Journal Description

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. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 5–17

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1adb25725023.14868717

A.N. Koterov¹, L.N. Ushenkova¹, E.S. Zubenkova¹, A.A. Wainson², M.V. Kalinina¹, A.P. Biryukov¹

Strength of Association.
Report 1. Graduations of Relative Risk

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

A.N. Koterov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Biol.;
L.N. Ushenkova – Leading Researcher, PhD Biol.;
E.S. Zubenkova – Leading Researcher, PhD Biol.;
A.A. Wainson – Head of Group, Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
M.V. Kalinina – Engineer;
A.P. Biryukov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize data on graduation of the effect size on the base of Hill’s first causality criterion ‘Strength of association’ on relative risk parameters (RR).

Material and methods: Survey of published sources: monographs, handbooks, papers, educational material on statistics in various disciplines (including on-line), etc. (128 references; of which about 30 handbooks on epidemiology, carcinogenesis and medical statistics).

Results: For the RR value, the collected data summary (1980–2018) implies non-homogeneity in concepts. The most common references are to the Monson scale (two editions of the monograph on the epidemiology of occupational exposures Monson R.R., 1980; 1990). In our opinion, the optimal graduation can be developed on the basis of this scale, and it should include both the range of no effect (RR = 0.9–1.2) and the weak (RR = 1.2–1.5, or 0.7–0.9), moderate (RR = 1.5–3.0, or 0.4–0.7), strong (RR = 3.0–10.0; or 0.1–0.4) and very strong (RR = 10.0–40.0; or 0.0–0.1) ranges. Examples of epidemiological effects with overwhelming strength of association are presented (RR > 40.0). For the effects of thalidomide, RR reached thousands, for diethylstilbestrol, conditional infinity, and when irradiated in childhood, the frequency of some cancers increased tens and even hundreds of times. The juristic aspects of compensation payment based on RR are briefly reviewed. According to the Daubert rule (Daubert ruling, Daubert standard) on the 1993 precedent in the United States, risks are recognized only at RR > 2.0, when the probability of causality is more than 50 %.

Conclusions: To estimate the RR value, one should use the most common and officially established Monson scale, albeit with an expansion in the range of dramatic or overhelming risks. This study can be used as a reference guide on the graduations of effect size on RR (OR) for a wide variety of observed disciplines.

Key words: graduation of effect size, ordinal scales, relative risk, epidemiology

REFERENCES

1. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology. An Introduction. 2nd edition. – Oxford University Press Inc, 2012. 268 p.
2. Hume D. A Treatise of Human Nature. Second edition. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
3. Mill JS. A System of Logic. Book III, Chs. 8-10. – London, 1843.
4. Causality in the Sciences. Ed. by P.M. Illari, Russo F, Williamson J. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 882 p. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.001.0001.
5. Hendry RF. Is there downward causation in Chemistry? In: Philosophy Of Chemistry. Ed. by D. Baird, E. Scerri, L. McIntyre. – Dordrecht: Springer, 2006;242:173-89. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3261-7_9.
6. Kundi M. Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(7):969-974. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8297.
7. Bhopal RS. Concepts of Epidemiology: Integrated the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology. 3rd edition. – Oxford: University Press, 2016. 442 p.
8. Brady HE. Causation and explanation in Social Science. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Ed. by R.E. Goodin. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 64 p. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049.
9. Egilman D, Kim J, Biklen M. Proving causation: the use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom – an epidemiologist’s critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Food Drug Law J. 2003;58(2):223-50.
10. Gayon J. Chance, explanation, and causation in evolutionary theory. Hist Philos Life Sci. 2005;27(3-4):395-405.
11. BEIR VII Report 2006. Phase 2. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, – National Research Council. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html (Address data 2019.01.23).
12. Doll R. Weak associations in epidemiology: importance, detection, and interpretation. J Epidemiol. 1996;6(4 Suppl):S11–S20.
13. Hill BA. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58(5):295-300. DOI: 10.1177/0141076814562718.
14. Westling T. Male organ and economic growth: does size matter? HECER – Helsinki Center of Economic Research. Discussion Paper No. 335. July 2011. 16 p. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27239/maleorga.pdf (Address data 2019.01.23).
15. Koterov AN. Causal criteria in medical and biological disciplines: history, essence and Radiation Aspect. Report 1. Problem statement, conception of causes and causation, false associations. Radiat Biol Radioecol. (‘Radiation biology. Radioecology’, Moscow). 2019;59(1):5-36. (Russian. English abstract.)
16. Vierra A, Pollock J, Golez F. Reading Educational Research. 3rd. Edition. – Upper Saddle River, N.J. Merrile/Prentice Hall, 1992.
17. Cottrell R, McKenzie JF. Health Promotion & Education Research Methods: Using the Five Chapter Thesis/Dissertation Model. 2nd Edition. – Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2010. 345 p.
18. Heath W. Psychology Research Methods: Connecting Research to Students’ Lives. – Cambridge University Press, 2018. 404 p.
19. Handbook of Epidemiology. Second Edition. Ed. by W. Ahrens, I. Pigeot. – New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2014. 2498 p.
20. Boice JD Jr. Radiation epidemiology and recent paediatric computed tomography studies. Ann ICRP. 2015;44(1 Suppl):236-48. DOI: 10.1177/0146645315575877.
21. Susser M. What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133(7):635-48. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115939.
22. Kaufman JS, Poole C. Looking back on ‘causal thinking in the health sciences’. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:101-19. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.101.
23. Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15(3):413-9. Reprint: Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2009;6(4). DOI: 10.1186/1742-5573-6-4.
24. Sartwell PE. ‘On the methodology of investigations of etiologic factors in chronic diseases.’ Further Comments. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11(1):61-3. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(60)90140-5.
25. Susser M. Glossary: causality in public health science. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(6):376-78. DOI: 10.1136/jech.55.6.376.
26. Stallones RA. The association between tobacco smoking and coronary heart disease. Draft Report of June 28 to the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. University of Minnesota Archives, Leonard M. Schuman Papers, Box 52, ‘Cardiovascular’. 1963. (Published in: Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(3):735-43. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv124.)
27. Evans AS. Causation and disease: The Henle-Koch postulates revisited. Yale J Biol Med. 1976;49(2);175-95.
28. Blackburn H, Labarthe D. Stories from the evolution of guidelines for causal inference in epidemiologic associations: 1953-1965. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(12):1071-7. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws374.
29. Epidemiology: Principles and Practical Guidelines. Ed. by J. Van den Broeck, J.R. Brestoff. – Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. 621 p.
30. Phillips CV, Goodman KJ. Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology. 2006;3(Article 5):7. DOI: 10.1186/1742-7622-3-5.
31. Lipton R, Odegaard T. Causal thinking and causal language in epidemiology: it’s in the details. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2005;29(2 Article 8). DOI: 10.1186/1742-5573-2-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1198241/pdf/1742-5573-2-8.pdf (Address data 2019.01.23).
32. Bonita R, Beaglehole R, Kjellstrom T. Basic epidemiology. 2nd edition. – World Health Organization, 2006. 212 p.
33. Coughlin SS. Causal Inference and Scientific Paradigms in Epidemiology. – Bentham E-book, 2010. 70 p. DOI: 10.2174/97816080518161100101. https://ebooks.benthamscience.com/book/9781608051816/ (Address data 2019.01.23).
34. Glynn JR. A question of attribution. Lancet. 1993;342(8870):530-2.
35. Hammond EC. Cause and effect // In: The Biologic Effects of Tobacco. Ed. by E.L. Wynder. – Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1955. P. 171-96.
36. Weed DL, Gorelic LS. The practice of causal inference in cancer epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1996;5(4):303-11.
37. Answers. Statistics. Offset – Minsk: BSU, 2010. 38 p. (Russian).
38. Pearson Correlation Criterion. Site ‘Medical Statistics’. http://medstatistic.ru/theory/pirson.html (Address data 2019.01.23). (Russian).
39. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General, US Public Health Service, 2004. 910 p. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf (Address data 2019.01.23).
40. Goodman SN, Samet JM. Cause and Cancer Epidemiology // In: Schottenfeld and Fraumeni Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. 4th Edition. Ed. by M.J. Thun et al. – New York: Oxford University Press. Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc, USA, 2018. P. 97-104.
41. Davey Smith G, Phillips AN. Confounding in epidemiological studies: why ‘independent’ effects may not be all they seem. Brit Med J. 1992;305(6870):757-9.
42. Holmes LJ. Applied Epidemiologic Principles and Concepts. Clinicians’ Guide to Study Design and Conduct. – New York: Taylor & Francis, 2018. 316 p.
43. Mandil A. Causal Inference in Epidemiology. Lection Presentation. High Institute of Public Health. University of Alexandria. https://ru.scribd.com/doc/306778054/Causal-Inference-in-Epidemiology. Presentation: www.pitt.edu/~super4/33011-34001/33971.ppt (Address data 2019.01.23).
44. Vlasov VV. Epidemiology. Second Edition, rev. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2006. 464 p. (Russian).
45. Scheutz F, Poulsen S. Determining causation in epidemiology. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27(3):161-70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02006.x.
46. Koterov AN. From very low to very large doses of radiation: new data on ranges definitions and its experimental and epidemiological basing. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety (Moscow). 2013;58(2):5-21. (In Russian. English abstract.)
47. Kornysheva EA, Platonov DY, Rodionov AA, Shabashov AE. Epidemiology and Statistics as Tools of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2nd Edition, revised and updated. Tver, 2009. 80 p. (Russian).
48. Lilienfeld’s Foundations of Epidemiology. 4th Edition. Original Ed. by A.M. Lilienfeld; Ed. by D. Schneider, D.E. Lilienfeld. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 333 p.
49. Berry KJ, Johnston JE, Mielke PW, Jr. The Measurement of Association. A Permutation Statistical Approach. – Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2018. – 647 p.
50. Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context. Ed. by S. Loue. – New York: Springer, 2013. – 157 p.
51. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology. Beyond the Basics. 4th Edition. – Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2019. 577 p.
52. Kestenbaum B. Epidemiology and Biostatistics. An Introduction to Clinical Research. 2nd Edition. Ed. by N.S. Weiss, A. Shoben. – Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2019. 277 p.
53. Bruce N, Pope D, Stanistreet D. Quantitative Methods for Health Research. A Practical Interactive Guide to Epidemiology and Statistics. 2nd Edition. – Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. 545 p.
54. Clinical Epidemiology. Practice and Methods. 2nd edition. Ed. by P.S. Parfrey, B.J. Barrett. – New York: Humana Press (brand of Springer), 2015. 533 p.
55. Webb P, Bain C. Essential Epidemiology. An Introduction for Students and Health Professionals. 2nd Edition. – Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 445 p.
56. Pokrovsky VI, Pak SG, Briko NI, Danilkin BK. Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology. Textbook for High Schools. 2nd edition. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2007. 816 p. (Russian).
57. General Epidemiology with the Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine: a Guide to Practical Exercises: Studies. A Textbook for High Schools. Ed. by V.I. Pokrovsky, N.I. Briko. 2nd Edition, Corr. and add. – M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2012. 496 p.
58. Smith GD. Smoking and lung cancer: causality, Cornfield and an early observational meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(5):1169-71.
59. Schield M. Confounding and Cornfield: back to the future // In: Proc. 10th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS10, July, 2018), Kyoto, Japan. Ed. by M.A. Sorto, A. White, L. Guyot. 2018. 2018. 6 p. http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2018-Schield-ICOTS.pdf (Address data 2019.01.24).
60. Cornfield J. A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix. J Nat Cancer Inst. 1951;11(6):1269-75. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/11.6.1269.
61. Cornfield J. Principles of research: 1959. Stat Med. 2012;31(24):2760-8. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5413.
62. Gastwirth JL, Krieger AM, Rosenbaum PR. Cornfield’s Inequality// In: Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Online. – John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005. 3 p. DOI: 10.1002/0470011815.b2a03040. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/0470011815.b2a03040 (Address data 2019.01.24).
63. Greenhouse JB. Commentary: Cornfield, Epidemiology and Causality. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(5):1199-201. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp299.
64. Rojo AML. Fisher. Statistical Conclusion. Maybe Yes, Maybe Not. The science. The Greatest Theories: Issue 47: Trans. with ital. M.: De Agostini LLC, 2015. 176 p. https://www.goodreads.com/series/191514 (Address data 2019.01.24). (Russian).
65. Fisher RA. Smoking: The cancer controversy. Some attempts to assess the evidence. – Edinburgh & London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959. 17 p.
66. Khoury MJ, James LM, Flanders WD, Erickson JD. Interpretation of recurring weak associations obtained from epidemiologic studies of suspected human teratogens. Teratology. 1992;46(1):4669-77. DOI: 10.1002/tera.1420460110.
67. Wynder EL. Workshop on Guidelines to the Epidemiology of Weak Associations. Introduction. Prev Med. 1987;16(2):139-41.
68. Boffetta P. Causation in the presence of weak associations. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2010;50(S1):13-6. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2010.526842.
69. Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995;269(5221):164-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.7618077.
70. Tugwell P, Knottnerus A, Idzerda L. Is an odds ratio of 3 too high a threshold for true associations in clinical epidemiology?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):465-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.009.
71. Redelmeier DA, Yarnell CJ. Lethal misconceptions: interpretation and bias in studies of traffic deaths. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):467-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.007.
72. Weed DL. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal. 2005;25(6):1545-57. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x.
73. Gori GB. Epidemiologic evidence in public and legal policy: reality or metaphor? Critical Legal Issues. – Washington: Washington Legal Foundation.. Working Paper Series No. 124, 2004. 33 p.
74. Parascandola M, Weed DL, Dasgupta A. Two Surgeon General’s reports on smoking and cancer: a historical investigation of the practice of causal inference. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2006;3(1): 11 p. DOI: 10.1186/1742-7622-3-1.
75. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (USDHEW). Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service Publication No. 1103. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1964. 387 p. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/nnbbmq.pdf (Address data 2019.02.02).
76. US Department of Health and Human Service. Public Health Service. Office on Smoking and Health. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Cancer: Report of the Surgeon General. – Rockville, Mariland, 1982. 322 p. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/D/W/ (Address data 2019.02.02).
77. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. Annex I. Epidemiological evaluation of radiation-induced cancer. United Nations. – New York, 2000. P. 297-450.
78. UNSCEAR 2006. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Annex A. Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer. United Nations. – New York, 2008. P. 17-322.
79. UNSCEAR 2013. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. Vol. II. Annex B. Effects of radiation exposure of children. United Nations. – New York, 2013. P. 1-268.
80. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(9):771-8. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324.
81. World Health Organization. Epidemiology of occupational health. Ed. by M. Karvonen, M.I. Mikheev. WHO Regional Publications, European Series No. 20. Copenhagen, 1986. 394 p.
82. Weed DL. Higher standards for epidemiologic studies – replication prior to publication? J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(10):937. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.10.937.
83. Weed DL. Epidemiologic evidence and causal inference. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000;14(4):797-807.
84. Weed DL. Causation: an epidemiologic perspective (in five parts). J Low & Policy. 2003;12(1):43-53. http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol12/iss1/3 (Address data 2019.01.24).
85. Weed DL. Precaution, prevention, and public health ethics. J Med Philos. 2004;29(3):313-32. DOI: 10.1080/03605310490500527.
86. Szklo M. The evaluation of epidemiologic evidence for policy-making. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(12 Suppl):S13-7.
87. Monson RR. Occupational Epidemiology. – Florida: Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1980. 219 p.
88. Monson RR. Occupational Epidemiology. 2nd Edition. – Florida: Boca Raton, CRC Press Inc, 1990. 312 p.
89. Craun GF. Epidemiologic studies of organic micropollutants in drinking water. Sci Total Environ. 1985;47:461-72. DOI: 10.1016/0048-9697(85)90350-X.
90. Craun GF, Calderon RL. How to interpret epidemiological associations // In: Nutrition in Drinking Water. 2005. P. 108-15. WHO. Water Sanitation Gygiene http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap9.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
91. Oleckno WA. Essential Epidemiology: Principles and Applications. – Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2002. 384 p.
92. Oleckno WA. Epidemiology: Concepts and Methods. – Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2008. 649 p.
93. Kasule OM. 0802-Measures of Effect: Rate Ratio and Odds Ratio (Review). Lecture // Islamic Medical Education Resource. 2008. http://omarkasule-05.tripod.com/id52.html (Address data 2019.01.25).
94. Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance. Ed. by J. Cotruvo, J. Bartram. – Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009. 180 p. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241563550_eng.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
95. Rosenthal JA. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. J Soc Serv Res. 1996;21(4):37-59. DOI: 10.1300/J079v21n04_02.
96. De Menezes RF, Bergmann A, Thuler LC. Alcohol consumption and risk of cancer: a systematic literature review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(9):4965-72.
97. Bhopal RS. Concepts of Epidemiology: An integrated introduction to the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology. – Oxford: University Press, 2002. 317 p.
98. Temple R. Meta-analysis and epidemiologic studies in drug development and postnwketing surveillance. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281(9):841-4.
99. Shapiro S. Case-Control Surveillance // In: Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd Edition. Ed. by B.L. Strom. – Baffins Lane. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000. P. 209-30.
100. Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies // In: Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd Edition. Ed. by B.L. Strom. – Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000. P. 17-30.
101. Shakir SA, Layton D. Causal association in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology: thoughts on the application of the Austin Bradford-Hill criteria. Drug Saf. 2002;25(6):467-71. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200225060-00012.
102. Schoenbach VJ, Rosamund WD. Relating risk factors to health outcomes // In: Understanding the Fundamentals of Epidemiology – An evolving text. Chapel Hill, NC: Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, 2000. P. 161-207.
103. Degelman ML, Herman KM. Smoking and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Bradford Hill criteria for causation. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;17:207-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2017.07.020.
104. Schoenbach VJ. Relating risk factors to health outcomes. 2008. P. 161-207. http://www.epidemiolog.net/evolving/RelatingRiskFactorstoHealth.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
105. Singer R. Introduction to epidemiology and causal inference. Presentation. Executive Veterinary Program. University of Illinois. 2014. 8 p. http://vetmed.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/6.-Module-2.1.pdf (Address data 2019.01.25).
106. Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. 2002. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html (Address data 01.02.2019).
107. Saracci R. Epidemiology. A Very Short Introduction. – New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2010. 171 p.
108. Rothman KJ, Poole C. A strengthening programme for weak associations. Int J Epidemiol. 1988;17(4):955-9. DOI: 10.1093/ije/17.4.955.
109. Doll R. Cancer // In: Medical Surveys and Clinical Trials. Ed. by L.J. Witts. 2nd Edition. – London: Oxford University Press, 1964. P. 333.
110. Herbst AL, Ulfelder H, Poskanzer DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. Association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. N Engl J Med. 1971;284(15):878-81. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197104222841604.
111. Yang Q, Khoury MJ, James LM, et al. The return of thalidomide: are birth defects surveillance systems ready? Am J Med Genet. 1997;73(3):251-8.
112. Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Lin CC, Chien CS. Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus. A prospective study of 22 707 men in Taiwan. Lancet. 1981;2(8256):1129-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(81)90585-7.
113. Ha M, Lee SY, Hwang SS, et al. Evaluation report on the causal association between humidifier disinfectants and lung injury. Epidemiol Health. 2016;38:Article e2016037. DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2016037.
114. Fedeli U, Girardi P, Gardiman G, et al. Mortality from liver angiosarcoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cirrhosis among vinyl chloride workers. Am J Ind Med. 2019;62(1):14-20. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22922.
115. Lushnikov EF, Tsyb AF, Yamashita S. Thyroid cancer in Russia after Chernobyl. – Moscow: Meditsina, 2006.128 p. (Russian. English abstract.)
116. Jacob P, Goulko G, Heidenreich WF, et al. Thyroid cancer risk to children calculated. Nature. 1998;392(6671):31-2. DOI: 10.1038/32076.
117. Belookaya TV, Korytko SS, Melnov SB. Medical effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Mater. 4 Int. Congress on Integrat. Anthropology. – Saint Petersburg, 2002. P. 24-5. (Russian).
118. Hunter RJ, Jr, Shannon JH, Amoroso HJ. How to manage issues relating to the use of trial experts: standards for the introduction of expert testimony through judicial “Gate-Keeping” and scientific verification. J Management and Strategy. 2018:9(1):11. DOI: 10.5430/jms.v9n1p1.
119. Cole P. Causality in epidemiology, health policy and law. Environmental Law Reporter. 1997;27(6):10279-85.
120. Barnes DW. Too many probabilities: statistical evidence of tort causation. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2001;64(4):191-212. DOI: 10.2307/1192295.
121. Lagiou P, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D. Causality in cancer epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20(7):565-74.
122. Lagiou P, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO. Concepts in Cancer Epidemiology and Etiology // In: Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology. 2nd Edition. Ed. by H.O. Adami, D. Hunter, D. Trichopoulos. – New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 127-52. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311174.003.0006.
123. Bae S, Kim HC, Ye B, Choi WJ, Hong YS, Ha M. Causal inference in environmental epidemiology. Environ Health Toxicol. 2017;32:Article e2017015. DOI: 10.5620/eht.e2017015.
124. Guzelian PS, Victoroff MS, Halmes NC, et al. Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005;24(4):161-201. DOI: 10.1191/0960327105ht517oa.
125. Hollingsworth JG, Lasker EG. The Case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation. Testimony, and the scientific method. J Health Law. 2004;37(1):85-111. 126. Ferguson CJ. Is psychology research really as good as medical research? Effect size comparisons between psychology and medicine. Rev Gen Psychol. 2009;13(2):130-6. DOI: 10.1037/a0015103.
127. Koterov AN, Zharkova GP, Biryukov AP. Tandem of radiation epidemiology and radiobiology for practice and radiation protection. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety (Moscow). 2010; 55(5):48-73. (Russian. English abstract.)
128. Biryukov AP, Vasil’ev EV, Dumansky SM, Belyikh LN. Information-analytical support for radiation-epidemiological research activities. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety (Moscow). 2014; 59(6):34-42. (Russian. English abstract.)

For citation: Koterov AN, Ushenkova LN, Zubenkova ES, Wainson AA, Kalininna MV, Biryukov AP. Strength of Association. Report 1. Graduation of Relative Risk. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):5–17. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1adb25725023.14868717

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 18–24

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d11009f713799.54342353

A.A. Tsishnatti^1,2, M.V. Pustovalova¹, A.K. Grekhova¹, Yu.A. Bushmanov¹, T.A. Astrelina¹, I.V. Kobzeva¹, V.A. Nikitina¹, V.A. Brunchukov¹, D.Yu. Usupzhanova¹, I.M. Barabash¹, T.M. Blokhina¹, Yu.A. Fedotov¹, N.Yu. Vorobyova¹, A.S. Samoylov¹, A.N. Osipov¹

Influence of Ultra-High Dose Radiation on Cryopreserved Mesenchymal Stem Cells:
DNA Double-Strand Breaks and Proliferative Activity

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. National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia

A.A. Tsishnatti – Technician;
M.V. Pustovalova – Researcher;
A.K. Grekhova – Junior Researcher;
Yu.A. Bushmanov – Head of Dep.;
T.A. Astrelina – Head of the Center for Biomedical Technologies, Dr. Sci. Med.;
I.V. Kobzeva – Head of the Center for Biomedical Technologies Cryobank, PhD Med.;
V.A. Nikitina – Leading Researcher, PhD Med., ISCT member;
V.A. Brunchukov – Junior Researcher;
D.Yu. Usupzhanova – Junior Researcher;
I.M. Barabash – Head of Dep.;
T.M. Blokhina – Researcher;
Yu.A. Fedotov – Researcher;
N.Yu. Vorobyova – Head of Lab., PhD Biol.;
A.S. Samoylov – Director General, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof. RAS;
A.N. Osipov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof. RAS;

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct a comparative assessment of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) exposed to ultrahigh doses of bremsstrahlung photon radiation at liquid nitrogen temperature (–196 °C) and room temperature (+22 °С) on the yield of residual DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and proliferative activity of thawed MSCs.

Material and methods: Isolation and cultivation of MSCs was carried out according to standard methods. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at a final concentration of 10 % was used for cells cryopreservation. The cells were irradiated with bremsstrahlung photon radiation with photon nominal energy 5 MeV, using the UELR-10-100-T-100 accelerator (Russia). Cells were irradiated at the doses of 50 and 500 Gy at a temperature of +22 °С and –196 °C. The immunocytochemical analysis of γH2AX foci (marker of DNA DSBs) was used for the assessment of the yield of residual DNA DSBs. The number of Ki67-positive cells (protein marker of cell proliferation) was analyzed for assessment of the cell proliferative activity.

Results: The results showed that48 hours after irradiation of MSCs at a dose of 50 Gy the number of residual γH2AX foci in the nuclei of MSCs irradiated at +22 °С was about 3.2 times (p = 0.0002) higher than in those irradiated at –196 °C. The analysis of the cell proliferative activity using Ki67 protein showed that cells irradiated at a dose of 50 Gy at a temperature of +22 °С completely lost their ability to proliferate. The proliferative activity of cells irradiated at the same dose, but at a temperature of –196 °C, was significantly reduced, but some of the cells (3.5 ± 1.1 %) still retained the ability to proliferate. After irradiation with a dose of 500 Gy at –196 °C, the cells completely lost their ability to proliferate, but partially retained the ability to adhere. The integral fluorescence of conjugated with the flurochrome γH2AX foci in MSCs irradiated at a dose of 500 Gy at a temperature of –196 °C was 1.8 times lower than that in MSCs irradiated at a temperature of +22 °С.

Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that MSCs cryopreserved in a medium containing 10 % DMSO irradiated at liquid nitrogen temperature (–196 °C) can tolerate the effects of exposure to high doses (up to 50 Gy) of ionizing radiation. However, there is a rather high yield of residual DNA DSBs and a very low proliferative activity, which makes cells unsuitable for use in clinical practice. It seems promising to use a quantitative analysis of γH2AX foci to assess genome damage and the functional state of cells irradiated in a cryopreserved state.

Key words: mesenchymal stem cells, cryopreservation, DNA double-strand breaks, cell proliferation, bremstrahlung, ultrahigh doses

REFERENCES

1. Pezeshk A. The effects of ionizing radiation on DNA: the role of thiols as radioprotectors. Life sciences. 2004 Mar 26;74(19):2423-9. PubMed PMID: 14998719.
2. Ashwood-Smith MJ, Friedmann GB. Lethal and chromosomal effects of freezing, thawing, storage time, and x-irradiation on mammalian cells preserved at –196 degrees in dimethyl sulfoxide. Cryobiology. 1979 Apr;16(2):132-40. PubMed PMID: 573193.
3. Pustovalova M, Astrelina T, Grekhova A, Vorobyeva N, Tsvetkova A, Blokhina T, et al. Residual gammaH2AX foci induced by low dose x-ray radiation in bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells do not cause accelerated senescence in the progeny of irradiated cells. Aging. 2017 Nov 21;9(11):2397-410. PubMed PMID: 29165316. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5723693.
4. Pustovalova M, Grekhova A, Astrelina T, Nikitina V, Dobrovolskaya E, Suchkova Y, et al. Accumulation of spontaneous gammaH2AX foci in long-term cultured mesenchymal stromal cells. Aging. 2016 Dec 11; 8(12):3498-506. PubMed PMID: 27959319. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5270682.
5. Wang F, Yu M, Yan X, Wen Y, Zeng Q, Yue W, et al. Gingiva-derived mesenchymal stem cell-mediated therapeutic approach for bone tissue regeneration. Stem Cells and Development. 2011 Dec; 20(12):2093-102. PubMed PMID: 21361847.
6. Haack-Sorensen M, Kastrup J. Cryopreservation and revival of mesenchymal stromal cells. Meth. Mol. Biol. 2011;698:161-74. PubMed PMID: 21431518.
7. Ozerov IV. Mathematical modeling of the double-strand DNA breaks induction and repair processes in mammalian cells under the rarely ionizing radiation action with different dose rates: PhD thesis of physics. Moscow. SRC – FMBC. 2015. (Russian).
8. Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini F, Krause D et al. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy. 2006;8(4):315-7. PubMed PMID: 16923606.
9. Kotenko KV, Bushmanov AY, Ozerov IV, Guryev DV, Anchishkina NA, Smetanina NM, et al. Changes in the number of double-strand DNA breaks in Chinese hamster V79 cells exposed to gamma-radiation with different dose rates. Int J Mol Sci. 2013. Jul 01; 14 (7):13719-26. PubMed PMID: 23880845. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3742213.
10. Harper JW, Elledge SJ. The DNA damage response: ten years after. Molecular Cell. 2007. Dec 14; 28 (5):739-45. PubMed PMID: 18082599. Epub 2007/12/18. eng.
11. Osipov AN, Lizunova EY, Gur’ev DV, Vorob’eva NY. Genome damage and reactive oxygen species production in the progenies of irradiated CHO-K1 cells. Biophysics. 2011; 56 (5):931-5.
12. Wang W, Li C, Qiu R, Chen Y, Wu Z, Zhang H, et al. Modelling of Cellular Survival Following Radiation-Induced DNA Double-Strand Breaks. Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 1;8(1):16202. PubMed PMID: 30385845. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6212584.
13. Ceccaldi R, Rondinelli B, D’Andrea AD. Repair Pathway Choices and Consequences at the Double-Strand Break. Trends Cell Biol. 2016 Jan; 26(1):52-64. PubMed PMID: 26437586. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4862604.
14. Mladenov E, Magin S, Soni A, Iliakis G. DNA double-strand-break repair in higher eukaryotes and its role in genomic instability and cancer: Cell cycle and proliferation-dependent regulation. Semin Cancer Biol. 2016 Jun; 37-38:51-64. PubMed PMID: 27016036.
15. Shibata A. Regulation of repair pathway choice at two-ended DNA double-strand breaks. Mutation Res. 2017 Oct; 803-805:51-5. PubMed PMID: 28781144.
16. Shibata A, Jeggo PA. DNA double-strand break repair in a cellular context. Clin Oncol. 2014 May; 26(5):243-9. PubMed PMID: 24630811.
17. Banath JP, Klokov D, MacPhail SH, Banuelos CA, Olive PL. Residual gammaH2AX foci as an indication of lethal DNA lesions. BMC Cancer. 2010 Jan 5; 10: 4. PubMed PMID: 20051134. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2819996.
18. Osipov AN, Grekhova A, Pustovalova M, Ozerov IV, Eremin P, Vorobyeva N, et al. Activation of homologous recombination DNA repair in human skin fibroblasts continuously exposed to X-ray radiation. Oncotarget. 2015 Sep 29; 6 (29):26876-85. PubMed PMID: 26337087. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4694959.
19. Lucas CC, Melo LR, de Sousa M, de Morais GB, Martins MF, Xavier FAF, et al. Cryoprotectant agents and cooling effect on embryos of Macrobrachium amazonicum. Zygote. 2018 Apr; 26(2):111-8. PubMed PMID: 29655380.
20. Smetanina NM, Pustovalova MV, Osipov AN. Effect of dimethyl sulfoxide on the extent of DNA single-strand breaks and alkali-labile sites induced by 365 nm UV-radiation in human blood lymphocyte nucleoids. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2014 Mar-Apr; 54(2):169-73. PubMed PMID: 25764818. (Russian).
21. Osipov AN, Smetanina NM, Pustovalova MV, Arkhangelskaya E, Klokov D. The formation of DNA single-strand breaks and alkali-labile sites in human blood lymphocytes exposed to 365-nm UVA radiation. Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 2014 Aug; 73:34-40. PubMed PMID: 24816295.

For citation: Tsishnatti AA, Pustovalova MV, Grekhova AK, Bushmanov YuA, Astrelina TA, Kobzeva IV, Nikitina VA, Brunchukov VA, Usupzhanova DYu, Barabash IM, Blokhina TM, Fedotov YuA, Vorobyova NYu, Samoylov AS, Osipov AN. Influence of Ultra-High Dose Radiation on Cryopreserved Mesenchymal Stem Cells: DNA Double-Strand Breaks and Proliferative Activity. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):18–24. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d11009f713799.54342353

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 32–40

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1103efefe893.65968050

M.V. Khalyuzova¹, М.M. Tsyganov², D.S. Isubakova^1,2, E.V. Bronikovskaya¹, T.V. Usova¹, N.V. Litviakov^1,2,4, A.B. Karpov^1,3, L.R. Takhauova³, R.M. Takhauov^1,3

Genome Wide Association Study of an Association between Gene Polymorphisms and the Increased Frequency of Cytogenetic Abnormalities in the Persons Exposed to Long-Term Irradiation

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

M.V. Khalyuzova – Researcher;
M.M. Tsyganov – Research Worker, PhD Biol.;
D.S. Isubakova – Junior Researcher;
E.V. Bronikovskaya – Junior Researcher;
T.V. Usova – Junior Researcher;
N.V. Litviakov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Biol.;
A.B. Karpov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
L.R. Takhauova – Student;
R.M. Takhauov – Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct genome wide association study of the association of 750,000 SNPs and an increased frequency of different types of chromosomal aberrations, induced by chronic irradiation in the dose range of 100–300 mSv.

Material and methods: The study was conducted among Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises healthy employees (n = 37) exposed to professional external γ-radiation in a dose range of 100–300 mSv. The de novo induced CNVs were previously detected in these persons. Mean dose – 188.8 ± 8.3 mSv, median – 185 mSv, interquartile range – 147.8–218.7 mSv, min – 103.4 mSv, max – 295.8 mSv. Genotyping of DNA samples from 37 employees was carried out by microarray CytoScan™ HD Array (Affymetrix, USA), containing 750,000 SNP-markers of 36,000 genes. The standard cytogenetic analysis was performed in the entire examined group.

Results: We analyzed the association of these SNPs with the frequencies of aberrant cells and following chromosomal aberrations: single chromatid fragments, chromatid exchanges, paired fragments, dicentrics, rings, and translocations. We have found that 8 SNPs (rs10779468, rs158735, rs158710, rs158712, rs11131536, rs528170, rs9533572, rs10512439) are associated with the frequency of aberrant cells.

Conclusion: We have discovered polymorphic variants that are associated with an increased frequency of aberrant cells in workers of Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises exposed to irradiation at a dose of 100–300 mSv. This polymorphic variants can be considered as potential markers of individual radiosensitivity. To confirm identified associations, further validation studies on an extended sample of people exposed to radiation are needed.

Key words: individual radiosensitivity, external γ-radiation, long-term radiation exposure, chromosomal aberrations, single nucleotide polymorphism

REFERENCES

Bush WS, Moore JH. Genome-wide association studies. PLoS Computational Biology. 2012;8(12):e1002822. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002822.
Freidin MB, Vasilyeva YeO, Skobelskaya YeV, Goncharova IA, Karpov AB, Takhauov RM. The prevalence and spectrum of chromosomal aberrations in workers of the Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2005;(2):75-81. (Russian).
Sal’nikova LE, Chumachenko AG, Vesnina IN, Lapteva NSh, Kuznetsova GI, Abilev SK, Rubanovich AV. Polymorphism of Repair Genes and Cytogenetic Radiation Effects. Radiat Biol Radioecol. 2010;50(6):29-38. (Russian).
Abilev SK, Sal’nikova LE, Rubanovich AV Candidate gene association study of the radiosensitivity of human chromosomes with candidate gene polymorphisms upon exposure to gamma-irradiation in vitro and in vitro. Gig Sanit. 2011;(5):14-8. (Russian).
Salnikova L, Chumachenko A, Belopolskaya O, Rubanovich A. Correlations between DNA polymorphism and frequencies of gamma-radiation induced and spontaneous cytogenetic damage. Health Phys. 2012;103(1):37-41. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3182231a9d.
Minina VI. Genetic Polymorphism and Chromosome Aberrations Induced by Radiation. Siberian Medical Journal. 2012;(3):5-7. (Russian).
Zhang X, Zhang X, Zhang L, Chen Q, Yang Z, Yu J, et al. XRCC1 Arg399Gln was associated with repair capacity for DNA damage induced by occupational chromium exposure. BMC Research Notes. 2012;5(1):263. DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-263.
Hornhardt S, Rößler U, Sauter W, Rosenberger A, Illig T, Bickeböller H, et al. Genetic factors in individual radiation sensitivity. DNA Repair. 2014;16:54-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.02.001.
Rosenstein BS, West CM, Bentzen SM, Alsner J, Andreassen CN, Azria D, et al. Zenhausern F. Radiogenomics: radiobiology enters the era of big data and team science. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(4):709-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.03.009.
Barnett GC, Coles CE, Elliott RM, Baynes C, Luccarini C, Conroy D, et al. Independent validation of genes and polymorphisms reported to be associated with radiation toxicity: a prospective analysis study. Lancet Oncol. 2012.13(1):65-77. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70302-3.
Andreassen CN, Rosenstein BS, Kerns SL, Ostrer H, De Ruysscher D, Cesaretti JA, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis shows a significant association between the ATM rs1801516 SNP and toxicity after radiotherapy in 5456 breast and prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(3):431-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.06.017.
Kerns SL, Ostrer H, Stock R, Li W, Moore J, Pearlman A, et al. Genome-wide association study to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the development of erectile dysfunction in African-American men after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(5):1292-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.036.
Kerns SL, Stock R, Stone N, Buckstein M, Shao Y, Campbell C, et al. A 2-stage genome-wide association study to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with development of erectile dysfunction following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):e21-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.003.
Kerns SL, Stone NN, Stock RG, Rath L, Ostrer H, Rosenstein BS. A 2-stage genome-wide association study to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with development of urinary symptoms following radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(1):102-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.096.
Kerns SL, Stock RG, Stone NN, Blacksburg SR, Rath L, Vega A, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies a region on chromosome 11q14.3 associated with rectal bleeding following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2013;107(1):372-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.001.
Fachal L, Gómez-Caamaño A, Barnett GC, Peleteiro P, Carballo AM, Calvo-Crespo P, et al. A three-stage genome-wide association study identifies a susceptibility locus for late radiotherapy toxicity at 2q24.1. Nat Genet. 2014;46(8):891-4. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3020.
Barnett GC, Thompson D, Fachal L, Kerns S, Talbot C, Elliott RM, et al. A genome wide association study (GWAS) providing evidence of an association between common genetic variants and late radiotherapy toxicity. Radiother Oncol. 2014;111(2):178-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.02.012.
Litviakov NV, Freidin MB, Khalyuzova MV, Sazonov AJ, Vasilyeva EO, Albakh EN, et al. The frequency and spectrum of cytogenetic anomalies in employees of Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises. Radiat Biol Radioecol. 2014;54(3):283-96. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803114030084. (Russian).
Litviakov NV, Goncharik OO, Freidin MB, Sazonov AE, Vasil’eva EO, Mezheritskiĭ SA, et al. The Estimate of Association Between Gene Polymorphisms and the Frequency and Spectrum of Cytogenetic Abnormalities in the Cohort of Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises Employees Exposed to Professional Irradiation (Microarray Studies). Radiat Biol Radioecol. 2013;53(23):137-50. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803113020069. (Russian).
Khalyuzova MV, Litviakov NV, Isubakova DS, Bronikovskaya EV, Usova TV, Al’bakh EN, et al. Validation of Association between Gene Polymorphisms and the Frequency of Cytogenetic Abnormalities in the Cohort of Employees of Radiation Facilities. Radiat Biol Radioecol. 2017;57(4):365-83. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803117040038. (Russian).
Takhauov RM, Karpov AB, Albach EN, Khalyuzova MV, Freidin MB, Litviakov NV, et al. The bank of biological samples representing individuals exposed to long-term ionizing radiation at various doses. Biopreserv Biobank. 2015;13(2):72-8. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2014.0035.
Powell SN, Kachnic LA. Roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in homologous recombination, DNA replication fidelity and the cellular response to ionizing radiation. Oncogene. 2003;22:5784-91.
West AB, Lockhart PJ, O’Farell C, Farrer MJ. Identification of a novel gene linked to parkin via a bi-directional promoter. J Mol Biol. 2003;326(1):11-9.
Taylor JM, Song YJ, Huang Y, Farrer MJ, Delatycki MB, Halliday GM, Lockhart PJ. Parkin Co-regulated Gene (PACRG) is regulated by the ubiquitin-proteasomal system and is present in the pathological features of parkinsonian diseases. Neurobiol Dis. 2007;27(2):238-47.
Schurr E, Alcaïs A, de Léséleuc L, Abel L. Genetic predisposition to leprosy: a major gene reveals novel pathways of immunity to Mycobacterium leprae. Semin Immunol. 2006;18(6):404-10.
Imai Y, Soda M, Murakami T, Shoji M, Abe K, Takahashi R. A product of the human gene adjacent to parkin is a component of Lewy bodies and suppresses Pael receptor-induced cell death. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(51):51901-10.
Wilson GR, Sim ML, Brody KM, Taylor JM, McLachlan RI, O’Bryan MK, et al. Molecular analysis of the parkin co-regulated gene and association with male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(7):2262-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.079.
Entrez Gene: Ecto-NOX disulfide-thiol exchanger 1. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/55068.
Landouré G, Knight MA, Stanescu H, Taye AA, Shi Y, Diallo O, et al. NIH Intramural Sequencing Center. A candidate gene for autoimmune myasthenia gravis. Neurology. 2012;79(4):342-7.
Benesh AE, Fleming JT, Chiang C, Carter BD, Tyska MJ. Expression and localization of myosin-1d in the developing nervous system. Brain Res. 2012;1440:9-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.12.054.
Stone JL, Merriman B, Cantor RM, Geschwind DH, Nelson SF. High density SNP association study of a major autism linkage region on chromosome 17. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16(6):704-15.

For citation: Khalyuzova MV, Tsyganov МM, Isubakova DS, Bronikovskaya EV, Usova TV, Litviakov NV, Karpov AB, Takhauova LR, Takhauov RM. Genome Wide Association Study of an Association between Gene Polymorphisms and the Increased Frequency of Cytogenetic Abnormalities in the Persons Exposed to Long-Term Irradiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):32–40. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1103efefe893.65968050

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 25–31

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1102809c5ac3.32613968

V.K. Kuznetsov, N.I. Sanzharova, A.V. Panov, N.N. Isamov

Radioecological Monitoring of Agroecosystems in the NPP Vicinity:
Methodology and Results of Investigations

Russian Institute of Radiology and Agroecology, Obninsk, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V.K. Kuznetsov – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol.;
N.I. Sanzharova – Director, Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof., Corr. Member RAS;
A.V. Panov – Deputy Director, Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof. RAS;
N.N. Isamov – Leading Researcher, PhD Biol.

Abstract

Purpose: Justification of the necessity to establish and maintain a system of radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems in the vicinity of nuclear power plants at all stages of the life cycle of a radiation-hazardous facility.

Material and methods: The paper presents methodological approaches (sanitary-hygienic and environmental) to radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems in the region of the NPP location. The tasks of the radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems are defined, and its organisation and management stages are highlighted. The article displays the features of the development of programs and regulations of radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems. The main objects of radioecological monitoring, parameters to be monitored, and also the frequency of monitoring observations are determined. The principles of locating the control points on the monitoring network are substantiated.

Results: The results of radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems in the impact zones of the Kursk and Rostov NPPs are presented. The approaches to the creation of a monitoring network, taking into account the peculiarities of the regions of the NPPs’ location (landscape, soil, economic), are demonstrated. It is shown that the contamination density of agricultural lands by ⁹⁰Sr varies in the range of 0.47–1.74 kBq/m2, and by ¹³⁷Cs – 2.7–9.7 kBq/m2 for Kursk NPP and, for Rostov NPP it is 0.36–2.57 kBq/m2 by ⁹⁰Sr and 2.25–4.55 kBq/m2 by ¹³⁷Cs. Over the entire period of monitoring observations, none of the samples of agricultural products appeared to have an excess of sanitary and hygienic standards for the content of radionuclides. Due to the consumption of food produced in 30-km observation zones, about 63 Bq/a of ⁹⁰Sr and 195 Bq/a of ¹³⁷Cs in the Kursk NPP observation zone and, respectively, 133 and 184 Bq/a in the vicinity of Rostov NPP enter the diet of the local population, which is almost 400 times for ¹³⁷Cs and 10–20 times for ⁹⁰Sr below the annual ingestion limits respectively. Differences in the accumulation of radionuclides for the same crop in different years of observation come up to 1.5 times, due to the influence of soil and weather conditions, as well as different doses of ameliorants application.

Conclusion: The results of the radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems confirm that the operation of the Kursk and Rostov NPPs in normal mode does not lead to a deterioration of the radiation situation in the regions where they are located. Radiation doses on the local population do not exceed the established standard values. The system of radioecological monitoring of agricultural ecosystems should be an integral component in the general system of radiation safety in the vicinities of NPPs and other radiation-hazardous facilities.

Key words: Nuclear Power Plants, agroecosystems, radionuclides, radioecological monitoring, foodstuffs, exposure doses of population

REFERENCES

Conceptual provisions of the strategy for the development of nuclear energy in Russia in the XXI century. Moscow. NIKIAT; 2012. 62 p. (Russian).
Russia’s energy strategy until 2030 (approved by the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 13. 2009 No. 1715-r). (Russian).
Organization of state radioecological monitoring of agroecosystems in the zone of exposure to radiation-hazardous objects. MU-13.5.13-00. (approved by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation on August 7, 2000). Moscow. 2000. 28 p. (Russian).
Methods of organizing and conducting agroecological monitoring of agricultural land in areas of industrial pollution and the assessment of the environmental situation in agriculture in the regions where nuclear power plants are located and the Chernobyl NPP accident. Ed. by N.I. Sanzharova. Obninsk: VNIISHRAE. 2010. 276 p. (Russian).
Engineering surveys for the location, design and construction of nuclear power plants. Part II. Engineering surveys for the development of design and working documentation and maintenance of construction. SP 151.13330.2012. Moscow. 2013. 155 p. (Russian).
Guidelines for conducting local monitoring at reference sites. 1996. Moscow. CINAO. 1996. 16 p. (Russian).
Sanitary rules for the design and operation of nuclear power plants. SanPiN 2.6.1.24–03. 2003 (approved by the decision of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of April 28, 2003 No. 69). (Russian).
Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the Environment. Safety Rep. Ser. N19. Vienna: IAEA, 2001. 216 p.
Data on radioactive contamination of the territory of populated areas of the Russian Federation with cesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium-239 + 240. 2015. Ed. by S.M. Vakulovsky. Obninsk, “Typhoon”. 2016. 225 p. (Russian).
Report “On the state and protection of the environment in the territory of the Kursk region in 2015”. 2016. Kursk, Administration of the Kursk Region. 2016. 126 p. (Russian).
Report “On the state of sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population of the Rostov region in 2017”. Rostov-on-Don, Administration of the Rostov Region. 2018. 197 p. (Russian).
Materials of the state report “On the state of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population in the Kursk region in 2015”. 2016. Kursk, Administration of the Kursk Region. 2016. 280 p. (Russian).
Radiation situation on the territory of Russia and neighboring countries. 2014. Obninsk, “Typhoon”. 2014. 367 p. (Russian).

For citation: Kuznetsov VK, Sanzharova NI, Panov AV, Isamov NN. Radioecological Monitoring of Agroecosystems in the NPP Vicinity: Methodology and Results of Investigations. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):25–31. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1102809c5ac3.32613968

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 41–47

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1108af5d48d3.68800561

A.V. Boyko¹, E.A. Dunaeva¹, L.V. Demidova¹, B.Yа. Alekseev², A.V. Leont’ev¹,
O.B. Dubovetskaya¹, L.G. Serova¹

Radiotherapy for Patients with Hydronephrosis–Induced Cervical Cancer

1. P.A. Hersen Moscow Oncology Research Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. N.A. Lopatkin Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology, Moscow, Russia

A.V. Boyko – Head of Dep., Prof., Dr. Sci. Med., ESTRO Member;
E.A. Dunaeva – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
L.V. Demidova – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Med.;
B.Yа. Alekseev – Deputy Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., EAU Member, SIU Member;
A.V. Leont’ev – Head of Dep., PhD Med., EANM Member;
O.B. Dubovetskaya – Research Worker, PhD Med.;
L.G. Serova – Oncologist, PhD Med.

Abstract

Purpose: To justify the expansion of indications for radiation or chemoradiation therapy in patients with primary or recurrent cervical cancer complicated by hydronephrosis by eliminating obstruction of the ureters.

Material and methods: The study included 24 patients who received radiation or chemoradiotherapy from 2012 to 2018. 17 patients among them had primary cervical cancer and the other 7 had a relapse of cervical cancer in small pelvis. In accordance with FIGO and TNM classification (2009), stage IIIB was diagnosed (сT_3bN_0–1M₀) in 16 patients and stage IVB (cT_3bN₁M₁, metastasis in para-aortic lymph nodes) in 1 patient. Prior to the start of special treatment, in all patients was detected one- or two-sided hydronephrosis associated with a neoplastic process and accompanied by varying degrees of impaired parenchymal-excretory function of one of the kidneys.

Results: 11 patients had unilateral stenting, 3 patients had bilateral ureteral stenting, nephrostomy was performed in 9 patients and 1 woman had an ureteral stent installed on one side, nephrostomy was performed on the other side. In 70.8 % (17) patients, the irradiation course was performed without interruption. From 5 to 3 weeks (due to cystitis, endometritis, anemia). In 2 patients, it was not possible to complete the full course of radiotherapy because of the intractable effects of pyelonephritis, they were operated on. In the observation period up to 77 months (average observation time 29 months) 16 patients are alive, 12 of them are without signs of disease recurrence. In 6 patients, the natural passage of urine was restored. In 4 patients, the nephrostomy was replaced with a ureteral stent. In 3 patients with ureteral stents they are replaced. Three patients remain with nephrostomy. Eight women died from the progression of the underlying disease, of these, 6 patients are with recurrent cervical cancer in the pelvis. Note that in all 6 patients, as a result of the irradiation, a pronounced palliative effect was achieved in the form of relief of pain and bleeding.

Conclusion: Performing adequate drainage of the ureter(s) allows to expand the indications for radiotherapy or chemoradiation therapy under the radical program in patients with primary or recurrent cervical cancer.

Key words: radiotherapy, cervical cancer, locally advanced and recurrent, hydronephrosis, urine diversion

REFERENCES

1. Clinical recommendations. Cervical cancer. The association of Russian oncologists. 2017. ID: KP537 [cited 2018 Dec 27] Available from: http://cancerlink.ru/cancer/clinical-guidelines-oncology-2017/clinical-guidelines-aor-2017 . (Russian).
2. NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, OCT 2017) (version 1.2019) Available at nccn.org. [cited 2018 Nov 05]
3. TNM classification of malignant tumours. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, eds. 7th ed. NY: Springer-Verlag, 2010. 256 p.
4. Kaprin AD, Titova VA, Kostin AA, Rerberg AG. Improving the Diagnosis and Treatment of Retention Disorders of the Upper Urinary Tract in Patients with Stages IIB–III cancer of the Cervix Uteri. Cancer Urology. 2012;8(2):98-101. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2012-8-2-98-101. (Russian).
5. Rose PG, Ali S, Whitney CW, Lanciano R, Stehman FB. Impact of hydronephrosis on outcome of stage IIIB cervical cancer patients with disease limited to the pelvis, treated with radiation and concurrent chemotherapy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 117(2):270-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.045.
6. Goklu MR, Seckin KD, Togrul C, Goklu Y, Tahaoglu AE, Oz M, et al. Effect of hydronephrosis on survival in advanced stage cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(10):4219-22. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.10.4219
7. Beckta JM, Carter JS, Wan W, Chafe WE, Abayomi OK, Proper MA, et al. Urinary Diversion in the Management of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Facilitates the Use of Aggressive Therapy without Adversely Effecting Overall Treatment Time. EC Gynaecology. 2016;3(1): 225-31.
8. Mankad M, Mishra K, Desai A, Patel S. Role of percutaneous nephrostomy in advanced cervical carcinoma with obstructive uropathy: a case series. Indian J Palliat Care. 2009;15(1):37-40.
9. Chepurov AK, Zenkov SS, Mamaev NE, Pronkin EA. Prolonged drainage by ureteral stents: current state of the issue and prospects. Andrology and Genital Surgery. 2009;(2):44-8. (Russian).
10. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynec Obstet. 2009;(105):103-4.
11. Kaprin AD, Titova VA, Kreynina YuM, Kostin AA. Urological complications in oncologic practice: diagnosis, interventional and conservative correction. Moscow; 2011. 168 p. (Russian).
12. Protein-energy deficiency in cancer. In: Baranovsky AYu, editor. Dietetics: Manual 5th edition. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2017. p. 868-74. (Russian).
13. Kurpeshev OK, Mardynsky YuS. Basic principles and methods of radiomodification in radiotherapy. In: Kaprin AD, Mardynsky YuS, editors. Therapeutic Radiology. National leadership. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2018. P. 89-128. (Russian).
14. Brotherhood H, Lange D, Chew BH. Advances in ureteral stents. Transl Androl Urol 2014;3(3):314-9. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.06.06.
15. Boyko AV, Korytova LI, Oltarzhevskaya ND, editors. Targeted drug delivery in the treatment of cancer patients. Moscow: Special Medical Book Publisher; 2013. 200 p. (Russian).

For citation: Boyko AV, Dunaeva EA, Demidova LV, Alekseev BYа, Leont’ev AV, Dubovetskaya OB, Serova LG. Radiotherapy for Patients with Hydronephrosis-Induced Cervical Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(4):41–47. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5d1108af5d48d3.68800561

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

Page 77 of 167

MEDICAL RADIOLOGY AND RADIATION SAFETY