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. 6. P. 70–81
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-70-81
A.V. Khmelev
Analysis of Positron Emission Tomography Providing with Radionuclides
Federal Research Center for Project Evaluation and Consulting Services, Moscow, Russia.
E-mail:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
A.V. Khmelev – Cheif Researcher, Dr. Sci. Phys.-Math., Prof.
Content
Introduction
1. General requirements to PET-radionuclides
2. Parameters of radionuclide ranging for application in PET
3. Positron emitters for different applications. Selection criteria
PET-studies
Joint PET- and SPECT-studies
Theranostics
Special applications
4. Availability of positron emitters
4.1. Cyclotron production of PET-radionuclides
Conventional radionuclides
Radionuclides under development
4.2. Production of PET-radionuclides on radionuclide generators
5. Future development of PET providing with radionuclides
Conclusion
Key words: PET, positron emitters, activity, cyclotron, radionuclide generator
REFERENCES
1. Townsend DW, Carney JPJ, Yap JT and Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(1):4S-14S.
2. Saha GB. Basics of PET Imaging. Physics, chemistry and regulation. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2010. 241 p.
3. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in nuclear medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2012. 523 p.
4. Khmelev V. Positron emission tomography: physical and technical aspects. Moscow: Trovant; 2016. 336 p. (In Russian).
5. Chart of the Nuclides. Available from: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov
6. Zimmermann RG. Why are investors not interested in my radiotracer? The industrial and regulatory constraints in the development of radiopharmaceuticals. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40:155-66.
7. Kostylev VA, Narkevich BYa. Medical Physics. Moscow: Meditsina; 2008. 460 p. (In Russian).
8. Nuclear Physics for Medicine. Chapter III. Radioisotope production. Ed. by F Azaiez, A Bracco, J Dobeš, A Jokinen, G-E Körner, A Maj, A Murphy, P Van Duppen. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. 2015. 156 p.
9. Cyclotron produced radionuclides: physical characteristics and production methods. Technical Report № 468. Vienna: IAEA. 2009.
10. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Cabrejas ML, Knapp WH, Munz DL. Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(2):161-9.
11. Rosch F, Knapp FF (Russ). Radionuclide generators. In: Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry. V.4. Ed. by A Vértes, S Nagy, Z Klencsár, RG Lovas, F Rösch. Berlin: Springer. 2011: 1935-76.
12. Shimchuk GrG, Shimchuk GG, Kutuzov SG, et. al. Automatized generator system of clinical application for bolus and long-term injections of chloride 82Rb. Medical Physics. 2013;(2):67-75. (In Russian).
13. Miller PW, Nicholas J, Long NJ, Gee AD. Synthesis of 11C, 18F, 15O and 13N radiolabels for positron emission tomography. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2008;47(47):8998-9033.
14. Beyer G-J, Comor JJ. The potential of PET cyclotron installations for the production of uncommon positron emitting isotopes. In: Int Conf Clin PET and Molecular Nucl Med. 2007 Nov 10–14; Bangkok: 2007; 54-55.
15. Papash A, Alenitsky Yu. On commercial H– cyclotrons up to 30 MeV energy range for production of medicine isotopes. Problems Atomic Sci. and Technol. 2008;(5):143-5.
16. Schmor PW. Review of cyclotrons used in the production of radioisotopes for biomedical applications. In: Proceedings of Cyclotrons 2010. Lanzhou: 2010. 419-24.
17. Qaim SM. Cyclotron production of medical radionuclides. In: Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry. V. 4. Editors A Vértes, S Nagy, Z Klencsár, RG Lovas, F Rösch. Berlin: Springer. 2011. 1903-1933.
18. Kodina GE, Krasikova RN. Methods of production of radiopharmaceuticals and radionuclide generators for nuclear medicine. Moscow: MEI Publishing House; 2014. 282 p. (In Russian).
19. Khmelev AV. Nuclear medicine: physics, equipment, technologies. Moscow: NRNU MEPhI; 2018. 440 p. (In Russian).
20. Antoni G, Kihlberg T, Langstrom B. 11C: labeling chemistry and labeled compounds. In: Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry. V. 4. Editors A Vértes, S Nagy, Z Klencsár, RG Lovas, F Rösch. Berlin: Springer. 2011. 1977-2021.
21. Ross TL, Wester HJ. 18F: labeling chemistry and labeled compounds. In: Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry. V. 4. Editors A Vértes, S Nagy, Z Klencsár, RG Lovas, F Rösch. Berlin: Springer. 2011. 2022-71.
22. Kilian K. 68Ga‑DOTA and analogs: current status and future perspectives. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2014;19(L):S13-S21.
23. Velikyan I. Positron emitting [68Ga]Ga‑based imaging agents: chemistry and diversity. Med Chem. 2011;7(5):345-79.
24. Davidson CD, Phenix CP, Tai TC, Khaper N, Lees SJ. Searching for novel PET radiotracers: imaging cardiac perfusion, metabolism and inflammation. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;8(3):200-27.
25. Severin GW, Engle JW, Nickles RJ, Barnhart TE. 89Zr radiochemistry for PET. Med Chem. 2011;7(5):389-94.
26. Walther M, Gebhardt P, Grosse-Gehling P, et al. Implementation of 89Zr production and in vivo imaging of B-cells in mice with 89Zr-labeled anti-B-cell antibodies by small animal PET/CT. Appl Rad Isot. 2011;69:852-7.
27. Koehler L, Gagnon K, McQuarrie S, Wuest F. Iodine-124: a promising positron emitter for organic PET chemistry. Molecules. 2010;15:2686-718.
28. Stocklin G, Pike VW. Radiopharmaceuticals for positron emission tomography: methodological aspects. New York; 1993. 178 p.
29. Dmitriev SN, Zaitseva NG, Ochkin AV. Radionuclides for nuclear medicine and ecology. Dubna UINR; 2001. 103 p. (In Russian).
30. Chopra D. Radiolabeled nanoparticles for diagnosis and treatment of cancer. In: Radioisotopes – applications in bio-medical science. Chapter 11. Ed. N. Singh. 2011: available from: http: //www.intechopen.com/books/radioisotopes-applications-in-bio-medical-science/radiolabeled-nanoparticles-for-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-cancer.
31. Veryevkin AA, Stervoedov NG, Kovtun GP. Production and application short lived and ultra-short lived isotopes in medicine. Reporter of Kharkiv University. 2006;(746):54-64. (In Russian).
32. Kurenkov NV, Shubin YN. Radionuclides in nuclear medicine. Medical Radiology. 1996;41(5):54-63. (In Russian).
33. Narkevich BYa. Single photon emission computer tomography with positron emitting radioparmaceuticals: status and growth area. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2000;45(6):56-63. (In Russian).
34. Rosch F, Baum RB. Generator-based PET radiopharmaceuticals for molecular imaging of tumors: on the way to theranostics. Dalton Transactions. 2011; 40(23):6104-11.
35. Werner RA, Bluemel C, Allen-Auerbach MS, Higuchi T, Herrmann K. 68Gallium- and 90Yttrium-/ 177Lutetium: “theranostic twins” for diagnosis and treatment of NETs. Ann Nucl Med. 2015; 29:1-7.
36. Rosch F, Riss P. The renaissance of the 68Ge/68Ga radionuclide generator initiates new developments in 68Ga radiopharmaceutical chemistry. Curr Top Med Chem. 2010;10(16):1633-68.
37. Ellison PA, Chenb F, Barnharta TE, Nickles RJ, Caia W, De Jesus OT. Production and isolation of 72As from proton irradiation of enriched 72GeO2 for the development of targeted PET/MRI agents. In: WTTC15 Proc. Prague: 2014. 110-1.
38. Wooten AL, Lewis BC, Laforest R, Smith SV, Lapi SE. Cyclotron production and PET/MRI imaging of 52Mn. In: WTTC15 Proc. Prague: 2014. 97-9.
39. Xing Y, Zhao J, Shi X, Conti P.S, Chen K. Recent development of radiolabeled nanoparticles for PET imaging. Austin J Nanomed Nanotechnol. 2014;2(2):1016-25.
40. Bogdanov PV, Vorogushin MF, Lamzin EA, et al. Development of compact cyclotrons CC-18/9, CC-12 and MCC-30/15 for production of medical radionuclides. J Tech Phys. 2011;81(10):68-83. (In Russian).
41. Wolf AP, Jones WB. Cyclotrons for biomedical radioisotope production. Radiochimica Acta. 1983;34(1/2):1-7.
42. Pagani M, Stone-Elander S, Larsson SA. Alternative positron emission tomography with non-conventional positron emitters: effects of their physical properties on image quality and potential clinical applications. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24(10):1301-27.
43. Synowiecki MA, Perk LR, Nijsen JFW. Production of novel diagnostic radionuclides in small medical cyclotrons. EJNMMI Radiopharm Chem. 2018; 3(1):35-46.
44. Bakhtiari M, Enferadi M, Sadeghi M. Accelerator production of the positron emitter 89Zr. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2012; 41:93-107.
45. Holland JP, Sheh Y, Lewis JS. Standardized methods for the production of high specific-activity zirconium-89. Nucl Med Biol. 2009; 36(7):729-39.
46. McCarthy DW, Shefer RE, Klinkowstein RE, et al. Efficient production of high specific activity 64Cu using a biomedical cyclotron. Nucl Med Biol. 1997; 24:35-49.
47. Pandey MK, Byrne JF, Jiang H, Packard AB, De Grado TR. Cyclotron production of 68Ga via the 68Zn(p,n)68Ga reaction in aqueous solution. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4(4):303-10.
48. Walczak R, Krajewski S, Szkliniarz K, et al. Cyclotron production of 43Sc for PET imaging. EJNMMI Phys. 2015; 2:33-43.
49. Qaim M. Development of cyclotron radionuclides for medical applications: from fundamental nuclear data to sophisticated production technology. In: Proc of 15th Int Workshop on targetry and target chemistry. Prague: 2014. 18-20.
50. Pillai MRA, Dash A, Knapp FFJr. Radionuclide generator: ready source diagnostic and therapeutic radionuclides for nuclear medicine applications. In: Radiopharmaceuticals: application, insights and future. Ed. by R Santos-Oliveria. Lambert Academic Publishing. 2016. 63-118.
51. Filosofov DV, Loktionova NS, Rösch F. A 44Ti/44Sc radionuclide generator for potential application of 44Sc-based PET-radiopharmaceuticals. Radiochim Acta. 2010; 98(3):149-56.
52. Jalilian AR. The application of unconventional PET tracers in nuclear medicine. Iran J Nucl Med. 2009; 17(1):1-11.
53. Pagou M, Zerizer I, Al-Nahhas A. Can gallium-68 compounds partly replace (18)F-FDG in PET molecular imaging? Hell J Nucl Med. 2009;12(2):102-5.
54. Tlostanova MS, Khodjibekova MM, Panfilenko AA, et al. Capabilities of combined positron emission and computer tomography in diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors: first experience of using of native synthesis module 68Ga‑DOTA-TATE. STM. 2016; 8(4):51-8. (In Russian).
55. Severin GW, Fonslet J, Jensen AI, Zhuravlev F. Hydroliticaly stable titanium-45. In: WTTC15 Proc. Prague: 2014. 103-6.
56. Weineisen M, Schottelius M, Simecek J, et al. 68Ga‑ and 177Lu-labeled PSMA I&T: optimization of a PSMA-targeted theranostics concept and first proof-of-concept human studies. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(8):1169-76.
57. Devillet FG, Geets J-M, Ghyoot M, et al. Performance of IBA new conical shaped niobium [18O] water targets. In: Cyclotrons 2013 Proc. Vancouver: 2013. 406-8.
58. Zeisler SK, Becker DW, Pavan RA, et al. A water-cooled spherical niobium target for the production of [18F] fluoride. Appl Radiat Isot. 2000; 53(3):449-53.
59. Smith SV, Jones M, Holmes V. Production and selection of metal PET radioisotopes for molecular imaging. In: Radioisotopes – applications in biomedical science. Chapter 10. Ed. N. Singh. 2011: available from: http: //www.intechopen. com/books/radioisotopes-applications-in-bio-medical-science/production-and-selection-of-metal-pet-radioisotopes-for-molecular imaging.
60. Hoehr C, Oehlke E, Hou H, et al. Production of radiometals in liquid target. In: WTTC15 Proc. Prague: 2014. P. 41-2.
For citation: Khmelev AV. Analysis of Positron Emission Tomography Providing with Radionuclides. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(6):70–81. (in Russian).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian) Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 6. P. 82–87
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-82-87
I.A. Znamenskiy1,2, A.K. Kondakov1,2, D.Yu. Mosin1, P.A. Nikitin1, A.V. Sozykin1,2, A.M. Filimonova1, M.M. Beregov2
Positron Emission Tomography with Rubidium-82 in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
1. Central Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russia;
2. N.I. Pirogov Russian National Medical Research University, Moscow, Russia.
E-mail:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I.A. Znamensky – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med.;
A.K. Kondakov – Nuclear Medicine Physician;
D.Yu. Mosin – Nuclear Medicine Physician;
P.A. Nikitin – Radiologist;
A.V. Sozykin – Head of Dep., Prof., Dr. Sci. Med.;
A.M. Filimonova – Head of Dep., PhD Med.;
M.M. Beregov – Resident
Abstract
This review considers literature sources on myocardial perfusion studies using positron emission tomography with rubidium-82. The history of the development of the method, the protocols of the study, the dissymmetric data are analyzed, and comparisons are made with other positron emitters that are used in clinical practice and research to study myocardial blood supply. The use of PET/CT with rubidium-82 makes it possible to obtain valuable diagnostic information and it allows to measure myocardial blood directly and make a separate assessment of the coronary arteries function. Due to the fact that the production of rubidium-82 does not require an on-site cyclotron and a radiochemical laboratory, this method of imaging is more accessible than other positron emitters used for the same purpose. Also, the study is not associated with significant discomfort for the patient, since the full stress/rest imaging protocol requires less than half an hour. However, the use of rubidium-82 has a number of drawbacks, including the relatively low sharpness of the resulting image due to the high energy of the emitting positrons. Also there is a necessity for a mathematical correction of the roll-off phenomenon, which is a decrease in radiopharmaceutical extraction with an increase in myocardial blood flow. Due to the short half-life period, the provision of stress tests with ergometers is difficult. It needed to use pharmacological stress tests. In addition, usage of rubidium-82 is characterized by a high cost both due to the expensive production of the parent isotope, strontium-82, and the need for frequent replacement of generators – on average, 11 to 13 times a year.
Key words: positron emission tomography, PET/CT, myocardial perfusion, rubidium-82, radionuclide generator 82Sr/82Rb
REFERENCES
1. WHO. World Health Organization, 2015. [cited 2019 Jan 15]; Available from: https://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/ru/
2. Roth GA, Johnson C, Abajobir A, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, Abyu G, et al. Global, Regional, and National Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases for 10 Causes, 1990 to 2015. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jul 4;70(1):1-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.052
3. Cassar A, Holmes DR, Rihal CS, Gersh BJ. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease: Diagnosis and Management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009 Dec; 84(12):1130-46. DOI: 10.4065/mcp.2009.0391
4. Russ M, Werdan K, Cremer J, Krian A, Meinertz T, Zerkowski H-R. Different treatment options in chronic coronary artery disease: when is it the time for medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention or aortocoronary bypass surgery? Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009 Apr; 106(15):253-61. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0253
5. Ramjattan NA, Makaryus AN. Coronary CT Angiography. StatPearls. 2018.
6. Mordi I, Badar A, Irving R, Weir-McCall J, Houston G, Lang C. Efficacy of noninvasive cardiac imaging tests in diagnosis and management of stable coronary artery disease. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2017 Nov; 13:427-37.
7. Einstein AJ, Knuuti J. Cardiac imaging: does radiation matter? Eur Heart J. 2012 Mar 1;33(5):573-8. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr281
8. Ryzhkova DV, Salakhova AR. Technical advances and clinical application of cardiac positron emission tomography for myocardial perfusion assessment as a stand alone technique and having been integrated in the hybrid imaging systems // Translation Medicine. 2015;(5):113-22. (In Russian).
9. Vaquero JJ, Kinahan P. Positron Emission Tomography: Current Challenges and Opportunities for Technological Advances in Clinical and Preclinical Imaging Systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2015 Dec 7;17(1):385-414. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040723
10. Chatal J-F, Rouzet F, Haddad F, Bourdeau C, Mathieu C, Le Guludec D. Story of Rubidium-82 and Advantages for Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging. Front Med. 2015 Sep 11;2:65. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040723
11. Hagemann CE, Ghotbi AA, Kjær A, Hasbak P. Quantitative myocardial blood flow with rubidium-82 PET: a clinical perspective. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5(5):457-68.
12. Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Tamaki N. Generator-produced rubidium-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging—From basic aspects to clinical applications. J Cardiol. 2010 Mar;55(2):163-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2010.01.001
13. Yano Y, Chu P, Budinger TF, Grant PM, Ogard AE, Barnes JW, et al. Rubidium-82 generators for imaging studies. J Nucl Med. 1977 Jan;18(1):46-50.
14. Arumugam P, Tout D, Tonge C. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography. Br Med Bull. 2013 Sep 1;107(1):87-100. DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldt026
15. Love WD, Romney RB, Burch GE. A comparison of the distribution of potassium and exchangeable rubidium in the organs of the dog, using rubidium. Circ Res. 1954 Mar;2(2):112-22.
16. Kilpatrick R, Renschler HE, Munro DS, Wilson GM. A comparison of the distribution of 42K and 86Rb in rabbit and man. J Physiol. 1956 Jul 27;133(1):194-201. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1956.sp005577
17. Threefoot SA, Ray CT, Burch GE. Study of the use of 86Rb as a tracer for the measurement of 86Rb and 39K space and mass in intact man with and without congestive heart failure. J Lab Clin Med. 1955 Mar 1;45(3):395-407. DOI: 10.5555/URI:PII:0022214355900081
18. Ray CT, Threefoot SA, Burgh GE. The excretion of radiorubidium, 86Rb, radiopotassium, 42K, and potassium, sodium, and chloride by man with and without congestive heart failure. J Lab Clin Med. 1955 Mar 1:408-30. DOI: 10.5555/URI:PII:0022214355900093
19. Love WD, Burch GE. Influence of the Rate of Coronary Plasma Flow on the Extraction of 86Rb from Coronary Blood. Circ Res. 1959 Jan;7(1):24-30. Available from: DOI: 10.1161/01.RES.7.1.24
20. Yano Y, Anger HO. Visualization of heart and kidneys in animals with ultrashort-lived 82Rb and the positron scintillation camera. J Nucl Med. 1968 Jul;9(7):413–5.
21. Ter-Pogossian MM, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA. A Positron-Emission Transaxial Tomograph for Nuclear Imaging (PETT). Radiology. 1975 Jan 1;114(1):89–98. DOI: 10.1148/114.1.89
22. Selwyn AP, Allan RM, L’Abbate A, Horlock P, Camici P, Clark J, et al. Relation between regional myocardial uptake of rubidium-82 and perfusion: absolute reduction of cation uptake in ischemia. Am J Cardiol. 1982;50(1):112-21.
23. Tyutin LA, Zhuikov WL, Kostenikov NA, et al. 82Sr/82Rb-generator and its clinical application. Medical physics. International scientific-practical conference “Adron medicine and nuclear therapy.” October 05-07, 2015 St. Petersburg. 2016;(2):56-7 (In Russian).
24. Kostenikov NA, Tyutin LA, Zhujkov BL, et al. 82Sr/82Rb-generator and perspectives for its use in neurooncology. Diagnostic Radiology and Radiotherapy. 2017;(3):5-13. (In Russian.) DOI: 10.22328/2079-5343-2017-3-5-13
25. Germino M, Ropchan J, Mulnix T, Fontaine K, Nabulsi N, Ackah E, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb: Validation with 15O-water using time-of-flight and point-spread-function modeling. EJNMMI Res. 2016 Dec;6(1):68. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-016-0215-6
26. Mullani NA, Goldstein RA, Gould KL, Marani SK, Fisher DJ, O’Brien HA, et al. Myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82. I. Measurement of extraction fraction and flow with external detectors. J Nucl Med. 1983 Oct;24(10):898-906.
27. Mullani NA, Gould KL. First-pass measurements of regional blood flow with external detectors. J Nucl Med. 1983 Jul;24(7):577-81.
28. Hsu B. PET tracers and techniques for measuring myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease. J Biomed Res. 2013 Nov;27(6):452-9. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.27.20130136
29. Kelion A, Arumugam P, Sabharwal N. Nuclear Cardiology (Oxford Specialist Handbooks in Cardiology). Vol. 1. Oxford University Press; 2017. DOI: 10.1093/med/9780198759942.001.0001
30. Stuijfzand WJ, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Danad I, Rijnierse MT, Saraste A, et al. Relative Flow Reserve Derived From Quantitative Perfusion Imaging May Not Outperform Stress Myocardial Blood Flow for Identification of Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Artery Disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jan;8(1). DOI: 10.1161/circimaging.114.002400
31. Chow BJW, Ananthasubramaniam K, deKemp RA, Dalipaj MM, Beanlands RSB, Ruddy TD. Comparison of treadmill exercise versus dipyridamole stress with myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Apr 19;45(8):1227-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.016
32. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur SR, Reddy P, Carlos RC. Diagnostic Performance of Positron Emission Tomography in the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease. Acad Radiol. 2008 Apr;15(4):444-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.08.012
33. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, Crijns HJ, Wildberger JE, Nagel E, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Noninvasive Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance, and Positron Emission Tomography Imaging for the Detection of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 May 8;59(19):1719-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.12.040
34. Mc Ardle BA, Dowsley TF, deKemp RA, Wells GA, Beanlands RS. Does Rubidium-82 PET Have Superior Accuracy to SPECT Perfusion Imaging for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Disease? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 30;60(18):1828-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.038
35. Wyss CA, Koepfli P, Mikolajczyk K, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Kaufmann PA. Bicycle exercise stress in PET for assessment of coronary flow reserve: repeatability and comparison with adenosine stress. J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):146-54.
36. Dunet V, Klein R, Allenbach G, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Prior JO. Myocardial blood flow quantification by 82Rb cardiac PET/CT: A detailed reproducibility study between two semi-automatic analysis programs. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23(3):499-510. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-015-0151-2
37. Schleipman A, Castronovojr F, Dicarli M, Dorbala S. Occupational radiation dose associated with 82Rb myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006 Jun;13(3):378-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.03.001
38. Machac J. Basis of Cardiac Imaging 2: Myocardial Perfusion, Metabolism, Infarction, and Receptor Imaging in Coronary Artery Disease and Congestive Heart Failure. In: The Pathophysiologic Basis of Nuclear Medicine. Ed. Elgazzar A.H. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. 352-95.
39. Nakazato R, Berman DS, Alexanderson E, Slomka P. Myocardial perfusion imaging with PET. Imaging Med. NIH Public Access; 2013 Feb 1;5(1):35-46. DOI: 10.2217/iim.13.1
40. Kagaya A, Fukuda H, Yoshida K, Endo M, Himi T, Niwayama H, et al. [Pulmonary kinetics of 13N-ammonia in smoking subjects – a quantitative study using dynamic PET]. Kaku Igaku. 1992 Sep;29(9):1099-106.
41. Ghotbi AA, Kjaer A, Hasbak P. Review: comparison of PET rubidium-82 with conventional SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014 May;34(3):163-70. DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12083
42. Klein R, Beanlands RSB, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve: Technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010 Aug 2;17(4):555-70. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-010-9256-9
43. Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Tamaki N. Generator-produced rubidium-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging—From basic aspects to clinical applications. J Cardiol. Elsevier; 2010 Mar 1;55(2):163-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2010.01.001
44. Conti M, Eriksson L. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion. EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec;3(1):8. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-016-0144-5
For citation: Znamenskiy IA, Kondakov AK, Mosin DYu, Nikitin PA, Sozykin AV, Filimonova AM, Beregov MM. Positron Emission Tomography with Rubidium-82 in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(6):82–87. (in Russian).
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 5. P. 81–88
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-5-81-88
V.V. Uyba1, A.V. Akleyev2,3, T.V. Azizova4, V.K. Ivanov5, L.A. Karpikova1, S.M. Kiselev6, S.G. Mikheyenko7, S.A. Romanov4, R.M. Takhauov8,9, V.Yu. Usoltsev7, S.M. Shinkarev6
Results of the 66-th Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 10–14 June, 2019)
1. Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia, Moscow, Russia;
2. Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. Е-mail:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
;
3. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia;
4. Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk Region, Russia;
5. A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russia;
6. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia;
7. State Atomic Energy Corporation “ROSATOM”, Moscow, Russia;
8. Seversk Biophysical Research Center, Seversk, Russia;
9. Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, Russia
V.V. Uyba – Head of the Medical and Biological Agency, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
A.V. Akleyev – Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
T.V. Azizova – Deputy Director, PhD Med.;
V.K. Ivanov – Deputy Director, Dr. Sci. Tech., Prof., Corr. Member of RAS;
L.A. Karpikova – Head of Dep.; S.M. Kiselev – Head of Lab., PhD Biol.;
S.G. Mikheyenko – Section Head of State Atomic Energy Corporation “ROSATOM”, PhD Phys.-Math.;
S.A. Romanov – Director, PhD Biol.;
R.M. Takhauov – Director, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
V.Yu. Usoltsev – Chief Specialist;
S.M. Shinkarev – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Tech.
Abstract
The current paper is devoted to the outcomes of the 66-th UNSCEAR Session which took place in Vienna during 10–14 June 2018. Within the framework of the meetings of the Working Group and subgroups the documents on the following projects were discussed:
- R.733. Evaluation of selected health effects and inference of risk due to radiation exposure.
- R.734. Evaluation of medical exposures to ionizing radiation.
- R.735. Evaluation of occupational exposures to ionizing radiation.
- R.736. Lung cancer from exposure to radon.
- R.737. Biological mechanisms relevant for the inference of cancer risks from low-dose radiation.
- R.738. Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station: implications of information published since the 2013 UNSCEAR report.
- R.739. Second primary cancer after radiotherapy.
- R.740. Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer.
The Committee also discussed: the future research program; report to the UN General Assembly; implementation of a strategy plan to improve collection, analysis and dissemination of data on radiation exposure; public outreach activity including the strategy for the period 2020–2024.
Key words: UNSCEAR, 66-th Session, low doses, biological effects, epidemiology, medical exposure, occupational exposure
REFERENCES
1. Occupational intakes of radionuclides: Part 1. ICRP Publication 130. Ann ICRP 44(2), Elsevier Ltd., 2015. ICRP, 2015.
2. Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Volume II: Scientific Annexes C, D and E. UNSCEAR 2006. Report, New York, 2009.
3. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon. Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon, BEIR VI. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
4. Tomasek L, Rogel A, Tirmarche M, Mitton N, Laurier D. Lung cancer in French and Czech uranium miners: Radon-associated risk at low exposure rates and modifying effects of time since exposure and age at exposure. Radiat Res. 2008;169(2):125-37. DOI: 10.1667/RR0848.1.
5. Walsh L, Tschense A, Schnelzer M, Dufey F, Grosche B, Kreuzer M. The influence of radon exposures on lung cancer mortality in German uranium miners, 1946–2003. Radiat Res. 2010;173(1): 79-90. DOI: 10.1667/RR1803.1.
6. Rühm W, Eidemüller M, Kaiser JC. Biologically-based mechanistic models of radiation-related carcinogenesis applied to epidemiological data. Int J Radiat Biol. 2017;1093-117. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2017.1310405.
For citation: Uyba VV, Akleyev AV, Azizova TV, Ivanov VK, Karpikova LA, SM Kiselev, SG Mikheyenko, Romanov SA, Takhauov RM, Usoltsev VYu, Shinkarev SM. Results of the 66-th Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 10–14 June, 2019). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(5):81-8. (in Russian).
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 6. P. 88–90
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2019-64-6-88-90
M.V. Popov1, S.E. Voskanyan1, A.P. Dunaev2, A.N. Bashkov1, M.S. Aronov1, V.S. Rudakov1, A.S. Kasum’yan1, V.N. Mal’tsev1, O.V. Kuznetsova1
Endovascular Embolization of Gastroduodenal Artery in its Pancreatogenous Arrosia: a Clinical Case
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. Moscow City Oncologic Hospital No. 62, Moscow, Russia
M.V. Popov – Doctor;
S.E. Voskanyan – Deputy Chief Physician, Dr. Sci. Med.;
A.P. Dunaev – Doctor, PhD Med.;
A.N. Bashkov – Head of Dep.;
M.S. Aronov – Head of Dep., PhD Med.;
V.S. Rudakov – Doctor, PhD Med.;
A.S. Kasum’yan – Junior Researcher;
V.N. Mal’tsev – Leading Researcher, Prof., Dr. Sci. Med.;
O.V. Kuznetsova – Vice-Rector, PhD Biol.
Abstract
Arrosion of the peripancreatic vascular structures is a rare, but life-threatening and it requires surgical treatment. One of the most common causes of arrosion is the presence of pancreatic pseudocyst. Imaging methods play a crucial role not only in terms of identifying the described pathology, but also in planning the tactics of surgical treatment. We present a clinical case of a patient, a 44-year-old male, with pseudocyst in the pancreatic head in the presence of chronic pancreatitis, complicated by bleeding into its cavity as a result of an arrosion of the gastroduodenal artery, which required endovascular embolization and drainage of the pseudocyst. This clinical case shows the possibility of endovascular embolization of the injured gastroduodenal artery with microspirals.
Key words: complication of pancreatitis blooding, pancreatic pseudocyst, pseudoaneurysm, gastroduodenal artery, embolization
REFERENCES
1. Yadav D, Lowenfels A. The Epidemiology of Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(6):1252-61. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.01.068
2. Kim J, Shin J, Yoon H, et al. Endovascular intervention for management of pancreatitis-related bleeding: a retrospective analysis of thirty-seven patients at a single institution. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2015;21(2):140-7. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2014.14085
3. Barge J, Lopera J. Vascular Complications of Pancreatitis: Role of Interventional Therapy. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13(Suppl 1):S45. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2012.13.s1.s45
4. Olejarz A, Nowikiewicz T, Piotrowski L. Haemorrhagic Shock as a Result of Bleeding to Pancreatic Pseudocysts – The Problem of Emergency Service. Polish Journal of Surgery. 2009;81(4). DOI: 10.2478/v10035-009-0029-6
5. Ferreira J, Tavares A, Costa E, Maciel J. Hemosuccus pancreaticus: a rare complication of chronic pancreatitis. BMJ Case Rep. 2015:bcr2015209872. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2015-209872
6. Han B, Song Z, Sun B. Hemosuccus pancreaticus: a rare cause of gastroirtestiral bleeding. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International. 2012;11(5):479-88. DOI: 10.1016/s1499-3872(12)60211-2
7. Karakayali F. Surgical and interventional management of complications caused by acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(37):13412. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i37.13412
8. Khokha V.M. Collections in acute pancreatitis. Novosti Khirurgii. 2013;21(2):111-8. (In Russian) DOI: 10.18484/2305-0047.2013.2.111
9. Hsu J, Yeh C, Hung C, et al. Management and outcome of bleeding pseudoaneurysm associated with chronic pancreatitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2006;6(1). DOI: 10.1186/1471-230x-6-3
10. Kapoor S, Rao P, Pal S, et al. Hemosuccus pancreaticus: an uncommon cause of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. A case report. JOP 2004;5:373-6.
For citation: Popov MV, Voskanyan SE, Dunaev AP, Bashkov AN, Aronov MS, Rudakov VS, Kasum’yan AS, Mal’tsev VN, Kuznetsova OV. Endovascular Embolization of Gastroduodenal Artery in its Pancreatogenous Arrosia: a Clinical Case. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(6):88–90. (in Russian).
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 6. P. 94–96
