Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 73-77

MEDICAL PRACTICE ISSUE

S.B. Alieva¹, A.V. Nazarenko¹, I.A. Zaderenko², L.I. Lebedeva¹, R.R. Kaledin¹, E.L. Dronova¹, I.A. Gladilina¹

Late Radiation Damage after Reirradiation for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

1. N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center of RAMS, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 2. Moscow State Medical and Dental University, Moscow, Russia

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The recurrence rate of nasopharyngeal cancer is 8-58 %. The main treatment is to conduct a repeated course of radiation therapy which is associated with a high risk of severe complications.

Case report: This article presents a case of reiiradiation of recurrence squamous cell carcinoma of the nasopharynx.

Discussion and conclusion: The incidence of severe post-irradiation damage during reirradiation of recurrence nasopharyngeal cancer depends on the received dose and the method of treatment. Application of conformal radiotherapy reduces posttherapeutic complications in 2.5 times.

Key words: nasopharyngeal cancer, recurrence, radiation therapy, late postradiation complications

REFERENCES

1. Bardychev M.S. Mestnye luchevye povrezhdeniya i ikh klassifikatsiya. V sb.: «Diagnostika i lechenie pozdnikh mestnykh luchevykh povrezhdenii». Obninsk. 1988. P. 3-11.
2. Aliev B.M., Chuprik-Malinovskaya T.P., Gladilina I.A., Khromyshev A.E. Analiz kharaktera neudach pri lechenii raka nosoglotki i rezul'taty ikh lecheniya. Vestnik RONTs im. N.N. Blokhina RAMN. 1994. No. 3. P. 25-28.
3. Lee A.W., Law S.C., Foo W. et al. Retrospective analysis of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated during 1976-1985: survival after local recurrence. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Phys. 1993. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 773-782.
4. Wang C.C. Re-irradiation of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: treatment techniques and results. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1987. Vol. 13. No. 7. P. 953-956.
5. Yan J.H., Hu Y.H., Gu X.Z. Radiation therapy of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: report on 219 patients. Acta. Radiol. Onc 1983. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 23-28.
6. Pryzant R.M., Wendt C.D., Delclos L., Peters L.J. Retreatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in 53 patients. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 1992. Vol. 22. No. 5. P. 941-947.
7. Teo P.M., Kwan W.H., Chan A.T. et al. How successful is high-dose (> or = 60 Gy) reirradiation using mainly external beams in salvaging local failures of nasopharyngeal carcinoma? Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 1998. Vol. 40. No. 4. P. 897-913.
8. Chang J.T., See L.C., Liao C.T. et al. Locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother. Oncol. 2000. Vol. 54. No. 2. P. 135-142.
9. Lee A.W., Foo W., Law S.C. et al. Reirradiation for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: factors affecting the therapeutic ratio and ways for improvement. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 1997. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 43-52.
10. Chua D.T., Sham J.S., Leung L.H., Au G.K. Reirradiation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intensitymodulated radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2005. Vol. 77. No. 3. P. 290-294.

For citation: Alieva SB, Nazarenko AV, Zaderenko IA, Lebedeva LI, Kaledin RR, Dronova EL, Gladilina IA. Late Radiation Damage after Reirradiation for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016;61(1):73-7. Russian.

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 47-59

REVIEW

G.E. Roytberg¹, S.V. Usychkin¹, A.V. Boiko²

Extreme Hypofractionated external-Beam radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

1. JSC “Medicina”, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 2. P.A.Herzen Moscow Scientific-Research Oncological Institute, Moscow, Russia

ABSTRACT

Hypofractionation is one of the approaches in the non-classical fractionation of prostate cancer external-beam radiotherapy. The purpose of hypofractionation is not only to make the treatment more comfortable for the patient (less daily visits to the treatment center) and more cost-effective but also to increase the local tumor control as well. High dose per fraction increases a biologically effective dose for prostate adenocarcinoma cells and works as a biological radiosensitizer while isoeffective dose for normal tissues remains unchanged. In 80-90 % of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with extremely hypofractionated radiotherapy (7 to 8 Gy dose per fraction, 5 fractions to the total dose of 35-40 Gy) a permanent biochemical tumor control is achieved. The modern high-precision treatment planning and treatment delivery techniques (IMRT, VMAT) as well as on-line target tracking and image guidance (IGRT) coupled with additional systems of internal prostate immobilization (endorectal balloons and «spacers» inserted between prostate and rectal wall) are prerequisite conditions for extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy. Completed recently multiple studies of phase 2 have demonstrated that extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy did not increase the rate of serious late toxicity if it is performed in the clinics with high level of modern technical equipment Image-Guided Radiotherapy. For this reason it can be used as an alternative to the conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

Key words: external-beam radiotherapy, extreme fractionation, prostate cancer, hypofractiotion

REFERENCES

1. Tarinskii V.V., Petrova G.V. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2012 godu (zabolevaemost' i smertnost'). Moscow: FGBU «MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena» Minzdrava Rossii. 2014. 250 p. (In Russ.).
2. D’Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer. 2002. Vol. 95. No. 2. P. 281-286.
3. D’Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B. et al. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 168-172.
4. D’Amico A.V. Prostate cancer: where we have been. where we are. and where we are going. Semin Radiat. 2013. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 155-156.
5. Peeters S.T., Heemsbergen W.D., Koper P.C. et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006. Vol. 24. No. 13. P. 1990-1996.
6. Pollack A., Zagars G.K., Starkschall G. et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M.D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2002. Vol. 53. No. 5. P. 1097-1105.
7. Zietman A.L., DeSilvio M.L., Slater J.D. et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005. Vol. 294. No. 10. P. 1233-1239.
8. Spratt D.E., Pei X., Yamada J. et al. Long-term survival and toxicity in patients treated with high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2013. Vol. 85. No. 3. P. 686-692.
9. Dar'yalova S.L., Boiko A.V., Alekseev B.Ya., Grishina Yu.A. Metodika i rezul'taty luchevoi terapii raka predstatel'noi zhelezy. Ross. onkol. zhurnal. 2006. No. 6. P. 9-13. (In Russ.).
10. Boiko A.V., Chernichenko A.V., Dar'yalova S.L., Meshcheryakova I.A., Ter-Arutyunyants S.A. Netraditsionnoe fraktsionirovanie dozy. V sb. «Materialy V Rossiiskoi onkologicheskoi konferentsii». 2001.
11. Chernichenko A.V., Boiko A.V., Morozova S.V. et al. Termoradioterapiya raka predstatel'noi zhelezy. Ross. onkol. zhurnal. 2009. No. 3. P. 9-12. (In Russ.).
12. Miles E.F., Lee W.R. Hypofractionation for prostate cancer: a critical review. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2008. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 41-47.
13. Brenner D.J., Hall E.J. Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. 1999. Vol. 43. No. 5. P. 1095-1101.
14. Vogelius I.R., Bentzen S.M. Meta-analysis of the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news. good news. or no news?. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Phys. 2013. Vol. 85. No. 1. P. 89-94.
15. Fowler J.F., Toma-Dasu I., Dasu A. Is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate tumours really low and does it vary with the level of risk at diagnosis? Anticancer Res. 2013. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 1009-1011.
16. Tree A.C., Khoo V.S., van As N.J. et al. Is biochemical relapse-free survival after profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy consistent with current radiobiological models? Clin. (R. Coll. Radiol.). 2014. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 216-229.
17. Kupelian P.A., Willoughby T.R., Reddy C.A. et al. Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland Clinic experience. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2007. Vol. 68. No. 5. P. 1424-1430.
18. Yeoh E.E., Botten R.J., Butters J. et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: final results of phase III randomized trial. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2011. Vol. 81. No. 5. P. 1271-1278.
19. Dearnaley D., Syndikus I., Sumo G. et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 43-54.
20. Arcangeli G., Saracino B., Gomellini S. et al. A prospective phase III randomized trial of hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2010. Vol. 78. No. 1. P. 11-18.
21. Arcangeli S., Strigari L., Gomellini S. et al. Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2012. Vol. 84. No. 5. P. 1172-1178.
22. Arcangeli G., Fowler J., Gomellini S. et al. Acute and late toxicity in a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2011. Vol. 79. No. 4. P. 1013-1021.
23. Arcangeli S., Scorsetti M., Alongi F. Will SBRT replace conventional radiotherapy in patients with low intermediate risk prostate cancer? A review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012. Vol. 84. No. 1. P. 101-108.
24. Buyyounouski M.K., Price R.A., , Harris E.E. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for primary management of early-stage. low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer: report of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Emerging Technology Committee. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010. Vol. 76. No. 5. P. 1297-1304.
25. Ishiyama H., Teh B.S., Lo S.S. et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Future Oncol. 2011. Vol. 7. No. 9. P. 1077-1086.
26. Fuks Z., Kolesnick R. Engaging the vascular component of the tumor response. Cancer Cell. 2005. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 89-91.
27. Collins C.D., Lloyd-Davies R.W., Swan A.V. Radical external beam radiotherapy for localised carcinoma of the prostate using a hypofractionation technique. Clin. (R. Coll. Radiol.). 1991. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 127-132.
28. Martinez A.A., Demanes J., Vargas C. et al. High-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: an excellent accelerated-hypofractionated treatment for favorable prostate cancer. Amer. J. Clin. 2010. Vol. 33. No. 5. P. 481-488.
29. King C.R., Lehmann J., Adler J.R. et al. CyberKnife radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: rationale and technical feasibility. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2003. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 25-30.
30. Fuller D.B., Naitoh J., Lee C. et al. Virtual HDR CyberKnife treatment for localized prostatic carcinoma: dosimetry comparison with HDR brachytherapy and preliminary clinical observations. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2008. Vol. 70. No. 5. P. 1588-1597.
31. King C.R., Brooks J.D., Gill H. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: interim results of a prospective phase II clinical trial. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2009. Vol. 73. No. 4. P. 1043-1048.
32. King C.R., Brooks J.D., Gill H. et al. Long-term outcomes from a prospective trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2012. Vol. 82. No. 2. P. 877-882.
33. Katz A.J., Santoro M., Diblasio F. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: disease control and quality of life at 6 years. Radiat. 2013. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 1-8.
34. King C .R., Freeman D., Kaplan I. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: pooled analysis from a multi-institutional consortium of prospective phase II trials. Radiother. Oncol. 2013. Vol. 109. No. 2. P. 217-221.
35. Madsen B.L., Hsi R.A., Pham H.T. et al. Stereotactic hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP). 33.5 Gy in five fractions for localized disease: first clinical trial results. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2007. Vol. 67. No. 4. P. 1099-1105.
36. Friedland J.L., Freeman D.E., Masterson-McGary M.E. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy: an emerging treatment approach for localized prostate cancer. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2009. Vol. 8. No. 5. P. 387-392.
37. Boike T.P., Lotan Y., Cho L.C. et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for lowand intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011. Vol. 29. No. 15. P. 2020-2026.
38. Kang J.K., Cho C.K., Choi C.W. et al. Image-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Tumori. 2011. Vol. 97. No. 1. P. 43-48.
39. McBride S.M., Wong D.S., Dombrowski J.J. et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy in low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of a multi-institutional phase 1 feasibility trial. Cancer. 2012. Vol. 118. No. 15. P. 3681-3690.
40. Bolzicco G., Favretto M.S., Satariano N. et al. A singlecenter study of 100 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. BMC Urol. 2013. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 1-8.
41. Chen L.N., Suy S., Uhm S. et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Georgetown University experience. Radiat. 2013. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 1-10.
42. Aluwini S., van Rooij P., Hoogeman M. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy with a focal boost to the MRI-visible tumor as monotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: early results. Radiat. 2013. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 1-7.
43. Oliai C., Lanciano R., Sprandio B. et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2013. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 63-70.
44. Loblaw A., Cheung P., D’Alimonte L. et al. Prostate stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy using a standard linear accelerator: toxicity. biochemical. and pathological outcomes. Radiother. 2013. Vol. 107. No. 2. P. 153-158.
45. Tree A., Aluwini S., Bryant H. et al. Successful Patient Acceptance of Randomization Within the Pace Study (Prostate Advances in Comparative Evidence). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013. Vol. 87. No. 2. P. S365.
46. Mohler J.L., Kantoff P.W., Armstrong A.J. et al. Prostate cancer. version 2. 2014. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2014. Vol. 12. No. 5. P. 686-718.
47. Greco C. Extreme hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. EMJ Oncol. 2013. No. 1. P. 48-55.
48. Mok G., Benz E., Vallee J.P. et al. Optimization of radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer with prostate-rectum spacers: a systematic review. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2014. Vol. 90. No. 2. P. 278-288.
49. Sumila M., Mack A., Schneider U. et al. Long-term intrafractional motion of the prostate using hydrogel spacer during Cyberknife(R) treatment for prostate cancer a case report. Radiat. 2014. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 1-6.
50. Chapet O., Udrescu C., Tanguy R. et al. Dosimetric implications of an injection of hyaluronic acid for preserving the rectal wall in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2014. Vol. 88. No. 2. P. 425-432.
51. Wei J.T., Dunn R.L., Litwin M.S. et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000. Vol. 56. No. 6. P. 899-905.
52. Szymanski K.M., Wei J.T., Dunn R.L. et al. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring healthrelated quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2010. Vol. 76. No. 5. P. 1245-1250.
53. King C.R., Collins S., Fuller D. et al. Health-related quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: results from a multi-institutional consortium of prospective trials. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2013. Vol. 87. No. 5. P. 939-945.
54. Arscott W.T., Chen L.N., Wilson N. et al. Obstructive voiding symptoms following stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiat. 2014. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 163-172.
55. Woo J.A., Chen L.N., Bhagat A. et al. Clinical characteristics and management of late urinary symptom flare following stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Fronties in Oncol. 2014. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 1-10.
56. Chen L.N., Suy S., Wang H. et al. Patient-reported urinary incontinence following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiat. 2014. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 1-9.
57. Sood S., Ju A.W., Wang H. et al. Rectal endoscopy findings following stereotactic body radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiat. 2013. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 1-6.
58. Kim D.W., Cho L.C., Straka C. et al. Predictors of rectal tolerance observed in a dose-escalated phase 1-2 trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2014. Vol. 89. No. 3. P. 509-517.
59. Wiegner E.A., King C.R. Sexual function after stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results of a prospective clinical trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010. Vol. 78. No. 2. P. 442-448.

For citation: Roytberg GE, Usychkin SV, Boiko AV. Extreme Hypofractionated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016;61(1):47-59. Russian.

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 60-72

CHRONICLE

A.V. Akleyev^1,2, T.V. Azizova³, R.M. Aleksakhin⁴, V.K. ivanov⁵, A.N. Koterov⁶, A.I. Kryshev⁷, S.G. Mikheyenko⁸, A.V. Rachkov⁹, S.A. Romanov³, A.V. Sazhin⁶, A.S. Samoylov⁶, S.M. Shinkarev⁶

The results of the 62nd Session of the United nations Scientific committee on the effects of the Atomic radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 1-5 June, 2015)

1. Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine of FMBA, Chelyabinsk, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 2. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia; 3. Southern Urals Biophysics Institute of FMBA, Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk Region, Russia; 4. Russian Institute of Radiology and Agroecology, Obninsk, Russia; 5. A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russia; 6. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA, Moscow, Russia; 7. RPA “Typhoon” of Roshydromet, Obninsk, Russia; 8. Russian Federation National Nuclear Corporation «ROSATOM», Moscow, Russia; 9. Russian Research Institute for Experimental Physics, Sarov, Russia

ABSTRACT

The current paper is devoted to the major results of the work of the 62^nd Session of the UNSCVEAR that was held in Vienna from June 1-5, 2015. Within the framework of the meeting of the Work group and subgroups the documents on the following projects were discussed:

- methodology for estimating human exposures due to radioactive discharges;

- radiation exposures from electricity generation;

- biological effects of selected internal emitters;

- developments after the 2013 UNSCEAR Report on the levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident following the great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami;

- cancer epidemiology of exposures at low dose-rates due to environmental radiation;

- improvement of the medical exposure dose estimates.

During the Pannel some organizational issues such as the status of UNSCEAR publications, governing principles of the Committee’s activities, the structure of the UNSCEAR Executive, public affairs, future research program, a report to the General Assembly and etc., were were discussed.

Key words: 62^nd UNSCEAR Session, exposure doses, electricity generation, radioactive discharges, biological effects, epidemiology, medical exposure, environment

REFERENCES

1. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annexes. Volume I: Sources. United Nations. New York. 2000. 17 p.
2. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annexes. Volume I: Sources. Scientific Annexes A and B. United Nations. New York. 2010. 137 p.
3. Bertrand M. Consommations et lieux d’achats des produits alimentaires en 1991. INSEE résultats. Consommation-Mode de vie n°54-55. Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE). 1993.
4. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Volume I. Annex A. Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. United Nations. New York. 2014, 322 p.
5. Brown J., Simmonds J.R. FARMLAND a dynamic model for the transfer of radionuclides through terrestrial Foodchains: Nrpb-R273. National Radiological Protection Board. Didcot. 1995. 76 p.
6. Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments. Technical Reports Series No. 472. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna. 2010. 208 p.
7. Hiyama A., Nohara C., Kinjo S. et al. The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly. Scientific Report. 2012. Vol. 2. P. 570.
8. Möller A.P., Hagiwara A., Matsui S. et al. Abundance of birds in Fukushima judged from Chernobyl. Environ. 2012. Vol. 164. P. 36-39.
9. Andersson P., Garnier-Laplace J. Beresford N.A. et al. Protection of the environment from ionizing radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): proposed numerical benchmark values. J. Environ. 2009. Vol. 100. No. 12. P. 1100-1108.
10. Beresford N.A., Barnett C.I., Jones D.G. et al. Background exposure rates of terrestrial wildlife in England and Wales. J. Environ. 2008. Vol. 99. No. 9, pp.1430-1439.
11. Garnier-Laplace J., Copplestone D., Gilbin R. et al. Issues and practices in the use of effect data from FREDERICA in the ERICA integrated approach. J. Environ. Radioact. 2008. Vol. 99. P. 1474-1483.
12. Garnier-Laplace J., Beaugelin-Seiller K., Hinton T.G. Fukushima wildlife dose reconstruction signals ecological consequences. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011. Vol. 45. No. 12. P. 5077-5078.
13. Kabayashi T., Nagai H., Chino M. et al. Source term estimation of atmospheric release due to Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident by atmospheric and oceanic dispersion simulations. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2013. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 255-264.
14. ICRP Publication 108. Environmental Protection - the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants. Annals of the ICRP. Amsterdam-New York: Elsevier. 2009. 244 p.
15. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annexes. Volume II: Effects. United New York. 2011. 17 p.
16. Schonfeld S.J., Krestinina L.Y., Epifanova S. et al. Solid cancer mortality in the Techa River Cohort (1950-2007). Radiat. 2013. Vol. 179. No. 2. P. 183-189.
17. Akleev A.V. Khronicheskii luchevoi sindrom u zhitelei pribrezhnykh sel reki Techa. Chelyabinsk: Kniga. 2012. 464 p. (In Russ.).
18. Koterov A.N. Ot ochen' malykh do ochen' bol'shikh doz radiatsii: novye dannye po ustanovleniyu diapazonov i ikh eksperimental'no-epidemiologicheskie obosnovaniya. radiol. i radiats. bezopasnost'. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 2. P. 5-21. (In Russ.).
19. Lee J.S., Dong S.L., Hu T.H. Estimation of organ dose equivalents from residents of radiation contaminated buildings with Rando phantom measurements. Appl. Radiat. Isotopes. 1999. Vol. 50. No. 5. P. 867-873.
20. Luan Y.C., Chen W.L., Wang W.K. The experiences in practicing of the radiation protection measures based on ICRP recommendation in Taiwan. In: The Effects of Low and Very Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation on Human Health. Ed. by WONUC - Elsevier Science B.V. 2000. P. 503-511.
21. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annex. Annex J. Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. New York. 2000. P. 451-566.
22. UNSCEAR 2008. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annex. Annex D. Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. United Nations. New York. 2011. P. 47-219.
23. UNSCEAR 2006. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annexes. Annex A. Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer. United Nations. New York. 2008. P. 17-322.
24. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annex. Annex I. Epidemiological evaluation of radiation-induced cancer. United Nations. New York. 2000. P. 297-450.
25. UNSCEAR 2012. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annexes. Annex A. Attributing health effects to ionizing radiation exposure and inferring risks. United New York. 201. 86 p.
26. BEIR VII Report 2006. Phase 2. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. National Research Council. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html.
27. Cardis E., Vrijheid M., Blettner M. et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ. 2005. Vol. 331. No. 7508. P. 77-82.
28. Cardis E., Vrijheid M., Blettner M. et al. The 15-Country Collaborative Study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat. Res. 2007. Vol. 167. No. 4. P. 396-416.
29. Vrijheid M., Cardis E., Blettner M. et al. The 15-Country Collaborative Study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: design. epidemiological methods and descriptive results. Radiat. 2007. Vol. 167. No. 4. P. 361-379.
30. Vrijheid M., Cardis E., Ashmore P. et al. Ionizing radiation and risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the 15-country study of nuclear industry workers. Radiat. 2008. Vol. 170. No. 5. P. 661-665.
31. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annex. Annex G. Biological effects at low radiation doses. United Nations. New York. 2000. P. 73-175.
32. Yarmonenko S.P., Vainson A.A. Radiobiologiya cheloveka i zhivotnykh. Moscoow: Vysshaya shkola. 2004. 549 p. (In Russ.).
33. Akleev A.V. Reaktsiya tkanei na khronicheskoe vozdeistvie ioniziruyushchego izlucheniya. Radiats. biologiya. Radioekologiya. 2009. Vol. 49. No. 1. P. 5-20. (In Russ.).
34. Leuraud K., Richardson D.B., Cardis E., Daniels R.D. et al. Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2015. Vol. 2. No. 7. P. e276-e281. DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00094-0.
35. UNSCEAR 2013. Report to the General Assembly. with Scientific Annex. Annex A. Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. United Nations. New York. 2014. 311 p.

For citation: Akleyev AV, Azizova TV, Aleksakhin RM, Ivanov VK, Koterov AN, Kryshev AI, Mikheyenko SG, Rachkov AV, Romanov SA, Sazhin AV, Samoylov AS, Shinkarev SM. The Results of the 62-nd Session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of the Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Vienna, 1-5 June, 2015). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016;61(1):60-72. Russian.

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 41-46

DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLODGY

N.S. Vorotyntseva, M.Yu. Zozulya

Ultrasonic Morphometric Age Standards of Abdominal Parenchymatous Organs of the Children Living in the Area of Kursk NPP

Kursk State Medical University, Kursk, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To define the individual ultrasonic morphometric age standards of the abdominal parenchymatous organs of the children living in the area of Kursk NPP.

Material and methods: The results are presented of ultrasonic examinations of 400 children at the age from 1 year to 17 years 11 months who are living in the area of Kursk NPP. The assessment of the lengths of the right kidney and oblique transverse dimension of the right lobe of the liver & the length of the left kidney and the length of the spleen depending on the age and sex of investigated was produced.

Results: Mathematical models and formulas have been developed for calculating standard ultrasonic morphometric parameters, annual growth of morphometric dimensions of abdominal parenchymatous organs was defined. Moreover, individual regulatory criteria for diagnosis hepatosplenomegaly was developed during the comparison of the length of the right kidney with oblique transverse dimension of the right liver lobe and the length of the left kidney with the length of the spleen .

Conclusion: The obliquely-transverse size of the liver right lobe must match the length of the right kidney as 1:1 for children between 3 and 11 years of age, the length of the spleen corresponds to the left kidney length as 1:1 for children between 2 and 11 years of age. The liver and spleen sizes of those children who are older than 12 should not exceed the length of the right and left kidneys respectively. In addition, it was shown that Kursk NPP operating normally has no negative impact on the formation and development of abdominal parenchymal organs in children and adolescents.

Key words: pediatric ultrasound, age standards, abdominal parenchymatous organs, Kursk NPP, territory of residence

REFERENCES

1. Lyaginskaya A.M., Romanov V.V. et al. Sostoyanie zdorov'ya naseleniya, prozhivayushchego vblizi Smolenskoi AES. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2015. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 25-36. (In Russ.).
2. Shandala N.K., Korenkov I.P., Romanov V.V. Sostoyanie radiatsionno-gigienicheskoi obstanovki v raione razmeshcheniya AES. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2015. Vol. 60. No. 2. P.15-21. (In Russ.).
3. Federal'nyi zakon Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 21 noyabrya 2011 g. No. 323-FZ «Ob osnovakh okhrany zdorov'ya grazhdan v Rossiiskoi Federatsii». St. 7. (In Russ.).
4. Vasil'ev A.Yu., Vyklyuk M.V., Zubareva E.A. et al. Luchevaya diagnostika v pediatrii: natsional'noe rukovodstvo. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media. 2010. 368 p. (In Russ.).
5. Trufanov G.E., Fokin V.A. et al. Osobennosti primeneniya metodov luchevoi diagnostiki v pediatricheskoi praktike. Vestnik sovremennoi klinich. med. 2013. Vol. 6. No. 6. P. 48-54. (In Russ.).
6. Bates A.J. Abdominal Ultrasound. How, why and when. 2 ed. Churchill Livingstone. 2004. 297 p. (In Russ.).
7. Dvoryakovskii I.V., Naidina T.K., Sugak A.B. et al. Vozrastnye parametry pochek u detei po dannym ul'trazvukovogo issledovaniya. Ul'trazvukovaya i funktsional'naya diagnostika. 2004. No. 1. P. 30-35. (In Russ.).
8. Naidina T.K., Dvoryakovskii I.V., Sugak A.B. Normal'nye vozrastnye razmery zhelchnogo puzyrya. pecheni i podzheludochnoi zhelezy u detei po dannym ekhografii. Ul'trazvukovaya i funktsional'naya diagnostika. 2001. No. 4. P. 57-63. (In Russ.).
9. Sumenko V.V., Vozgoment O.V., Pykov M.I. Normativnye ekhograficheskie pokazateli selezenki u zdorovykh detei Orenburgskoi oblasti i faktory, vliyayushchie na nikh. Detskaya bol'nitsa. 2013. No. 2. P. 16-22. (In Russ.).
10. Trefilov A.A., Ivanova I.E., Rodionov V.A. Ul'trazvukovye normativy razmerov pochek u detei Chuvashskoi Respubliki. Zdravookhranenie Chuvashii. 2011. No. 4. Available from: http://giduv.com/journal/2011/4/ultrazvukovye_normativy (accessed: 15.06.2015). (In Russ.).
11. Bruyn R. Pediatric ultrasound: how, why and when. Edinburgh: Elsevier. 2005. 374 p.
12. Blok B. Tsvetnoi atlas ul'trazvukovykh issledovanii. Moscow: MEDpress-inform. 2013. 328 p. (In Russ.).
13. Vorotyntseva N.S., Zozulya M.Yu., Zozulya A.Yu. Sposob ul'trazvukovoi diagnostiki vospalitel'nykh izmenenii pecheni i selezenki pri tuberkuleze u detei. / Patent na izobretenie No. 2535613 ot 05.11.2013 g. Postupila: 25.06.2015 (In Russ.).

For citation: Vorotyntseva NS, Zozulya MYu. Ultrasonic Morphometric Age Standards of Abdominal Parenchymatous Organs of the Children Living in the Area of Kursk NPP. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2016;61(1):41-6. Russian.

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