Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025. Vol. 70. № 1

DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-1-109-114

V.I. Chernov^{1, 2, 3}, A.N. Rybina¹, R.V. Zelchan^{1, 2}, A.A. Medvedeva¹, O.D. Bragina^{1, 2},
N.A. Lushnikova¹, E.A. Usynin¹, A. Abouzayed⁴, S.S. Rinne⁴, J. Sörensen⁵,
V.М. Tolmachev^{2, 6}, A.М. Orlova^{2, 4, 7}

The Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Antagonist [^99MTc]Tc-Rm26 is a Novel Radiopharmaceutical for Prostate Cancer Imaging

¹ Scientific Research Institute of Oncology, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Tomsk, Russia

² Oncoteranostics Research Center, Scientific Research School of Chemistry and Applied Biomedical
   Sciences, Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia

³ National Research Center ‟Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, Russia

⁴ Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

⁵ Department of Surgical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine & PET, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

⁶ Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

⁷ Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Contact person: V.I. Chernov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ABSTRACT 

Gastrin releasing peptide receptor (GRPR) is overexpressed in prostate cancer (PC). Currently, radiopharmaceuticals (RP) for visualization of GPRP based on bombesin antagonists are developed. The aim of the present work was to conduct a phase I clinical trial of the GRPR antagonist [^99mTc]Tc-RM26 and to study the possibility of its use for PC SPECT imaging. Thirteen patients diagnosed with PC were included in the study. Patients received [^99mTc]Tc-RM26 intravenous bolus at a dose of 640±165 MBq (40 μg/injection). Six patients underwent whole-body planar imaging and SPECT/CT at 2, 4, 6, and 24 h after injection. Seven patients had SPECT/CT alone performed 2 h after RFP injection. The study showed that a single intravenous injection of [^99mTc]Tc-RM26 is safe and well tolerated. Critical organs for RFP are the gallbladder, small intestine, upper colon and kidney. The dose burden per patient associated with the administration of [^99mTc]Tc-RM26 RFP is 3–6 mSv per study. The studied RP allows to visualize primary prostate malignant tumors, as well as its metastases to lymph nodes and bones. It is reasonable to conduct further clinical studies of [^99mTc]Tc-RM26 to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of SPECT/CT with this RP for diagnostics and staging of prostate cancer. 

Keywords: prostate cancer, gastrin-releasing peptide receptor antagonist, [^99mTc]Tc-RM26, SPECT

For citation: Chernov VI, Rybina AN, Zelchan RV, Medvedeva AA, Bragina OD, Lushnikova NA, Usynin EA, Abouzayed A, Rinne SS, Sörensen J, Tolmachev VМ, Orlova AМ. The Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Antagonist [^99MTc]Tc-Rm26 is a Novel Radiopharmaceutical for Prostate Cancer Imaging. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025;70(1):109–114. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-1-109-114

References

1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71:209–249.

2. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2022 году / Под ред. А.Д.Каприна, В.В.Старинского, А.О.Шахзадовой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А.Герцена − филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2022. 239 с. [Sostoyaniye Onkologicheskoy Pomoshchi Naseleniyu Rossii v 2022 Godu = The State of Oncological Care for the Population of Russia in 2022. Ed. A.D.Kaprin, V.V.Starinskiy, A.O.Shakhzadova. Moscow Publ., 2022. 239 p. (In Russ.)].

3. Miller K.D., Nogueira L., Devasia T., Mariotto A.B., Yabroff K.R., Jemal A., Kramer J., Siegel R.L. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409-436. doi: 10.3322/caac.21731.

4. Von Eyben F.E., Picchio M., von Eyben R., Rhee H., Bauman G. 68Ga-Labeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Ligand Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. Focus. 2018;4:686–693.

5. Ananias H.J., van den Heuvel M.С., Helfrich W., de Jong I.J. Expression of the Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor, the Prostate Stem Cell Antigen and the Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen in Lymph Node and Bone Metastases of Prostate Cancer. Prostate. 2009;69:1101–1108.

6. Beer M., Montani M., Gerhardt J., Wild P.J., Hany T.F., Hermanns T., Müntener M., Kristiansen G. Profiling Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor in Prostate Tissues: Clinical Implications and Molecular Correlates. Prostate. 2012;72:318-325.

7. Cornelio D.B., Roesler R., Schwartsmann G. Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor as a Molecular Target in Experimental Anticancer Therapy. Ann Oncol. 2007;18;1457-1466. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm058.

8. Dalm S.U., Martens J.W., Sieuwerts A.M., van Deurzen C.H., Koelewijn S.J., de Blois E., Maina T., Nock B.A., Brunel L., Fehrentz J.-A., Martinez J., de Jong M., Melis M. In vitro and in vivo Application of Radiolabeled Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Ligands in Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:752-757. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.153023.

9. Morgat C., MacGrogan G., Brouste V., Vélasco V., Sévenet N., Bonnefoi H., Fernandez P., Debled M., Hindié E. Expression of Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor in Breast Cancer and Its Association with Pathologic. Biologic. and Clinical Parameters: a Study of 1.432 Primary Tumors. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1401-1407. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.188011. 

10. Ceci F., Castellucci P., Polverari G., Iagaru A. Clinical Application of Fluciclovine PET. Choline PET and Gastrin-Releasing Polypeptide Receptor (Bombesin) Targeting PET in Prostate Cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30:641-648. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000794.

11. Bodei L., Ferrari M., Nunn A., Llull J., Cremonesi M., Martano L., Laurora G., Scardino E., Tiberini S., Bufi G., Eato de Cobelli O., Paganelli G. 177Lu-AMBA Bombesin Analogue in Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer Patients: a Phase I Escalation Study with Single-Cycle Administrations [Abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34;2:221.

12. Schally A.V., Comaru-Schally A.M., Nagy A., Kovacs M., Szepeshazi K., Plonowski A., Varga J.L., Halmos G. Hypothalamic Hormones and Cancer. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2001;22:248–291.

13. Millar J.B.; Rozengurt E. Chronic Desensitization to Bombesin by Progressive Down-Regulation of Bombesin Receptors in Swiss 3T3 cells. Distinction from Acute Desensitization. J Biol Chem. 1990;265:12052–12058.

14. Schwartsmann G., DiLeone L.P., Horowitz M., Schunemann D., Cancella A., Pereira A.S., Richter M., Souza F., da Rocha A.B., Souza F.H., Pohlmann P., De Nucci G. A Phase I Trial of the Bombesin/Gastrin-Releasing Peptide (BN/GRP) Antagonist RC3095 in Patients with Advanced Solid Malignancies. Invest New Drugs. 2006;24:403–412.

15. Mansi R., Nock B.A., Dalm S.U., Busstra M.B., van Weerden W.M., Maina T. Radiolabeled Bombesin Analogs. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:5766. doi: 10.3390/cancers13225766.

16. Nock B.A., Kaloudi A., Kanellopoulos P., Janota B., Bromińska B., Iżycki D., Mikołajczak R., Czepczynski R., Maina T. [^99mTc]Tc-DB15 in GRPR-Targeted Tumor Imaging with SPECT: from Preclinical Evaluation to the First Clinical Outcomes. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:5093. doi: 10.3390/cancers13205093.

17. Abouzayed A., Rinne S.S., Sabahnoo H., Sörensen J., Chernov V., Tolmachev V., Orlova A. Preclinical Evaluation of ^99mTc-Labeled GRPR Antagonists MaSSS/SES-PEG2-RM26 for Imaging of Prostate Cancer. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:182.

18. Bragina O., Chernov V., Schulga А., Konovalova E., Garbukov E., Vorobyeva A., Orlova A., Tashireva L., Sörensen J., Zelchan R., Medvedeva A., Deyev S., Tolmachev V. Phase I Trial of ^99mTc-(HE)3-G3 a DARPin-Based Probe for Imaging of HER2 Expression in Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:528-535.

19. Schroeder R., de Visser M., van Weerden W.M. Androgen-Regulated Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Expression in Androgen-Dependent Human Prostate Tumor Xenografts. Int J Cancer. 2010;126;12:2826–2834. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25000. 

20. Брагина О.Д., Чернов В.И., Ларькина М.С., Зельчан Р.В., Синилкин И.Г., Медведева А.А. Простатический специфический мембранный антиген: современные возможности в диагностике рака предстательной железы // Молекулярная медицина. 2018. Т.16. №4. С. 3-8 [Bragina O.D., Chernov V.I., Lar’kina M.S., Zel’chan R.V., Sinilkin I.G., Medvedeva A.A. Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen: Modern Possibilities in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. Molekulyarnaya Meditsina = Molecular Medicine. 2018;16;4:3-8 (In Russ.)].

21. Медведева А.А., Чернов В.И., Усынин Е.А., Зельчан Р.В., Брагина О.Д., Лушникова Н.А. Использование 177Lu-ПСМА для радионуклидной терапии у пациентов с кастрационно-резистентным раком предстательной железы // Сибирский онкологический журнал. 2021. Т.20. №3. С. 115-123 [Medvedeva A.A., Chernov V.I., Usynin Ye.A., Zel’chan R.V., Bragina O.D., Lushnikova N.A. Use of 177Lu-PSMA for Radionuclide Therapy in Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Sibirskiy Onkologicheskiy Zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2021;20;3:115-123 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.21294/1814-4861-2021-20-3-115-123

22. Вязьмин В.В., Зуков Р.А., Чанчикова Н.Г., Левченко Е.А., Чернов В.И. Современные возможности ПЭТ/КТ в диагностике рака предстательной железы // Сибирский онкологический журнал. 2021. Т.20. №5. С. 115-122 [Vyaz’min V.V., Zukov R.A., Chanchikova N.G., Levchenko Ye.A., Chernov V.I. Modern Capabilities of PET/CT in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. Sibirskiy Onkologicheskiy Zhurnal = Siberian Oncology Journal. 2021;20;5:115-122 (In Russ.)]. 

23. Bertacinni G., Impicciatore M., Molina E., Zappia L. Action of Bombesin on Human Gastrointestinal Motility. Italian J Gastroent. 1974;6:45–51.

24. Stoykow C., Erbes T., Maecke H.R., Bulla S., Bartholomä M., Mayer S., Drendel V., Bronsert P., Werner M., Gitsch G., Weber W.A., Stickeler E., Meyer P.T. Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Imaging in Breast Cancer Using the Receptor Antagonist 68Ga-RM2 And PET. Theranostics. 2016;6:1641-1650.

25. Wieser G., Mansi R., Grosu A.L., Schultze-Seemann W., Dumont-Walter R.A., Meyer P.T., Maecke H.R., Reubi J.C., Weber W.A. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Imaging of Prostate Cancer with a Gastrin Releasing Peptide Receptor Antagonist – from Mice to Men. Theranostics. 2014;4:412-419.

26. Kwee S.A., Wei H., Sesterhenn I., Yun D., Coel M.N. Localization of Primary Prostate Cancer with Dual-Phase 18F-Fluorocholine PET. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:262-269.

27. Van de Wiele C., Dumont F., Dierckx R.A., Peers S.H., Thornback J.R., Slegers G., Thierens H. Biodistribution and Dosimetry of ^99mTc-RP527 a Gastrin-Releasing Peptide (GRP) Agonist for the Visualization of GRP Receptor–Expressing Malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1722–1727.

28. Mather S.J., Nock B.A., Maina T., Gibson V., Ellison D., Murray I., Sobnack R., Colebrook S., Wan S., Halberrt C., Szysko T., Powles T., Avril N. GRP Receptor Imaging of Prostate Cancer Using [^99mTc]Demobesin 4: a First-in-Man Study. Mol Imaging Biol. 2014;16:888-895.

29. Bakker I.L., Fröberg A.C., Busstra M.B., Verzijlbergen J.F., Konijnenberg M., van Leenders G.H., Schoots I.G., de Blois E., van Weerden W.M., Dalm S.U., Maina T., Nock B.A., de Jong M. GRPr Antagonist 68Ga-SB3 PET/CT Imaging of Primary Prostate Cancer in Therapy-Naïve Patients. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:1517–1523.

30. Zhang J., Niu G., Fan X., Lang L., Hou G., Chen L., Wu H., Zhu Z., Li F., Chen X. PET Using a GRPR Antagonist 68Ga-RM26 in Healthy Volunteers and Prostate Cancer Patients. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:922–928.

31. den Wyngaert T.V., Elvas F., De Schepper S., Kennedy J.A., Israel O. SPECT/CT: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. It is Time to Reach for the Sky! J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1284–1291.

32. Chernov V., Rybina A., Zelchan R., Medvedeva A., Bragina O., Lushnikova N., Doroshenko A., Usynin E., Tashirevа L., Vtorushin S., Abouzayed A., Rinne S.S., Sörensen J., Tolmachev V., Orlova A. Phase I Trial of [99m Tc]Tc-maSSS-PEG2 -RM26, a Bombesin Analogue Antagonistic to Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptors (GRPRs), for SPECT Imaging of GRPR Expression in Malignant Tumors. Cancers. 2023;15:1631. doi: 10.3390/cancers15061631.

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

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Financing. With the support of the Strategic Academic Leadership program ‟Priority 2030” No. 2030-FROM-024-202–2024 ‟Radionuclide theranostics of prostate cancer”.

Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.

Article received: 20.10.2024. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2024.

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025. Vol. 70. № 1

OLEG ANATOLIEVICH KOCHETKOV

On January 15, 2025, Oleg Anatolyevich Kochetkov, a leading scientist and organizer of science, turned 90 years old. He is a leading researcher at the Laboratory of Radiation Safety of Personnel of the State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation – the Federal Medical Biophysical Center named after A.I. Burnazyan.

In 1959, after graduating from the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, O.A. Kochetkov was sent to work at the Institute of Biophysics of the USSR Ministry of Health (now the A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center), where he rose through the ranks from engineer to deputy director for science. For over 40 years, he headed the department and laboratory for the development and solution of scientific and practical problems of radiation safety at nuclear industry enterprises.

A major role in the development of O.A. Kochetkov as a scientist from the very beginning of his practical work was played by close creative communication with such famous scientists and specialists as L.A. Ilyin, S.M. Gorodinsky, A.D. Turkin, E.E. Kovalev, I.B. Keirim-Markus, R.Ya. Sayapina and others.

Already in the first years of work at the IBP, O.A. Kochetkov demonstrated a high professional level, organizational skills and personal courage. He took direct part in studying the radiation situation on the first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" and on the first generation nuclear submarines. Under his leadership, a set of works was carried out to assess the dose from gamma-neutron irradiation of submarine personnel, as well as the radiation consequences due to the presence of leaks in the primary circuit of the nuclear reactor and the development of emergency situations. These studies were carried out in the conditions of autonomous submarine voyages. For participation in the first voyage of the nuclear submarine K-3 to the North Pole in 1963, O.A. Kochetkov was awarded the Order of the Red Star.

Since the early 1970s and for many years, O.A. Kochetkov, having headed the laboratory, and then the department, devoted the main attention in his scientific and creative work to solving radiation-hygienic problems in the process of introducing new technologies into the nuclear fuel cycle. Thus, a large volume of research was carried out to study and evaluate the conditions for using mixed uranium-plutonium fuel (MOX fuel) in nuclear power engineering. Sanitary and hygienic requirements were substantiated in the case of a two-zone layout of equipment placement in the production of MOX fuel, in contrast to the three-zone layout adopted in the nuclear industry.

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 led to a rethinking of the attitude of both the public and specialists to the problems of developing nuclear energy, and the work carried out to eliminate the consequences of the Chernobyl accident demonstrated the high level of specialists responsible for solving the problems of ensuring radiation safety. Among the specialists headed by Academician L.A. Ilyin was O.A. Kochetkov. He had to carry out responsible work as part of the Government Commission during the most intense period of work to eliminate the consequences of the Chernobyl accident (June-July 1986). For several years, he headed a set of works that were carried out by the Institute of Biophysics directly in the Chernobyl area to study the radiation situation, control personnel exposure, and zoning of the contaminated territory around the Chernobyl NPP. A number of standards and requirements were developed for the implementation of work to eliminate the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, and a number of documents were developed for the first time.

In the 90s. In the last century and at the beginning of the 2000s, there was a revision towards tightening the main dose standards. This required specialists in radiation safety and radiation hygiene to pay great attention to the development of new regulatory and methodological documents. With the participation of O.A. Kochetkov, and in most cases under his scientific supervision, more than 50 regulatory and methodological documents were developed to solve radiation safety problems at nuclear industry and energy enterprises. Among the most significant are NRB-1999, OSPORB-2000, SPORO-2002. In 2001-2004, 5 collections of methodological documents were published, which were updated and republished in 6 collections for 2016-2019. This work was carried out as part of the activities of the Methodological Council for Ensuring Radiation Safety, which was formed in 1997 in the system of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia and functioned on the basis of the Institute of Biophysics of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia. O.A. Kochetkov, as Deputy Director of the Institute for Science, was the scientific director of the Methodological Council.

A large volume of regulatory and methodological documents was developed under the leadership of O.A. Kochetkov on issues of regulating radiation safety in the nuclear weapons complex.

As Deputy Director of the Institute, O.A. Kochetkov headed the work and took an active part in the preparation and publication of a number of monographs that presented the scientific potential of the Institute's scientists in the field of the main problems of radiation safety and radiation hygiene. These are "Plutonium", M., Izdat, 2005, "Technogenic Irradiation and Human Safety", M., Izdat, 2006, "Radiation and Dosimetric Aspects of Eliminating the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident", M., Izdat, 2011 and others, more than 10 monographs in total.

For many years, O.A. Kochetkov has been a member of the Russian Scientific Commission on Radiation Protection (RSCP). He regularly delivers problematic reports on current issues of dosimetry, standardization and other aspects of work.

We sincerely congratulate Oleg Anatolyevich on his anniversary and wish him good health and many years of successful scientific work in the field of ensuring radiation safety of personnel.

Management of the Federal State Budgetary Institution State Scientific Center Federal Medical
and Biological Center named after A.I. Burnazyan of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia,

Editorial Board of the Journal

"Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety".

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025. Vol. 70. № 1

DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-1-115-121

A.V. Petraikin¹, А.А. Baulin¹,Y.A. Vasilev¹, Z.R. Artyukova¹, A.K. Smorchkova¹,
D.S. Semenov¹, A.A. Alihanov², R.A. Erizhokov¹, O.V. Omelyanskaya¹

Analysis of Possibility of Using an Algorithm for Correcting Metal Artifacts in CT-Images for Radiation Therapy Planning

¹ Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies, Moscow, Russia

² N.I. Pirogov RNIMU, Moscow, Russia

Контактное лицо: Аnatoly А. Baulin, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To quantitatively evaluate reconstruction software algorithms in combination with algorithm O-MAR for correcting metal artifacts in CT-images and explore the potential of using O-MAR for radiation therapy planning tasks.

Material and methods: A quantitative assessment of the O-MAR algorithm on CT scans of a 20 cm diameter cylindrical phantom with a hip joint implant in the center was performed. Test tubes with different concentrations of potassium hydrogen phosphate (K₂HO₄×3H₂O) were placed around the implant. The evaluation parameters used standard deviation (SD) of the region of interest (ROI) density in HU units and the calculation of the degree of susceptibility to artifacts (P).The calculation of absorbed dose in the phantom was performed on the Eclipse 17.0 planning station, using the AAA (Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm) calculation algorithm.

Results: Calculations of the degree of artifact susceptibility showed that the minimum mean noise value was observed for the iMR series in combination with O-MAR (31.6 ± 45.5 HU) and the maximum for FBP (16) without O-MAR (77.0 ± 31.1 HU). As a result of comparison of CT studies with/without O-MAR, the average calculated difference in absorbed dose for all control points is 0.33±1.68 % and 0.42±1.38 % in the presence of  implant for FBP and iMR modes, respectively. However, for both modes the difference was 3.22 % for the artifact zone (dark spot).

Conclusion: It is shown that the use of the O-MAR algorithm reduces the distorted values of X-ray density that arose as a result of the presence of an implant in CT studies. The calculation of the absorbed dose for the artifact zone (dark spot) shows a decrease in the uncertainty of the dose calculation in O-MAR-corrected studies.

Keywords:CT, metal artifacts reduction (MAR), radiation therapy planning

For citation: Petraikin AV, Baulin АА, Vasilev YA, Artyukova ZR, Smorchkova AK, Semenov DS, Alihanov AA, Erizhokov RA, Omelyanskaya OV. Analysis of Possibility of Using an Algorithm for Correcting Metal Artifacts in CT-Images for Radiation Therapy Planning. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025;70(1):115–121. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-1-115-121

References

1. Rossi E., Emin S., Gubanski M., et al. Contouring Practices and Artefact Management Within a Synthetic CT-based Radiotherapy Workflow for the Central Nervous System. Radiat Oncol. 2024;19;1:27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02422-9.

2. Goran Kolarevic, Dražan Jaroš, Bojan Pavičar, et al. Computed Tomography Simulator Conversion Curve Dependence on Scan Parameters and Phantom Dimension. Journal of Health Sciences. 2020;10;3:226-233. doi:https://doi.org/10.17532/jhsci.2020.1085.

3. Selles M., Stuivenberg V.H., Wellenberg R.H.H., et al. Quantitative Analysis of Metal Artifact Reduction in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Virtual Monochromatic Imaging and Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction, a Phantom Study. Insights Imaging. 2021;12;1:171. doi:10.1186/s13244-021-01111-5.

4. John King, Shona Whittam, David Smith, Bashar Al-Qaisieh. The Impact of a Metal Artefact Reduction Algorithm on Treatment Planning for Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy of the Pelvis. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology. 2022;24:138–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2022.11.007.

5. Mark Selles, Jochen A.C. van Osch, Mario Maas, Martijn F. Boomsma, Ruud H.H. Wellenberg. Advances in Metal Artifact Reduction in CT Images: a Review of Traditional and Novel Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques. European Journal of Radiology. 2024;170:111276. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111276.

6. AAA Photon Dose Calculation Model in Eclipse. 2022. Treatment Planning System Wiki. URL: https://tpswiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/AAA-Algorithm.pdf.

7. Дружинина П.С., Романович И.К., Водоватов А.В., Чипига Л.А., Ахматдинов Р.Р., Братилова А.А., Рыжов С.А. Тенденции развития компьютерной томографии в Российской Федерации в 2011–2021 гг. // Радиационная гигиена. 2023. Т.16. №3. С. 101-117 [Druzhinina P.S., Romanovich I.K., Vodovatov A.V., Chipiga L.A., Akhmatdinov R.R., Bratilova A.A., Ryzhov S.A. Trends in the Development of Computed Tomography in the Russian Federation in 2011–2021. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2023;16;3:101-117 (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2023-16-3-101-117.

8. Румянцев П.О. Возрастающая роль методов функциональной визуализации для навигации дистанционной радиотерапии и брахитерапии на примере рака предстательной железы // Digital Diagnostics. 2021. Т.2. №4. С. 488−497 [Rumyantsev P.O. Growing Role of Functional Imaging Methods for Navigation of Remote Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy on the Example of Prostate Cancer. Digital Diagnostics. 2021;2;4:488-497 (In Russ.)]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/DD96197.

9. Meyer E., Raupach R., Lell M., Schmidt B., Kachelrieß M. Normalized Metal Artifact Reduction (NMAR) in Computed Tomography. Med. Phys. 2010;37:5482–5493. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3484090.; 

10. Charles A. Kelsey. The Physics of Radiology. Ed. H.E.Johns, J.R.Cunningham. Med Phys. 1984;731-732. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595545

11. Wellenberg R.H.H., Hakvoort E.T., Slump C.H., Boomsma M.F., Maas M., Streekstra G.J. Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques in Musculoskeletal CT-Imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2018;107:60-69. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.08.010.

12. Kosmas C., Hojjati M., Young P., Abedi A., Gholamrezanezhad A., Rajiah P. Dual-Layer Spectral Computerized Tomography for Metal Artifact Reduction: Small Versus Large Orthopedic Devices. Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48;12:1981-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-019-03248-3.

13. Васильев Ю.А., Туравилова Е.В., Шулькин И.М. и др. КТ брюшной полости с признаками остеопороза позвоночника: Свидетельство о гос. рег. базы данных №2023621045. Российская Федерация. MosMedData: №2023620796: заявл. 24.03.2023: опубл. 30.03.2023; заявитель ГБУЗ г. Москвы «Научно-практический клинический центр диагностики и телемедицинских технологий ДЗМ» [Vasil’yev Yu.A., Turavilova Ye.V., Shul’kin I.M., et al. Komp’yuternaya Tomografiya Bryushnoy Polosti s Priznakami Osteoporoza Pozvonochnika = Computed Tomography of the Abdominal Cavity with Signs of Osteoporosis of the Spine: Certificate of State registration of the Database No. 2023621045 Russian Federation. MosMedData: No. 2023620796. Declared. 24.03.2023. Published. 30.03.2023. Applicant Scientific and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Healthcare (In Russ.)].

14. Годзенко А.В., Петряйкин А.В., Морозов С.П. и др. Остеоденситометрия (Лучшие практики лучевой и инструментальной диагностики): Методические рекомендации. М.: Научно-практический центр медицинской радиологии, 2017. 26 с. [Godzenko A.V., Petryaykin A.V., Morozov S.P., et al. Osteodensitometriya (Luchshiye Praktiki Luchevoy i Instrumental’noy Diagnostiki) = Osteodensitometry (Best Practices of Radiation and Instrumental Diagnostics). Methodological Recommendations. Moscow, Scientific and Practical Center of Medical Radiology Publ., 2017. 26 p. (In Russ.)].

15. Васильев Ю.А., Владзимирский А.В., Артюкова З.Р. и др. Диагностика и скрининг остеопороза по результатам компьютерной томографии органов брюшной полости: Методические рекомендации // Серия «Лучшие практики лучевой и инструментальной диагностики». Вып.132. М.: Научно-практический клинический центр диагностики и телемедицинских технологий ДЗМ, 2023. 29 с. [Vasil’yev Yu.A., Vladzimirskiy A.V., Artyukova Z.R., et al. Diagnostika i Skrining Osteoporoza po Rezul’tatam Komp’yuternoy Tomografii Organov Bryushnoy Polosti = Diagnostics and Screening of Osteoporosis Based on the Results of Computed Tomography of the Abdominal Organs. Methodological Recommendations. Series “Best Practices in Radiation and Instrumental Diagnostics”. Issue 132. Moscow, Scientific and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Department of Health of Moscow Publ., 2023. 29 p. (In Russ.)].

16. Крупин К.Н., Кислов М.А. Конечно-элементный анализ формирования локального остеопороза при хирургическом лечении в области перелома малоберцовой кости // Судебная медицина. 2020. Т.6. №3. C. 58-61 [Krupin K.N., Kislov M.A. Finite Element Analysis of the Formation of Local Osteoporosis During Surgical Treatment in the Area of a Fracture of the Fibula. Sudebnaya Meditsina = Forensic Medicine. 2020;6;3:58-61 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.19048/fm327.

17. Васильев Ю.А., Семенов Д.С., Ахмад Е.С., Панина О.Ю., Сергунова К.А., Петряйкин А.В. Метод оценки влияния алгоритмов подавления артефактов от металлов в КТ на количественные характеристики изображений // Медицинская техника. 2020. №4. С. 43-45 [Vasil’yev Yu.A., Semenov D.S., Akhmad Ye.S., Panina O.Yu., Sergunova K.A., Petryaykin A.V. Method for Assessing the Impact of Metal Artifact Suppression Algorithms in Computed Tomography on Quantitative Image Characteristics. Meditsinskaya Tekhnika = Medical Equipment. 2020;4:43-45 (In Russ.)].

18. Bolstad K., Flatabo S., Aadnevik D., Dalehaug I., Vetti N. Metal Artifact Reduction in CT, a Phantom Study: Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Four Commercial Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithms when Used on Three Different Orthopedic Metal Implants. Acta Radiol. 2018;59;9:1110-1118. doi:10.1177/0284185117751278.

19. Shim E., Kang Y., Ahn J.M., et al. Metal Artifact Reduction for Orthopedic Implants (O-Mar): Usefulness in CT Evaluation of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;209;4:860-866. doi:10.2214/ajr.16.17684.

20. Huang Jessie Y., Kerns James R., Nute Jessica L., et al. An Evaluation of Three Commercially Available Metal Artifact Reduction Methods for CT Imaging. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60;3:1047–1067. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/3/1047.

21. Feldhaus F.W., Böning G., Kahn J., et al. Improvement of Image Quality and Diagnostic Confidence Using Smart Mar – a Projection-Based CT Protocol in Patients with Orthopedic Metallic Implants in Hip, Spine, and Shoulder. Acta Radiologica. 2020;61;10:1421-1430. doi:10.1177/0284185120903446.

22. Andersson Karin M., Norrman Eva, Geijer Håkan, et al. Visual Grading Evaluation of Commercially Available Metal Artefact Reduction Techniques in Hip Prosthesis Computed Tomography. The British Journal of Radiology. 2016;89;1063:20150993. doi:10.1259/bjr.20150993.

23. Akdeniz Yucel, Yegingil Ilhami, Yegingil Zehra. Effects of Metal Implants and a Metal Artifact Reduction Tool on Calculation Accuracy of AAA and Acuros XB Algorithms in Small Fields. Medical Physics. 2019;46;11:5326-5335. doi:10.1002/mp.13819.

24. Li B., Huang J., Ruan J., et al. Dosimetric Impact of CT Metal Artifact Reduction for Spinal Implants in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Planning. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2023;13;12:8290-8302. doi: 10.21037/qims-23-442.

25. Ziemann C., Stille M., Cremers F., et al. Improvement of Dose Calculation in Radiation Therapy Due to Metal Artifact Correction Using the Augmented Likelihood Image Reconstruction. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2018;19;3:227–233. doi:10.1002/acm2.12325.

26. Baer E., Schwahofer A., Kuchenbecker S., Haering P. Improving Radiotherapy Planning in Patients with Metallic Implants using the Iterative Metal Artifact Reduction (iMAR) Algorithm. Biomed Phys & Eng Express. 2015;1:025206. doi:10.1088/2057-1976/1/2/025206.

27. Ulmer W., Pyyry J., Kaissl W. A 3D Photon Superposition Convolution Algorithm and its Foundation on Results of Monte Carlo Calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:1767–90. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/8/010.

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

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Financing. This paper was prepared by a group of authors as a part of the research  and development effort titled «Development of ahardware and software suite for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis» (USIS No.: 123031400007-7) in accordance with the Order No. 1196 dated December 21, 2022 «On approval of state assignments funded by means of allocations from the budget of the city of Moscow to the state budgetary (autonomous) institutions subordinate to the Moscow Health Care Department, for 2023 and the planned period of 2024 and 2025» issued by the Moscow Health Care Department.

Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.

Article received: 20.10.2024. Accepted for publication: 25.11.2024.

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2024. Vol. 69. № 5

DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2024-69-5-5-14

A.V. Akleyev^{1, 2},T.V. Azizova³, S.A. Ivanov⁴, S.M. Kiselev⁵, E.M. Melikhova⁶,
S.V. Fesenko⁷, S.M. Shinkarev⁵

Results of the 71^st Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 20‒24 May, 2024)

¹ Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia

² Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

³ Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia 

⁴ А.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre, Obninsk, Kaluga region, Russia

⁵ A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia

⁶ Nuclear Safety Institute, Moscow, Russia

⁷ Russian Institute of Radiology and Agroecology, Obninsk, Kaluga region, Russia

Contact person: A.V. Akleyev, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the key outcomes of the 71^st Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR) which took place during 20‒24 May 2024. National delegations from 30 UNSCEAR Member-states as well as the representatives of ten international organizations participated in the work of the Session. Within the framework of the meetings of the working group and subgroups the documents on the following projects were discussed: R.762 “Second primary cancer after radiotherapy”, R.763 “Evaluation of public exposures to ionizing radiation from natural and other sources”, R.764 “Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer”, R.765 “Evaluation of diseases of the circulatory system from radiation exposure”, and R.766 “Nervous system effects of ionizing radiation”. The following Reports of the Secretariat have also been presented during the work of the Session: UNSCEAR/71/7 “Implementation of the Strategy to improve collection, analysis and dissemination of data on radiation exposure (including consideration of the Committee’s ad hoc working group on sources and exposure)”, UNSCEAR/71/8 “Implementation of  the Committee’s Future Programme of Work and proposals for the period 2025-2029 (including consideration of the Committee’s ad hoc working group on effects and mechanisms)”, UNSCEAR/71/9
Implementation of public information and outreach strategy for 2025–2029”. Report to the UN General Assembly has been prepared based on the results of the Session.

Keywords: UNSCEAR 71^st, Session, public exposure, dose, cancer, second primary cancer, circulatory system, nervous system

For citation: Akleyev AV,Azizova TV, Ivanov SA, Kiselev SM, Melikhova EM, Fesenko SV, Shinkarev SM. Results of the 71^st Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 20‒24 May, 2024). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2024;69(5):5–14. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2024-69-5-5-14

References

1.Аклеев А.В., Т.В. Азизова, Иванов С.А., Киселев С.М., Тахауов Р.М., Фесенко С.В., Шинкарев С.М. Итоги 70-й сессии Научного комитета по действию атомной радиации (НКДАР) ООН (Вена, 19–23 июня 2023 г.) // Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2024. Т.69. №1. С.5–14 [Akleyev AV, Azizova TV, Ivanov SA, Kiselev SM, Takhauov RM, Fesenko SV, Shinkarev SM. Results of the 70-th Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 19-23 June, 2023). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2024;69;1:5-14 (In Russ.)]. DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2024-69-1-5-14.

2.UNSCEAR. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume I: Sources. Annex B: Exposures from Natural Radiation Sources. New York: United Nations, 2000. 76 p. ISBN 92-1-142238-8.

3.UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly and Scientific Annexes A, B, C and D. UNSCEAR 2016 Report. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations Sales Publication E.17.IX.1. United Nations, New York, 2017.

4.UNSCEAR. Evaluation of Data on Thyroid Cancer in Regions Affected by the Chernobyl Accident. A White Paper to Guide the Scientific Committee’s Future Programme of Work. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations, New York, 2018b.

5.UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly and Scientific Annex A: Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. UNSCEAR 2013 Report. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations Sales Publication E.14.IX.1. United Nations, New York, 2013.

6.UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Volume II: Scientific Annex B. UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report. Annex B: Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: Implications of Information Published since the UNSCEAR 2013 Report. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations Sales Publication E.21.IX.2. United Nations, New York, 2021a.

7.The Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident: an overview. URL: unscear.org.

8.Мелихова Е.М., Кузнецова Е.О. К вопросу об общественной приемлемости проектов по захоронению РАО // Радиоактивные отходы. 2023. №4(25). С.23-34 [Melikhova EM., Kuznetsova EО. On the Public Acceptance of Deep Geological Repository Development in the Krasnoyarsk Region. Radioactive Waste. 2023;4(25):23-34 (In Russ.)]. DOI: 10.25283/2587-9707-2023- 4-23-34.

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

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Financing. The study had no sponsorship.

Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.

Article received: 20.05.2024. Accepted for publication: 25.06.2024.