PS. Postoperative radiotherapy in Dukes’ B and C carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. A randomized multicenter study. Cancer. 1986;58(1):22-8.

7. Randomised trial of surgery alone versus surgery followed by radiotherapy for mobile cancer of the rectum. Medical Research Council Rectal Cancer Working Party. Lancet. 1996;348(9042):1610-4.

8. André T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, Navarro M. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2343-51.

9. Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP. Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(26):2696-704.

10. Petersen SH, Harling H, Kirkeby LT, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer operated for cure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. 3:CD004078.

11. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S. Systematic Review: Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer with respect to Stage of Disease. Int  Scholarly Res  Notices. 2015;2015. 710569.

12. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1465-72.

13. Moertel CG, Childs DS. Jr, Reitemeier RJ, et al. Combined 5-fluorouracil and supervoltage radiation therapy of locally unresectable gastrointestinal cancer. Lancet. 1969;25(2):865-7.

14. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:709-15.

15. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Radiation therapy and fluorouracil with or without semustine for the treatment of patients with surgical adjuvant adenocarcinoma of the rectum. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(4):549-57.

16. NIH consensus conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA. 1990;264(11):1444-50.

17. Haller DG, Catalano PG, MacDonald JS, Mayer RJ. Fluorouracil, leucovorin and levamisole adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: for-year results of INT-DO89. Proc. ASCO. 1997;16:265a, abs. 940.

18. Andre T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, et al. Multicenter international study of oxaliplatin / 5-fluorouracil / leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer (MOSAIC) investigators. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2343-51.

19. André T, Boni C, Navarro M, et al. Improved overall survival with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment in stage II or III colon cancer in the MOSAIC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3109-16.

20. Shi Q, Sobrero A, Shields A, et al. Prospective pooled analysis of six phase III trials investigating duration of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based therapy (3 vs 6 months) for patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer (CC): The IDEA (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy) collaboration. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:18.

21. Petersen SH, Harling H, Kirkeby LT, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer operated for cure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3. CD004078.

22. Fernández-Martos C, Pericay C, Aparicio J, et al. Phase II, randomized study of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) compared with induction CAPOX followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer: Grupo cancer de recto 3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:859-65.

23. Frykholm GJ, Glimelius B, Påhlman L. Preoperative or postoperative irradiation in adenocarcinoma of the rectum: final treatment results of a randomized trial and an evaluation of late secondary effects. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:564-72.

24. Rodel C, Liersch T, Becker H, et al. Preoperative chemo­radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin versus fluorouracil alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012(13):679-87.

25. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. Improved Survival with Preoperative Radiotherapy in Resectable Rectal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:980-87.

26. Folkesson J, Birgisson H, Pahlman L, et al. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial: Long Lasting Benefits From Radiotherapy on Survival and Local Recurrence Rate. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5644-50.

27. Birgisson H, Påhlman L, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B. Adverse Effects of Preoperative Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8697-705.

28. Sebag-Montefiore D, Stephens RJ, Steele R, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2009;7(373(9666)):811-20.

29. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, et al. EORTC Radiotherapy Group Trial 22921. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;14(11(355)):1114-23.

30. Fernández-Martos C, Nogué M, Cejas P, et al. The role of capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer treatment: an update. Drugs. 2012;28(8(72)):1057-73.

31. Hofheinz R, Wenz F, Post S, et al. Capecitabine (Cape) versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based (neo)adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): Long-term results of a randomized, phase III trial. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting. 2011. Abstract 3504.

32. Hofheinz RD, Wenz F, Post S, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:579-88.

33. O’Connell MJ, Colangelo LH, Beart RW, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the preoperative multimodality treatment of rectal cancer: surgical end points from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project trial R-04. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(18):1927-34.

34. Aschele C, Cionini L, Lonardi S. Primary tumor response to preoperative chemoradiation with or without oxaliplatin in locally advanced rectal cancer: pathologic results of the STAR-01 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(20):2773-80.

35. Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative short-course radiotherapy with preoperative conventionally fractionated chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Brit J Surg. 2006;93(10):1215-23.

36. Chua YJ, Barbachano Y, Cunningham D. Neoadjuvantcapecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined poor-risk rectal cancer: a phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):241-8.

37. Fernández-Martos C, Pericay C. Phase II, randomized study of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) compared with induction CAPOX followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer: Grupo cancer de recto 3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(5):859-65.

38. Washington MK, Berlin J, Branton P, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(10):1539-51.

39. Cercek A, Goodman KA, Hajj C, Weisberger E. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy first, followed by chemoradiation and then surgery, in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12(4):513-9.

40. Dewdney A, Cunningham D, Tabernero J, et al. Multicenter Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Preoperative Radiotherapy with or without Cetuximab Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients With High-Risk Rectal Cancer (EXPERT-C). J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1620-27.

41. Nogue M, Salud A, Vicente P, et al. Addition of bevacizumab to XELOX induction therapy plus concomitant capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-prognosis locally advanced rectal cancer: the AVACROSS study. Oncologist. 2011;16:614-20.

42. Habr-Gama A, Perez R.O, Sabbaga J, et al. Increasing the rates of complete response to neoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy for distal rectal cancer: results of a prospective study using additional chemotherapy during the resting period. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1927-34.

43. Garcia-Aguilar J, Smith DD, Avila K, et al. Optimal timing of surgery after chemoradiation for advanced rectal cancer: preliminary results of a multicenter, nonrandomized phase II prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2011;254:97-102.

44. Garcia-Aguilar J, Marcet J, Coutsoftides T, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiation on tumor response, adverse events, and surgical complications in patients with advanced rectal cancer treated with TME. Ann Surg. 2011;29(15): Suppl. 3514.

45. Gao YH, Lin J.Z, An X, et al. Neoadjuvant Sandwich Treatment With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine Administered Prior to, Concurrently With, and Following Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Phase 2 Trial. Int J Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(5):1153-60.

46. Xiao J, Chen Z, Li W, et al. Sandwich-like neoadjuvant therapy with bevacizumab for locally advanced rectal cancer: a phase II trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76(1):21-7.

47. Braendengen M, Tveit KM, Berglund A. Randomized phase III study comparing preoperative radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in nonresectable rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(22):3687-94.

48. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Version 2.2018. Rectal Cancer. 2018.

49. Glimelius B, Pahlman L, Cervantes A. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Rectal Cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):81-5.

50. Biagi JJ, Raphael M, King WD, et al. The impact of time to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on survival in colorectal cancer (CRC): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):abstr 364.

For citation: Kuzmichev DV, Mamedli ZZ, Aniskin AA, Polinovskiy AV, Madyarov JM, Tkachev SI, Egorova AV, Aniskina AS. The Evolution of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Component of Treatment of Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):64-73. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e4354d3276.60963732

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