SCIENTIFIC AND INFORMATION-ANALYTICAL MAGAZINE

ISSN 1024-6177 (Print), ISSN 2618-9615 (Online)

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. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 34–40

RADIATION EPIDEMIOLOGY

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8a6f16bcf5.47924988

I.L. Shafransky, A.R. Tukov, A.P. Birukov, I.V. Sidorin, L.A. Potapova, O.N. Prokhorova, Yu.D. Udalov, L.A. Ilyin, A.M. Lyaginskaya, V.Yu. Soloviev

Estimation of the Excess Relative Risk of Malignant Neoplasms among Workers of the Nuclear Industry – Participants of the Accident Liquidation at the Chernobyl NPP

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.

I.L. Shafransky – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; A.R. Tukov – Head of Lab., PhD Med.;
A.P. Birukov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; I.V. Sidorin – Senior Researcher, PhD Phys.-Math.;
L.A. Potapova – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; O.N. Prokhorova – Engineer-Researcher;
Yu.D. Udalov – Deputy Director General, PhD Med.; L.A. Ilyin – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Academician of RAS;
A.M. Lyaginskaya – Сhief Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.; V.Yu. Soloviev – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Biol., PhD Tech.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the excess relative risk in terms of 1 Sv on the basis of materials on the incidence of malignant neoplasms of workers in the nuclear industry – liquidators of the Chernobyl accident, as well as part of workers who worked or continue to work with sources of ionizing radiation.

Material and methods: The data base of the Industry Register of persons exposed to radiation as a result of the Chernobyl accident (ORF) was used in the work. Methods of cohort analysis of the accumulated disease incidence were used, based on Poisson regression and Cox regression. Estimates of the ERR at 1 Sv were calculated using both the traditional scheme using the AMFIT module and the modified formula proposed by Paretzke.

Results: It is shown that in some cases, the risk estimates obtained by the modified formula are more realistic, in other cases both estimates have similar values.

Conclusion: Analysis of the incidence of solid neoplasms in the liquidator cohort showed:
1. At the dose range < 200 mSv, point estimates of relative risk indicate that there is no dose-associated risk.
2. In the low-dose range for risk assessment, a modified Poisson regression approach that is free of control specifics should be used.
3. The validity of a dose response is characterized by the risks obtained using a dose of occupational exposure.
4. An important issue is the calculation of the risk of radiation-caused diseases with the use of the total dose received by an individual from all types of radiation.

Key words: radiation risk, malignant neoplasms, doses of different types of radiation, total dose, Chernobyl accident, liquidators

REFERENCES

  1. Heidenreich W, Paretzke H, Jacob P. No evidence for increased tumor rates below 200 mSv in the atomic bomb survivors data. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1997;36(3):205-7.
  2. Shafranskiy IL, Ilin LA, Tukov AR, Rozhdestvenskiy LM. Comparative risk analysis of radiation-induced morbidity of malignant neoplasms of nuclear industry workers-liquidators of the Chernobyl accident and survivors of the atomic bombing – according to the study LSS. Med Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2009;54(2):33-7. (Russian).
  3. Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, Kasagi F, Soda M, Eric J. Studies of Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors. Report 14: Solid Cancer and Noncancer Disease Mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res. 2009;(177):229-43.
  4. Preston D, Shimizu Y, Pierce D, Suyama A, Mabuchi K. Studies of Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors. Report 13: Solid Cancer and Noncancer Disease Mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res. 2003;(160):381-407.
  5. Koks DR, Ouks D. Analysis of life time type data. Moscow, Finance & statistic. 1988.
  6. Koryistov YuN. Factors that distort the assessment of carcinogenic risk of low doses of radiation according to epidemiological data. Med Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2014;59(4):41-7. (Russian).
  7. Petin VG, Pronkevich MD. Analysis of the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation on human cancer. Radiat and risk. 2012;21(1):39-57. (Russian).
  8. Sakai K. Biological responses to low dose radiation-hormesis and adaptive responses. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2006 Oct;126(10):827-31.
  9. Gorskiy AI, Maksyutov MA, Tumanov KA, Schukina NV, Chekin SYu, Ivanov VK. Nonparametric analysis of radiation risks of mortality among liquidators of the Chernobyl accident. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2016;56(2):138-48. (Russian).
  10. Obesnyuk VF. The effect of competing streams of events in the cohort risk assessment of radiation-epidemiological studies. Med Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2010;55(6):14-25. (Russian).
  11. Brenner D, Doll R, Goodhead D, Hall E, Land C, Little J, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. PNAS. 2003;100(24):13761-6.

For citation: Shafransky IL, Tukov AR, Birukov AP, Sidorin IV, Potapova LA, Prokhorova ON, Udalov YuD, Ilyin LA, Lyaginskaya AM, Soloviev VYu. Estimation of the Excess Relative Risk of Malignant Neoplasms among Workers of the Nuclear Industry – Participants of the Accident Liquidation at the Chernobyl NPP. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):34-40. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8a6f16bcf5.47924988

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 41–50

NUCLEAR MEDICINE

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8d72a8bb98.40545646

V.I. Chernov1,2, E.A. Dudnikova1, V.E. Goldberg1, T.L. Kravchuk1, A.V. Danilova1, R.V. Zelchan1, A.A. Medvedeva1, I.G. Sinilkin1, O.D. Bragina1, N.O. Popova1, A.V. Goldberg1

Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas

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

V.I. Chernov – Deputy Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; E.A. Dudnikova – Junior Researcher;
V.E. Goldberg – Deputy Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; T.L. Kravchuk – hematologist, PhD Med.;
A.V. Danilova – hematologist; R.V. Zelchan – radiologist, PhD Med.; A.A. Medvedeva – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
I.G. Sinilkin – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; O.D. Bragina   Junior Researcher, PhD Med.;
N.O. Popova – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; A.V. Goldberg – Junior Researcher, PhD Med.

Abstract

Currently, 18F FDG-PET and 18F FDG-PET/CT are widely used for diagnosis and monitoring of lymphomas. The majority of aggressive lymphomas are characterized by high glycolytic activity, which enables the visualization by using 18F FDG-PET/CT. The use of PET/CT makes it possible to clarify the stage of the disease in 10–30 % of patients, with additional tumor sites typical for advanced stage of lymphomas, which in turn effects on treatment and disease prognosis. The 18F FDG-PET/CT has the advantage over other methods of radiation diagnosis in detecting bone marrow lesions in patients with lymphomas. It has been shown that 18F FDG-PET/CT performed at early stages of chemotherapy allows differentiating patients with favorable lymphoma, which is sufficient for standard therapy and high-risk patients who require more intensive treatment with high-dose regimens of chemotherapy.

After completion of therapy over 60 % of patients with HL and 40 % with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, have residual masses containing necrotic and/or fibrotic tissue and residual neoplastic cells. 18F FDG-PET and 18F FDG-PET/CT has been shown to be useful in identifying residual masses in 30–64 % of patients, by demonstration of persistent metabolic activity on FDG-PET. Between 62–100 % of patients with residual FDG-positive masses have been shown to relapse after first-line chemotherapy. Identification of patients with partial response to chemotherapy indicates the need for continued treatment.

New radiopharmaceuticals for the diagnosis of lymphoma and evaluation of therapy effectiveness are developed. Such promising radiopharmaceuticals are 18F fluorothymidine, a biomarker of cellular proliferation and Ga-68 CXCR4, a chemokine receptor imaging biomarker.

Key words: lymphomas, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, PET/CT, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-fluorothymidine, 68Ga-CXCR4

REFERENCES

  1. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Petrova GV. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2016 (morbidity and mortality). – Moscow. 2018. 250 p. (Russian).
  2. Rukavitsina OA. Hematology: national leadership. Moscow: Geotar-Media. 2015. 912 p. (Russian).
  3. Pelosi E, Pregno P, Penna D, Deandreis D, Chiappella A, Limerutti G, et al. Role of whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and conventional techniques in the staging of patients with Hodgkin and aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Med. 2008;113:578–90.
  4. Novikov SN, Girshovich MM. Diagnosis and staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Problems of tuberculosis and lung diseases. 2007;8(2):65–72. (Russian).
  5. Valls L, Badve C, Avril S, Herrmann K, Faulhaber P, O’Donnell J, Avril N. FDG-PET Imaging in Hematological Malignancies. Blood Rev. 2016;30(4):317–331.
  6. Elstrom RL, Leonard JP, Coleman M, Brown RK. Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1770–3.
  7. Cheson BD. Role of functional imaging in the management of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1844–54.
  8. Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, Dann EJ, Haim N, Avivi I, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.
  9. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. In: Bosman, FT.Jaffe, ES.Lakhani, SR, Ohgaki, H, editors. WHO Classification of Tumours. Lyon: IARC. 2008.
  10. Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD. New approach to classifying non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: clinical features of the major histologic subtypes. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2780–95.
  11. Lim MS, Beaty M, Sorbara L, Cheng RZ, Pittaluga S, Raffeld M, et al. T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma: a heterogeneous entity with derivation from germinal center B cells. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1458–66.
  12. Rosenberg SA. Validity of the Ann Arbor staging classification for the non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Cancer Treat Rep. 1977;61:1023–7.
  13. Eichenauer DA, Engert A, Andre M, Federico M, Illidge T, Hutchings M, et al. Hodgkin‘s lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(3):70–5.
  14. Hoster E, Dreyling M, Klapper W, Gisselbrecht C, van Hoof A, Kluin-Nelemans HC, et al. A new prognostic index (MIPI) for patients with advanced-stage mantle cell lymphoma. Blood. 2008;111:558–65.
  15. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–86.
  16. Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske S.N. FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1407–13.
  17. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, de Keizer B, Fijnheer R, de Klerk JM, Littooij AS, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma: is bone marrow biopsy still necessary?. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:921–7.
  18. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, de Keizer B, Fijnheer R, de Klerk JM, Nievelstein RA. FDG PET/CT for the detection of bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:565–74.
  19. Wu LM, Chen FY, Jiang XX, Gu HY, Yin Y, Xu JR. 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and MRI for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:303–11.
  20. Adams HJ, de Klerk JM, Fijnheer R, Heggelman BG, Dubois SV, Nievelstein RA, et al. Bone marrow biopsy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: useful or redundant test? Acta Oncol. 2015;54:67–72.
  21. Lim ST, Tao M, Cheung YB, Rajan S, Mann B. Can patients with early-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be treated without bone marrow biopsy? Ann Oncol. 2005;16:215–8.
  22. Berthet L, Cochet A, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Humbert O, Toubeau M, et al. In newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, determination of bone marrow involvement with 18F-FDG PET/CT provides better diagnostic performance and prognostic stratification than does biopsy. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1244–50.
  23. Richardson SE, Sudak J, Warbey V, Ramsay A, McNamara CJ. Routine bone marrow biopsy is not necessary in the staging of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography era. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:381–5.
  24. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Nievelstein RA. Prognostic implications of imaging-based bone marrow assessment in lymphoma: 18F-FDG PET, MR imaging, or 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:2017–8.
  25. Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, Brice P, Tychyj-Pinel C, Tilly H, et al. Impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4317–22.
  26. Lowe VJ, Wiseman GA. Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1028–30.
  27. A clinical evaluation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project. Blood. 1997;89:3909–18.
  28. Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Hooft L, Riphagen II, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–9.
  29. Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Kropp J, Kittner T, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post-treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin‘s disease and non-Hodgkin‘s lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2001;115:793–800.
  30. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y. The place of positron emission tomography imaging in the management of patients with malignant lymphoma. Haematologica. 2006;91:442–4.
  31. Thompson CA, Ghesquieres H, Maurer MJ, Cerhan JR, Biron P, Ansell SM, et al. Utility of routine post-therapy surveillance imaging in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3506–12.
  32. Bodet-Milin C, Eugène T, Gastinne T, Bailly C, Le Gouill S, Dupas B, et al. The role of FDG-PET scanning in assessing lymphoma in 2012. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2013;94:158–68.
  33. Dreyling M, Ghielmini M, Marcus R, Salles G, Vitolo U, Ladetto M, et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed follicular lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;2(3):76–82.
  34. Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Bardet S, Julian A, Thieblemont C, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.
  35. Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, Thodtmann R, Weber W, Fuchs C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin‘s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464–71.
  36. Radford J, Illidge T, Counsell N, Hancock B, Pettengell R, Johnson P, et al. Results of a Trial of PET-Directed Therapy for Early-Stage Hodgkin‘s Lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372:1598–607.
  37. Dreyling M, Thieblemont C, Gallamini A, Arcaini L, Campo E, Hermine O, et al. ESMO Consensus conferences: guidelines on malignant lymphoma. Part 2: marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:857–77.
  38. Gallamini A, Barrington SF, Biggi A, Chauvie S, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. The predictive role of interim positron emission tomography for Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome is confirmed using the interpretation criteria of the Deauville five-point scale. Haematologica. 2014;99:1107–13.
  39. Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:683–90.
  40. Markova J, Kahraman D, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Mocikova H, Klaskova K, et al. Role of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in early and late therapy assessment of patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated with bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:64–70.
  41. Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Kahraman D, Haverkamp H, Eich HT, Franke M, et al. Assessment of tumor size reduction improves outcome prediction of positron emission tomography/computed tomography after chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1776–81.
  42. Safar V, Dupuis J, Itti E, Jardin F, Fruchart C, Bardet S, et al. Interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:184–90.
  43. Pfreundschuh M, Kuhnt E, Trumper L, Osterborg A, Trneny M, Shepherd L, et al. CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: 6-year results of an open-label randomised study of the MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:1013–22.
  44. Zhu Y, Lu J, Wei X, Song S, Huang G. The predictive value of interim and final 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after rituximab-chemotherapy in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:275805.
  45. Nols N, Mounier N, Bouazza S, Lhommel R, Costantini S, Vander Borght T, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of metabolic response at interim positron emission tomography scan combined with International Prognostic Index is highly predictive of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:773–80.
  46. Okada J, Oonishi H, Yoshikawa K, Itami J, Uno K, Imaseki K, et al. FDG-PET for predicting the prognosis of malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 1994;8:187–91.
  47. Watanabe R, Tomita N, Takeuchi K, Sakata S, Tateishi U, Tanaka M, et al. SUVmax in FDG-PET at the biopsy site correlates with the proliferation potential of tumor cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:279–83.
  48. Tsimberidou AM, Keating MJ. Richter syndrome: biology, incidence, and therapeutic strategies. Cancer. 2005;103:216–28.
  49. Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, Rudelius M, Wester HJ, Graf N, et al. A pilot study to evaluate 3´-deoxy-3´-18F-fluorothymidine PET for initial and early response imaging in mantle cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1898–902.
  50. Wang RM, Zhu HY, Li F, Liu CB, Guan ZW, Yao SL. Value of 18F-FLT positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diagnosis and staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2012;20:603–7.
  51. Hummel S, Van Aken H, Zarbock A. Inhibitors of CXC chemokine receptor type 4: putative therapeutic approaches in inflammatory diseases. Curr Opin Hematol. 2014;21:29–36.
  52. Hutchings M. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma: time to shift gears for PET-positive patients? Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52:1615–6.
  53. Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, Junger A, Wieder HA, Graf N, et al. Predictive value of initial 18F-FLT uptake in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving R-CHOP treatment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:690–6.
  54. Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, Junger A, Wieder HA, Graf N, et al. Week one FLT-PET response predicts complete remission to R-CHOP and survival in DLBCL. Oncotarget. 2014;5:4050–9.
  55. Vanderhoek M, Juckett MB, Perlman SB, Nickles RJ, Jeraj R. Early assessment of treatment response in patients with AML using 18F-FLT PET imaging. Leuk Res. 2011;35:310–6.
  56. Gourni E, Demmer O, Schottelius M, D’Alessandria C, Schulz S, Dijkgraaf I, et al. PET of CXCR4 expression by a 68Ga-labeled highly specific targeted contrast agent. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1803–10.
  57. Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, Schottelius M, Eiber M, Luckerath K, et al. In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. EMBO Mol Med. 2015;7:477–87.
  58. Herrmann K, Lapa C, Wester HJ, Schottelius M, Schiepers C, Eberlein U, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry for the chemokine receptor CXCR4-targeting probe 68Ga-pentixafor. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:410–6.
  59. Aslanidi IP, Mukhortova OV, Shurupova IV, Derevyanko EP, Katunina TA, Pivnik AV, Stroyakovskii DL. Positron emission tomography: clarifying the stage of the disease in malignant lymphomas. Clinical oncohematology. Fundamental research and clinical practice. 2010;3(2):119-129. (Russian).
  60. Al-Radi LS, Baryakh EA, Belousova IE, Bessmeltsev SS, Vorobiev VI, Votyakova OM, et al. Russian Clinical Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lymphoproliferative Diseases. Modern Oncology. 2014;3:6-126. (Russian).

For citation: Chernov VI, Dudnikova EA, Goldberg VE, Kravchuk TL, Danilova AV, Zelchan RV, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Bragina OD, Popova NO, Goldberg AV. Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):42-50. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8d72a8bb98.40545646

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 59 –64

RADIATION THERAPY

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b90d10ff212.78053112

V.A. Solodkiy, V.M. Sotnikov, S.D. Trotsenko, V.P. Kharchenko, V.D. Chkhikvadze, N.V. Nudnov, G.A. Panshin, A.A. Morgunov

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Recurrences After Surgical and Combined Modality Treatment with Postoperative Radiation Therapy

Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V.A. Solodkiy – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Academician of RAS, Director; V.M. Sotnikov – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Head of Lab.;
S.D. Trotsenko – PhD Med., Radiologist; V.P. Kharchenko – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Academician of RAS, Scientific Supervisor;
V.D. Chkhikvadze – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Head of Dep.; N.V. Nudnov – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Deputy Director;
G.A. Panshin – Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., Head of Dep.; A.A. Morgunov – Senior Researcher

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the patterns of the relapses after the surgical and combined modality treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the postoperative radiotherapy (PORT).

Material and methods: The comparative evaluation of the patterns of the relapses was carried out in 528 NSCLC patients with the IA–IIIB stage after surgical treatment (n = 174) and combined modality treatment (n = 354) using PORT in the hypofractionation regimen 3 Gy/fraction, 5 times a week, TD 36–39 Gy (EQD2 = 43.2–46.8 Gy, α/β = 3) and classical fractionation 2 Gy/fraction, 5 times a week, TD 44 Gy.

Results: The local and the regional relapses developed from 2 to 59 months after treatment, most often in the first three years of follow-up (median 15 months). The local and the regional relapses were statistically significantly more frequent in the surgical treatment group (31.6 % vs 7.1 %). The frequency of the distant metastases in the both groups was not statistically different (46.6 % vs 42.3 %), however, in the surgical treatment group, the distant metastases were more often combined with the locoregional relapses (18.4 % vs 4.5 %). Surgery+PORT in comparison with surgical treatment alone reduces the incidence of locoregional recurrence at the central location of the tumor (8.8 % vs 40.0 %), peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (5.2 % vs 26.0 %), with squamous histological type of tumor (8.4 % vs 37.5 %) and in adenocarcinoma (4.6 % vs 26.4 %), regardless of the volume of surgical treatment (pneumonectomy – 7.0 % vs 47, 1 %, p = 0.0002, lobectomy and bilobectomy – 7.1 % vs 20.6 %, p = 0.001, segmentectomy – 7.1 % vs 50.0 %, p = 0.0001). In the subgroup of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy and PORT, the local, regional and locoregional relapses were statistically significantly less common than in the group of non-small cell lung cancer patients who received only adjuvant chemotherapy (3.9 % vs 17.5 %, p = 0.002, 5.4 % vs 23.8 %, p = 0.001, 6.2 % vs 36.5 %, p = 0.0001). The number of combined relapses (local and/or regional relapses + distant metastases) was actually four times less in all subgroups of patients with PORT (4.7 % vs 20.6 %, p = 0.001).

Conclusion: PORT as the part of combined treatment of non-small cell lung cancer statistically significantly reduces the incidence of the local, regional, locoregional and combined relapses in the squamous cell lung cancer and adenocarcinoma, central and peripheral localization of the tumor, after surgical treatment in the volume of pneumonectomy, lob-bilobectomy and segmentectomy, and when using with or without adjuvant chemotherapy.

Key words: lung cancer, surgical treatment, combined modality treatment, postoperative radiation therapy, the characteristic of recurrences

REFERENCE

  1. UICC International Union Against Cancer: Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind Ch. // In: TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 2009:138-46.
  2. Billiet C, Peeters S, Decaluwé H, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for lung cancer: Is it worth the controversy? Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;51:417-25.
  3. Vansteenkiste J, De Ruysscher D, Eberhardt WE, et al. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):89-98.
  4. De Ruysscher D, Belderbos J, Reymen B, et al. State of the art radiation therapy for lung cancer 2012: a glimpse of the future. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14(2):89-95.
  5. Solodky VA, Sotnikov VM, Trotsenko SD, et al. Characteristics of recurrences after surgical and combined treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Problems in Onсology. 2017;63(4):639-44. (Russian).
  6. Matthews MJ, Kanhouwa S, Pickren J, Robinette D. Frequency of residual and metastatic tumor in patients undergoing curative surgical resection for lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1973;(4)2:63-7.
  7. Kharchenko VP, Chkhikvadze VD, Gvarishvili AA, Vasilyev OA. Surgical and combined treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Vestnik RUDN. Seria Medicina. 2005;29(1):13-16. (Russian).
  8. Varlotto JM, Yao AN, DeCamp MM, et al. Nodal stage of surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer and its effect on recurrence patterns and overall survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(4):765-73.
  9. Robinson CG, Patel AP, Bradley JD, et al. Postoperative Radiotherapy for Pathologic N2 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Review of the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(8):870-6.
  10. Su S, Scott WJ, Allen MS, et al. Patterns of survival and recurrence after surgical treatment of early stage non–small cell lung carcinoma in the ACOSOG Z0030 (ALLIANCE) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(2):747-52.
  11. Kharchenko VP, Chkhikvadze VD. Surgical and combined treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Problems in Onсology. 2009;55(4):455-8. (Russian).
  12. Shen W, Ji J, Zuo Y, et al. Comparison of efficacy for postoperative chemotherapy and concurrent radiochemotherapy in patients with IIIA-pN2 non-small cell lung cancer: An early closed randomized controlled trial. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2014;110(1):120-5.
  13. Warren M, Webster G, Ryder D, et al. An isotoxic planning comparison study for stage II–III non-small cell lung cancer: is intensity-modulated radiotherapy the answer? Clinical Oncology. 2014;26(8):461-7.

For citation: Solodkiy VA, Sotnikov VM, Trotsenko SD, Kharchenko VP, Chkhikvadze VD, Nudnov NV, Panshin GA, Morgunov AA. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Recurrences After Surgical and Combined Modality Treatment with Postoperative Radiation Therapy. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):59-64. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b90d10ff212.78053112

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 51–58

RADIATION THERAPY

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0eb1e48ccda8.47993356

A.D. Zikiryahodjaev1,2,3, M.V. Ermoshchenkova1,2, A.D. Kaprin1,3, V.I. Chissov1,2, G.M. Zapirov3

Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas

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

V.I. Chernov – Deputy Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; E.A. Dudnikova – Junior Researcher;
V.E. Goldberg – Deputy Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; T.L. Kravchuk – hematologist, PhD Med.;
A.V. Danilova – hematologist; R.V. Zelchan – radiologist, PhD Med.; A.A. Medvedeva – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
I.G. Sinilkin – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; O.D. Bragina   Junior Researcher, PhD Med.;
N.O. Popova – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; A.V. Goldberg – Junior Researcher, PhD Med.

Abstract

Introduction: The highest priority for modern clinical oncology is functionally-sparing and organ-conserving treatment. In Russia, breast cancer (BC), among all malignant tumors, accounted for 21.1 % of women in 2017. Oncoplastic radical resections (OPS-BCS = oncoplastic surgery – breast conserving surgery) have been widely used. This term means resection of the breast for cancer using plastic surgery to restore the shape of the breast, in most cases with one-stage correction of the contralateral breast.

Purpose: It was the creation of various techniques of oncoplastic breast surgery, applicable for the appropriate localization of breast cancer and the evaluation of surgical, oncological and aesthetic results.

Methods: From 2013 to 2017, in the P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Center, organ-conserving surgery were performed in 570 patients with BC with an average age of 54.2. Stage 0 was diagnosed in 4.6 %, I – 5.9 %, IIA – 28.7 %, IIB – 6 %, IIIA – 5.1 %, IIIC – 3.3 %, IIIB – 0.2 %, IV – 0.2 %. Radical resection in the standard version was performed in 290 patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic breast surgery in various modifications – in 280. All patients after the organ-conserving surgical treatment received radiation therapy. Patients received chemotherapy, targeted therapy and hormone therapy according to the indications in depending the disease stage and the immunohistochemical type of the tumor.

Results: After an urgent and planned morphological study positive margins of resection were revealed in 10 patients, which required reresection of the edges to a negative state of them in case of an urgent intraoperative response and mastectomy – in case of a planned response. Within 4 years, local recurrences were detected in 4 patients (0.7 %), which required a mastectomy with a one-stage reconstruction. In 1 patient (0.2 %), the disease progressed as metastases to the lung – in this case lobectomy and a necessary chemotherapy were conducted. Cosmetic results were defined as excellent in 70 % cases, good – 25 %, satisfactory – 5 %.

Conclusion: If there are indications for organ-conserving treatment of breast cancer and the patient’s decision concerning this surgery, the patient should be offered methods of oncoplastic surgery for the prevention of psychological and emotional stress, effective rehabilitation, and a quick return to active social life.

Key words: breast cancer, breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic surgery, oncoplastic resection, local recurrence

REFERENCES

  1. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (Morbidity and mortality) edited by Kaprin A.D, Starinsky V.V, Petrova G.V. – M. 2018. 250 p. (Russian).
  2. Reshetov I. V, Chissov V. I. Plastic and reconstructive microsurgery in Oncology. – М/ 2001. 200 p. (Russian).
  3. Agha-Mohammadi S, C.D.L. Cruz, Hurwitz D.J. Breast reconstruction with alloplastic implants. Journal of Surgical Oncology. Nov. 2006;94(6):471-78.
  4. Aurilio G, Bagnardi V, Nolè F, Pruneri G, Graffeo R, Petit JY, et al. Outcome of Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Nonendocrine-Responsive Breast Cancer: A Monoinstitutional Case-Control Study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15(5):237-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.03.009.
  5. Petit JY, Veronesi U, Rey P, Rotmensz N, Botteri E, Rietjens M, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: risk of nipple-areolar recurrences in a series of 579 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(1):97-101.
  6. Hamdi M, Hammond D, Nahai F. Vertical mammoplasty. – Moscow. Bioconcept. 2012. 150 p. (Russian).
  7. Crown A, Wechter DG, Grumley J.W. et al. Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery Reduces Mastectomy and Postoperative Re-excision Rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3363-8.
  8. Franceschini G, Magno S. Fabbri C, et al. Conservative and radical oncoplastic approaches in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2008;(12):387-96.
  9. Munhoz AM, Montag E, Gemperli R. Oncoplastic breast surgery: indications, techniques and perspectives. Gland Surg. 2013;2(3):143-57.
  10. Audretsch W, Kolotas Ch, Rezai M, et al. Conservative treatment for breast cancer. Complications requiring for breast cancer// Materials of IOPBS 3rd International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Symposium (Tokyo). 2010;1:391-2.
  11. Rezai M, Darsow M, Kramer S, et al. Principles and standards in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery – the Duesseldorf experience. 2009. P. 25-34.
  12. Zikiryakhodzaev AD, Ermoshchenkova MV. Oncoplastic breast surgery. Clinical guidelines of the Russian Public Organization “Russian Society of Oncomammology” for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. – Saint-Petersburg, 2017. P. 155-179. (Russian).
  13. Clough. KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C. et al. Improving Breast Cancer Surgery: A Classification and Quadrant per Quadrant Atlas for Oncoplastic Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010:1-17.
  14. Rezai M, Knispel S, Kellersmann S, Lax H, Kimmig R, Kern P. Systematization of Oncoplastic Surgery: Selection of Surgical Techniques and Patient-Reported Outcome in a Cohort of 1,035 Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Feb 12.
  15. Asgiersson K.S, Rasheed T, McCulley S.J, Macmillian R.D. Oncological and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast conderving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31(8):817-23.
  16. Zikiryakhodzaev A.D. Oncoplastic Breast Surgery. 5-7 June 2015, Saint-Petersburg – ICTPS (International Course-Training for Plastic Surgeons). (Russian).
  17. Ismagilov AKh, Vanesyan, AS, Khamitov RA, Kamaletdinov IF. Oncoplastic breast surgery: fundamentals, classification, algorithm of execution. Tumors of the female reproductive system. 2014(4):37-45. (Russian).
  18. Emiroglu M, Sert I, Karaali C, Aksoy SO, Ugurlu L, Aydın C. The effectiveness of simultaneous oncoplastic breast surgery in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015 Jan 14:463-70.
  19. Silverstein MJ, Savalia N, Khan S, Ryan J. Extreme oncoplasty: breast conservation for patients who need mastectomy. Breast J. 2015;21(1):52-9.
  20. England D.W, Chan S.Y, Stonelake P.S, Lee M.J.: Assessment of excision margins following wide local excision for breast carcinoma using specimen scrape cytology and tumour bed biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1994;20:425-9.
  21. MacMillan RD, Purushotham AD, Mallon E, Love JG, George WD. Tumour bed positivity predicts outcome after breast-conserving surgery. Brit J Surg. 1997;84:1559-62.
  22. Cao D, Lin C, Woo SH, Vang R, Tsangaris TN, Argani P. Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for reexcisions. Amer J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1625-32.
  23. Cendán JC, Coco D, Copeland EM. 3rd. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomybed margins. J Amer Coll Surg. 2005;201:194-8.
  24. Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Amer J Surg. 2006;192:509-12.
  25. Janes SE, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15:326-30.
  26. Hewes JC, Imkampe A, Haji A, Bates T. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast conservation surgery. Brit J Surg. 2009;96:47-53.
  27. Tengher-Barna I, Hequet D, Reboul-Marty J, Frassati-Biaggi A, Seince N, Rodrigues-Faure A, et al. Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:299-305.
  28. Hall-Findley EJ. Aesthetic Breast Surgery. Concepts and techniques. St. Louis. 2011. 706 p.
  29. Hammond DC. Short scar periareolar inferior pedcle reduction (SPAIR) mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 103. 1999. P. 890.
  30. Grisotti, A, Calabrese C. Conservative treatment of breast cancer: Reconstructive problems. In, Spear SL (Ed). Surgery of the breast: Principles and Art Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. 2006. P. 147-78.
  31. Lejour M, Abboud M. Vertical mammaplasty without inframammary scar and with breast liposuction. Perspect Plast Surg. 4. 1996. P. 67.
  32. Wise R. A preliminary report on a method of planning the mammaplasty // Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 15. 1956. P. 367.
  33. Claude Lassus. Long-term results of vertical mammoplasty // In: Vertical Mammoplasty Ed by Moustapha Hamdi, Dennis C. Hammond, Foad Nahai. Moscow. 2012. P. 17-22.
  34. Pitanguy I. Breast hypertrophy. In: transactions of the International Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2nd Congress, London. Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK (1960). 509 p.

For citation: Zikiryahodjaev AD, Ermoshchenkova MV, Kaprin AD, Chissov VI, Zapirov GM. Modern Trends in the Breast Cancer Conserving Surgery and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):51-58. (English).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0eb1e48ccda8.47993356

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 65 –70

RADIATION PHYSICS, TECHNOLOGY AND DOSIMETRY

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0e7486915d55.10064971

A.O. Lisovskaya1,2, A.A. Loginova1, K.A. Galich2, V.N. Belyaev2, A.V. Nechesnyuk1

Evaluation of the Dose Index Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Pediatric Patients

1. Dmitry Rogachev National Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, 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.O. Lisovskaya – Medical Physicist, Post-Graduate Student; A.A. Loginova – Senior Medical Physicist, PhD Applicant;
K.A. Galich – Student; V.N. Belyaev – Dr. Sci. Phys.-Math., Prof.; A.V. Nechesnyuk – Head of Dep., PhD Med.

Abstract

Purpose: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an indispensable procedure for accurate patient positioning during radiation therapy (RT) in many clinical cases. However, the patients get an additional dose using CBCT. This dose is neither therapeutic nor diagnostic. It is very difficult to obtain the reliable information about the dose distribution within the patient using the CBCT. Despite this, there is a need to control the additional dose for the pediatric patients and reduce it. There are different approaches of imaging dose evaluation. Most accurate methods are based on the Monte-Carlo calculation and thermoluminescent dosimeters-based measurements. However, the implementation of these methods is complex and cumbersome, that makes impossible their application in routine clinical practice. The evaluation of dose indexes is an accessible and convenient alternative. The purpose of this study is evaluation of the cone beam computed tomography dose indexes for different imaging protocols and object sizes.

Material and methods: The technique based on absolute and relative dose measurements for CBCT was used in this study. Absolute dose measurements were performed at the periphery and center of the FREEPOINT (CIRS) phantom using the Farmer type chamber FC65-P for each CBCT protocols. FREEPOINT (20 cm height, 30 cm width, 30 cm length) was used for imitation big chest and pelvis. Inner insert (16 cm diameter) of the phantom was used for imitation head, small chest and pelvis. The dose profiles were measured using I’mRT MatriXX (IBA) and analyzed by OmniPro-I’mRT software, dose indexes DLP (dose–length product) were calculated.

Results: The dose indexes were identified for five protocols corresponding three scanning areas (Head and Neck, Chest and Pelvis). The dose indexes were 51.82 and 90.25 mGy×cm using Head and Neck S20 and Head and Neck M20 protocols respectively. The lowest dose index was obtained 13.28 mGy×cm for Fast Head and Neck S20.
It was established that the scanning object size strongly affects on the dose index values and, as result, on the absorbed dose within the patient. The dose indexes were 305.42 and 187.53 mGy×cm using scanning protocol Chest M20 for small and big phantoms respectively. The similar results were obtained for scanning protocol Pelvis M15. The highest dose index was obtained 846.93 mGy×cm for the small phantom, while the dose index was 563.79 mGy×cm for the big phantom.
The necessity of several clinical protocols to scan different areas was shown. Using of the Pelvis M15 protocol for head scanning may increase the additional point dose 96 times in comparison with Fast Head and Neck S20 protocol.

Conclusion: The dose indexes were evaluated taking into account the size of the scanning object for different imaging protocols. Routine use of CBCT in clinical practice requires a sensible choice of the scanning protocol based on the results of the dose index estimation.

Key words: IGRT, CTCB, dose index, scanning protocols, visualization dose

REFERENCE

  1. Islam M, Purdie T, Norrlinger B, et al. Patient dose from kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography imaging in radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2006;33:1573-82. DOI: 10.1118/1.2198169.
  2. Khoruzhik SA, Mikhailov AN. Radiation dose during computed tomographic studies: dosimetric parameters, measurement, modes of reduction, radiation risk. J Radiol Nucl Med. 2007;6:53-63. (Russian).
  3. Alaei P, Spezi E. Imaging dose from cone beam computed tomography in radiation therapy. Physica Medica. 2015;31(7):647-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.06.003.
  4. Ding G, Munro P, Pawlowski J, et al. Reducing radiation exposure to patients from kV-CBCT imaging. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2010;97(3):585-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.08.005.
  5. Brenner D. Induced second cancers after prostate-cancer radiotherapy: no cause for concern. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006;65:637-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.08.005.
  6. Murphy MJ, Balter J, BenComo J et al. The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 75. Med Phys. 2007;34:4041-63. DOI: 10.1118/1.2775667.
  7. Kalender WA. Computer Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. Moscow: Technosphera. 2006. 344 p. (Russian).
  8. Marks L, Yorke E, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010;76(3):10–19. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754.
  9. Marchant T, Joshi K. Comprehensive Monte-Carlo study of patient doses from cone-beam CT imaging in radiotherapy. J Radiol Prot. 2017;37(1):13-30. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/37/1/13.
  10. Groves A, Owen K, Courtney H, et al. 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte-Carlo simulation. BJR. 2004;77:662–65. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/48307881.
  11. Amer А, Marchant Т, Sykes JR, et al. Imaging doses from the Elekta Synergy X-ray cone beam CT system. BJR. 2007;80:476–82. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/80446730.
  12. Buckley J, Wilkinson D, Malaroda A, Metcalf P. Investigation of the radiation dose from cone beam CT for image guided radiotherapy: a comparison of methodologies. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2018;19(1):174-83. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12239.
  13. Chair CM, Coffey C, DeWerd L, et al. AAPM protocol for 40–300 kV X-ray beam dosimetry in radiotherapy and radiobiology. Med Phys. 2001;28(6):868-93. DOI: 10.1118/1.1374247.
  14. Dixon R, Anderson A, Bakalyar D, et al. Comprehensive Methodology for the Evaluation of Radiation Dose in X-Ray Computed Tomography. Report of AAPM Task Group. 2010;111: 20740–3846.
  15. Scandurra D, Lawford C. A dosimetry technique for measuring kilovoltage cone-beam CT dose on a linear accelerator using radiotherapy equipment. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2014;15(4):80-91. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4658.
  16. Liao X, Wang Y, Lang J, et al. Variation of patient imaging doses with scanning parameters for linac-integrated kilovoltage cone beam CT. Bio-Med. Mater. Engin. 2015;26:1659-67. DOI: 10.3233/BME-151465.
  17. Song W, Kamath S, Ozawaet. S, et al. A dose comparison study between XVI and OBI CBCT systems. Med Phys. 2008;35(2):480-6. DOI: 10.1118/1.2825619.
  18. Ding G, Alaei P, Curran B, et al. Image Guidance Doses to Radiotherapy Patients. Med Phys. 2018;45(5):84-99. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12824.
  19. Golikov VY, Kalnitsky SA, Sarychev SS, Bratilova AA. Guidelines. 2.6.1.2944-11. Ionizing radiation, radiation safety. Control of effective radiation doses of patients during medical X-ray examinations. 2011. (Russian).

For citation: Lisovskaya AO, Loginova AA, Galich KA, Belyaev VN, Nechesnyuk AV. Evaluation of the Dose Index Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Pediatric Patients. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):65-70. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0e7486915d55.10064971

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

  1. 2018-6-71_Vasin_eng
  2. 2018-6-82_Tukov_eng
  3. 2018-6-83_Soloviev_eng
  4. 2019-1-5-14_Semochkina_eng

Contact Information

 

46, Zhivopisnaya st., 123098, Moscow, Russia Phone: +7 (499) 190-95-51. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Journal location

Attendance

4009269
Today
Yesterday
This week
Last week
This month
Last month
For all time
3861
6045
22902
30856
138975
124261
4009269
Forecast today
9288

Your IP:216.73.217.31
Visitor Counter

© Журнал "Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность" 2020г.

Яндекс.Метрика

Наверх