Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 43–49

RADIATION THERAPY

E.A. Dunaeva, E.A. Kadieva, L.V. Demidova, A.V. Boyko, S.A. Kozhevnikova, T.A. Teleous, O.B. Dubovetskaya, R.N. Plavnik, E.S. Tsvetaeva, N.I. Khramtsova

Methodic of Conformal Radiation Therapy of Cervical Cancer with Ovarian Transposition

Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

Purpose: To study optimal methods of conformal external beam radiation with 3D planning of cervical cancer in women with ovarian transposition for ovary care.

Material and methods: 44 young women with cervical cancer (T1b1,2 2a,b, N0–1 M0) treated at Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute in period from 2009 to 2011. The patients were treated with combined method included ovarian transposition. First group included 26 cervical cancer patients, with laparoscopic ovarian transposition, preoperative radiochemotherapy (5-FU 2000–2500 mg, cisplatin 90 mg, external beam radiation after 30 Gy + 2 fractions of brachytherapy 10 Gy) and panhysterectomy. Second group included 18 cervical cancer patients with panhysterectomy and ovarian transposition, postoperative external beam radiation after 42.5–47.5 Gy and brachytherapy after 20–25Gy to vagina. Further evaluation included CT scan and dosimetry. We use 6 treatment fields with gantry angles 0, 55, 100, 180, 260 and 350 degrees in localization ovaries upper than superior limb of target. In cases of low ovaries transposition the whole target treated twofields method with gantry 0 and 180 degrees.

Results: Mean ovary dose of laparoscopic ovarian transposition was 0.53 Gy (from 0.13 to 3.5 Gy).Mean ovary dose of laparotomic ovarian transposition was 1.31 Gy (from 0.34 to 4.14 Gy).

Conclusion: Our methods of conformal radiation therapy with new technique give a possibility to avoid irradiation of transpositional ovaries in young women with cervical cancer.

Key words: cervical cancer, ovarian transposition, conformal external beam radiation  

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 29–35

RADIATION PHYSICS, TECHNOLOGY AND DOSIMETRY

V.A. Taranenko¹, M.I. Vorobiova¹, M.O. Degteva¹, N.G. Bougrov¹, E.I. Cherepanova²,E.S. Kuropatenko²

Verification of the External Exposure Levels in the Upper Streams of Techa River (Metlino) by Luminescence Measurements

1. Ural Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia; 2. Russian Federal Nuclear Center–the All-Russian Scientific and Research Institute of Technical Physics, Snezhinsk, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the external exposure doses in the upper streams of Techa river according to the updated source term and geometry of irradiation; to compare the results with the results of luminescence measurements of building bricks.

Material and methods: The Techa River Dosimetry System, TRDS-2009 has been developed based on archival data of liquid radioactive waste discharges to the Techa river. Major changes in the source term and hydrological data for Metlino settlement located 5–7 km from the point of discharges were taken into account. Estimated levels of external exposure in Metlino can be validated by results of luminescence measurements of irradiated natural quartz contained in building bricks (bricks of the watermill and the granary). Prior reconstruction (TRDS-2000) of the accumulated dose in air at the river shore close to south-west wall of the mill overestimated the results of the luminescence measurements by approx 20 %. This discrepancy has to be explained and taken into account, since the data on accumulated dose in air are used to estimate the external exposure to the river residents.

Results: Based on the improved source term, TRDS-2009 shows insignificant 4 % increase (relative to TRDS-2000) of accumulated in 1949–1956 dose in air at the shore in Metlino and yields 27.7 Gy. The new estimation for external doses due to ¹³⁷Cs, ⁹⁵Nb and ⁹⁵Zr were also carried out. The results of radiation transport modeling for the south-western wall of the mill showed on average 10 % decrease of accumulated dose in air reconstructed from the luminescence dose in comparison with previous estimation. Overall, a better agreement between the TRDS-2009 dose in air and independent luminescence measurements in bricks of Metlino is achieved using the new irradiation geometry and the source term.

Conclusion: As in TRDS-2000, that the results of present validation shows that luminescence measurements do not contradict our knowledge about external exposure in the upper Techa.

Key words: Techa, Mayak, dose reconstruction, external exposure, luminescence dosimetry, Monte Carlo method

Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2013. Том 58. № 1. С. 36-42

RADIATION MEDICINE

V.Yu. Soloviev, A.V. Barabanova, A.Yu. Bushmanov, A.K. Guskova, L.A. Il’in

Review of the Medical Consequences of Radiation Accidents in the Former USSR Territory (Burnasyan FMBC of FMBA of Russia Register Data)

FSBE Burnasyan FMBC of the FMBA of Russia. Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

The paper sums up the information on radiation accidents resulted into clinically significant human exposure occured at the former USSR territory. For the period from 1949 to the present moment, at least 356 radiation accidents and incidents linked with 765 cases of the clinically significant human exposure have been registered. The exposed cohort includes 348 patients of acute radiation sickness including those aggravated with local radiation injuries. Also there were 407 victims suffered with local radiation injuries only. Totally, 71 radiation induced fatalities within first 3–4 months after the irradiation were observed. The attempt to classify all cases by the type of radiation accident dependently on the source of radiation and the kind of radiological or nuclear facility has been made.

Key words: radiation accident, medical consequences, acute radiation sickness, local radiation injuries, database  

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 5–28

RADIATION SAFETY

B.A. Napier¹, M.O. Degteva², N.B. Shagina², L.R. Anspaugh³

Uncertainty Analysis for the Techa River Dosimetry System

1. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA; 2. Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 3. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Abstract

Purpose: Estimation of uncertainties in the doses for the members of the Techa River Cohort (TRC) with a two-dimensional Monte Carlo approach.

Material and methods: In order to provide more accurate and precise estimates of individual dose (and thus more precise estimates of radiation risk) for the members of the TRC, the Techa River Dosimetry System used. The deterministic version of the improved dosimetry system TRDS-2009D was basically completed in April 2009. Recent developments in evaluation of dose-response models in light of uncertain dose have highlighted the importance of different types of uncertainties in the development of individual dose estimates. Thus, the TRDS-2009 parameters were analyzed accordantly. These include uncertain parameters that may be either shared (common to some or all individuals) or unshared (a unique value for each person whose dose is to be estimated) within the dosimetric cohort. The nature of the type of uncertainty may be aleatory (random variability of true values due to stochastic processes) or epistemic (due to lack of complete knowledge about a unique quantity). Finally, there is a need to identify whether the structure of the errors is either related to measurement (the estimate differs from the true value by an error that is stochastically independent of the true value; frequently called classical uncertainty) or related to grouping (the true value varies from the estimate by an error that is random and is independent of the estimate; frequently called Berkson uncertainty).

Results: An approach has been developed that identifies the nature of the various input parameters and calculational methods incorporated in the Techa River Dosimetry System (based on the TRDS-2009D implementation), and a stochastic calculation model has been prepared to estimate the uncertainties in the dose estimates. This article reviews the concepts of uncertainty analysis, the equations, and input parameters, and then identifies the authors’ interpretations of their general nature.

Conclusions: It presents the approach selected so that the stochastic, Monte-Carlo, implementation of the dosimetry system TRDS-2009MC provides useful information regarding the uncertainties of the doses.

Key words: uncertainty analysis, radiation dosimetry, Techa River

REFERENCES

1. Krestinina L.Yu., Preston D.L., Ostroumova E.V. et al. Protracted radiation exposure and cancer mortality in the Techa River Cohort. Radiat. Res., 2005. Vol. 164. P. 602–611.
2. Krestinina L.Yu., Davis F., Ostroumova E.V. et al. Solid cancer incidence and low-dose-rate radiation exposures in the Techa River Cohort: 1956–2002. Intl. J. Epidemiol. 2007. Vol. 36. P. 1038–1046.
3. Krestinina L., Preston D.L., Davis F.G. et al. Leukemia incidence among people exposed to chronic radiation from the contaminated Techa River, 1953–2005. Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 2009. Vol. 49. P. 195–201.
4. Degteva M.O., Vorobiova M.I., Kozheurov V.P. et al.Dose reconstruction system for the exposed population living along the Techa River. Health Phys., 2000. Vol. 78. P. 542–554.
5. Degteva M.O., Kozheurov V.P., Tolstykh E.I. et al. The Techa River Dosimetry System: Methods for the reconstruction of internal dose. Health Phys., 2000. Vol. 79. P. 24–35.
6. Degteva M.O., Vorobiova M.I., Tolstykh E.I. et al. Development of an improved dose reconstruction system for the Techa River population affected by the operation of the Mayak Production Association. Radiat. Res., 2006. Vol. 166. P. 255–270.
7. Degteva M.O., Shagina N.B., Vorobiova M.I. et al. Reevaluation of waterborne releases of radioactive materials from the Mayak Production Association into the Techa River in 1949–1951. Health Phys., 2012. Vol. 102. P. 25–38.
8. Degteva M.O., Tolstykh E.I., Vorobiova M.I. et al. Structure of the revised Techa River Dosimetry System: Exposure pathways and system databases. Chelyabinsk and Salt Lake City: Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine and University of Utah; Combined report for Milestones 20 and 21, Part 2. 2009.
9. Stram D.O., Kopecky K.J. Power and uncertainty analysis of epidemiological studies of radiation-related disease risk in which dose estimates are based on a complex dosimetry system: some observations. Radiat. Res., 2003. Vol. 160. P. 408–417.
10. Schafer D.W., Gilbert E.S. Some statistical implications of dose uncertainty in radiation dose–response analyses. Radiat. Res., 2006. Vol. 166. P. 303–312.
11. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis and Dose and Risk Assessments Related to Environmental Contamination, NCRP Commentary No. 14. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP, 1996.
12. Hofer E. How to account for uncertainty due to measurement errors in an uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Health Phys., 2008. Vol. 95. P. 277–290.
13. Carroll R.J., Ruppert D., Stefanski L.A. et al. Measurement Errors in Non-Linear Models: A Modern Perspective. Second Edition. Vol. 105. Chapman & Hall/CRC. 2006.
14. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Uncertainties in the Measurement and Dosimetry of External Radiation, NCRP Report No. 158. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP, 2007. 567 p.
15. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Uncertainties in Internal Radiation Dose Assessment, NCRP Report No. 164. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP, 2010.
16. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Evaluating the Reliability of Predictions Made Using Environmental Transfer Models. IAEA Safety Series No. 100, STI/PUB/835. Vienna, Austria: IAEA, 1989. 106 p.
17. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Radiation Dose Reconstruction: Principles and Practices, NCRP Report No. 163. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP, 2010.
18. Li Y., Guolo A., Hoffman F.O. et al. Shared uncertainty in measurement error problems, with application to Nevada Test Site fallout data. Biometrics, 2007. Vol. 63. P. 1226–1236.
19. Napier B.A., Shagina N.B., Degteva M.O. et al. Preliminary uncertainty analysis for the doses estimated using the Techa River Dosimetry System – 2000. Health Phys., 2001. Vol. 81. P. 395–405.