Advances in radiation biology: effect on nuclear medicine

Update on radiation protection of the thyroid gland

In recent years, concern about the effects of ionizing radiation on exposed individuals has led to the need to regulate and quantify the use of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Geopolitical events in recent times have also increased the population's perception of insecurity regarding ionizing radiation, and we increasingly face patients reluctant to undergo certain types of scans in our nuclear medicine services and, albeit less frequently, in radiology services. This article aims to summarise the extent to which ionizing radiation is present in our daily lives and how diagnostic and therapeutic procedures can affect our health, particularly from the perspective of their effects on the thyroid gland, one of the body's most radiation-sensitive organs.

Benefit-to-radiation-risk of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Dutch-Belgian NELSON randomized controlled trials have shown significant mortality reductions from low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening (LCS). NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials have provided detailed dosimetry data for LCS.

METHODS

LCS trial mortality benefit results, organ dose and effective dose data, and Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Report VII (BEIR VII) organ dose-to-cancer-mortality risk data are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of the NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials. Data from those trials also are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for longer-term LCS corresponding to scenarios recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American Cancer Society.

RESULTS

Including only screening doses, NLST benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios are 12:1 for males, 19:1 for females, and 16:1 overall. Including both screening and estimated follow-up doses, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for NLST are 9:1 for males, 13:1 for females, and 12:1 overall. For the ITALUNG trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 58-63:1. For the COSMOS trial, assuming sex-specific mortality benefits like those of the NELSON trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 23:1. Assuming a conservative 20% mortality benefit, annual screening in people 50-79 years old with a 20+ pack-year history of smoking has benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of 23:1 (with follow-up doses adding 40% to screening doses) to 29:1 (with follow-up adding 10%) based on COSMOS dose data.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on linear, no threshold BEIR VII dose-risk estimates, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for LCS are highly favorable. Results emphasize the importance of using modern CT technologies, maintaining low diagnostic follow-up rates, and minimizing both screening and diagnostic follow-up doses.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The benefits of lung cancer screening significantly outweigh estimates of future harms associated with exposure to radiation during screening and diagnostic follow-up examinations. Our findings emphasize the importance of lung cancer screening practices using state-of-the-art computed tomography scanners and specialized low-dose lung screening and diagnostic follow-up techniques.

How can we optimise the pharmaceutical analysis of radiopharmaceutical pediatric prescriptions?

OBJECTIVES

In France, dispensation is defined by the validation of a prescription associated with a pharmaceutical analysis, preparation of medication and provision of information necessary for proper use. There are very few data available in the literature that describe prescription analysis modality in radiopharmacy. The aim was to secure a place for paediatric prescription analysis in radiopharmacy by designing a flow chart validated by experts.

METHODS

Experts from different disciplines and health setups (ie, public, private) were selected to represent the various paediatric patient care processes. A review of the literature on pharmaceutical analysis and paediatric prescription in radiopharmacy was conducted. A Delphi approach comprising two rounds (Google Form survey) was used to validate the flow chart. Answers were graded according to a nine-point Likert scale for agreement. Open-ended questions allowed experts to comment on the propositions. A consensus between experts was reached if more than 70% of the experts agreed on an item and fewer than 30% disagreed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five experts were solicited: two oncopaediatricians, three nuclear medicine physicians, 46 radiopharmacists, three residents in radiopharmacy, one hospital pharmacist, five medical physicists, one pharmacy technician, two X-ray technicians and two patients who are pharmacists. The first round survey included a draft of the flow chart: 31 experts answered (48%). All professional disciplines were represented except pharmacy technician. The second round survey was sent with a new flow chart that had been improved by the experts' comments. After 3 weeks, 18 answers were obtained (28%). After the first round, consensus was obtained for each item. Experts gave a total of 97 comments. The second flow chart had three steps: regulatory aspects, patient data, and radiopharmaceutical data, and it was accompanied by descriptive text explaining the field of application.

CONCLUSION

The resulting flow chart will secure the pharmaceutical analysis step for this special patient population.

The Response of Living Organisms to Low Radiation Environment and Its Implications in Radiation Protection

Life has evolved on Earth for about 4 billion years in the presence of the natural background of ionizing radiation. It is extremely likely that it contributed, and still contributes, to shaping present form of life. Today the natural background radiation is extremely small (few mSv/y), however it may be significant enough for living organisms to respond to it, perhaps keeping memory of this exposure. A better understanding of this response is relevant not only for improving our knowledge on life evolution, but also for assessing the robustness of the present radiation protection system at low doses, such as those typically encountered in everyday life. Given the large uncertainties in epidemiological data below 100 mSv, quantitative evaluation of these health risk is currently obtained with the aid of radiobiological models. These predict a health detriment, caused by radiation-induced genetic mutations, linearly related to the dose. However a number of studies challenged this paradigm by demonstrating the occurrence of non-linear responses at low doses, and of radioinduced epigenetic effects, i.e., heritable changes in genes expression not related to changes in DNA sequence. This review is focused on the role that epigenetic mechanisms, besides the genetic ones, can have in the responses to low dose and protracted exposures, particularly to natural background radiation. Many lines of evidence show that epigenetic modifications are involved in non-linear responses relevant to low doses, such as non-targeted effects and adaptive response, and that genetic and epigenetic effects share, in part, a common origin: the reactive oxygen species generated by ionizing radiation. Cell response to low doses of ionizing radiation appears more complex than that assumed for radiation protection purposes and that it is not always detrimental. Experiments conducted in underground laboratories with very low background radiation have even suggested positive effects of this background. Studying the changes occurring in various living organisms at reduced radiation background, besides giving information on the life evolution, have opened a new avenue to answer whether low doses are detrimental or beneficial, and to understand the relevance of radiobiological results to radiation protection.

[Use of radiopharmaceuticals in pediatrics: Specificities and recommandations of SoFRa (Société française de radiopharmacie)]

Radiopharmaceuticals are commonly used in children in nuclear medicine. Because of physiological differences in growing children and their radiosensitivity, precautions must be taken throughout the medication use process. The aim of this work is to propose recommendations, under the aegis of the Société française de radiopharmacie (SoFRa), for each subsystem of the process, in order to ensure the safety of pediatric patients. Furthermore, an analysis of two surveys on diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals dosage used in different nuclear medicine departments in France is detailed. Recommendations for therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals are also provided. Specificities of the preparation for pediatric patients are discussed through the example of the radiopharmaceuticals for lung perfusion scintigraphy. The preparation of individual dose and administration are also described. In nuclear medicine, radiopharmacist's expertise is essential for patient safety. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to secure pediatric radiopharmaceutical use process.

Re-evaluation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model using new paradigms and modern molecular studies

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is currently used to estimate low dose radiation (LDR) induced health risks. This model lacks safety thresholds and postulates that health risks caused by ionizing radiation is directly proportional to dose. Therefore even the smallest radiation dose has the potential to cause an increase in cancer risk. Advances in LDR biology and cell molecular techniques demonstrate that the LNT model does not appropriately reflect the biology or the health effects at the low dose range. The main pitfall of the LNT model is due to the extrapolation of mutation and DNA damage studies that were conducted at high radiation doses delivered at a high dose-rate. These studies formed the basis of several outdated paradigms that are either incorrect or do not hold for LDR doses. Thus, the goal of this review is to summarize the modern cellular and molecular literature in LDR biology and provide new paradigms that better represent the biological effects in the low dose range. We demonstrate that LDR activates a variety of cellular defense mechanisms including DNA repair systems, programmed cell death (apoptosis), cell cycle arrest, senescence, adaptive memory, bystander effects, epigenetics, immune stimulation, and tumor suppression. The evidence presented in this review reveals that there are minimal health risks (cancer) with LDR exposure, and that a dose higher than some threshold value is necessary to achieve the harmful effects classically observed with high doses of radiation. Knowledge gained from this review can help the radiation protection community in making informed decisions regarding radiation policy and limits.

Differential expression of NPM, GSTA3, and GNMT in mouse liver following long-term in vivo irradiation by means of uranium tailings

Uranium tailings (UT) are formed as a byproduct of uranium mining and are of potential risk to living organisms. In the present study, we sought to identify potential biomarkers associated with chronic exposure to low dose rate γ radiation originating from UT. We exposed C57BL/6J mice to 30, 100, or 250 μGy/h of gamma radiation originating from UT samples. Nine animals were included in each treatment group. We observed that the liver central vein was significantly enlarged in mice exposed to dose rates of 100 and 250 μGy/h, when compared with nonirradiated controls. Using proteomic techniques, we identified 18 proteins that were differentially expressed (by a factor of at least 2.5-fold) in exposed animals, when compared with controls. We chose glycine N-methyltransferase (GNMT), glutathione S-transferase A3 (GSTA3), and nucleophosmin (NPM) for further investigations. Our data showed that GNMT (at 100 and 250 μGy/h) and NPM (at 250 μGy/h) were up-regulated, and GSTA3 was down-regulated in all of the irradiated groups, indicating that their expression is modulated by chronic gamma radiation exposure. GNMT, GSTA3, and NPM may therefore prove useful as biomarkers of gamma radiation exposure associated with UT. The mechanisms underlying those changes need to be further studied.

Evaluation of Blood Parameters Alteration Following Low-dose Radiation Induced by Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

INTRODUCTION

With increasing the usage of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, we aimed to evaluate the side effects of low-dose radiation induced by this technique on blood elements, especially proteins and liver function factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

40 eligible patients (Mean age: 54.62±10.35, 22 female and 18 male), who had referred to the nuclear medicine department for MPI from May till August 2014, were enrolled in the study. A blood sample was taken from each patient just before and 24 hours after the injection of 740Mbq of Tecnetium-99m Methoxy isobutyl isonitrile (99mTc-MIBI) in the rest phase of the MPI in a reference medical laboratory; blood tests included total protein (TP), albumin (Alb), globulin (Glo), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), direct bilirubin (D.Bili), total bilirubin (T.Bili), serum iron (SI), total iron bounding capacity (TIBC), Albumin globulin ratioA/G ratio), and complete blood count (CBC).

RESULTS

Injection of 740Mbq99mTc-MIBI caused a significant increase in serum levels of AST (p= 0.001), ALT (p= 0.001), SI (p= 0.030), TIBC (p= 0.003) and A/G Ratio (p= 0.020). However, following radiotracer injection, a significant decrease was noted in the serum levels of TP (p= 0.002), Alb (p= 0.014), Glo(p= 0.002), ALP (p= 0.001), D.Bili (p= 0.003) and T.Bili (p= 0.000).

CONCLUSION

Due to increased usage of MPI, our data highlights the importance of monitoring the clinical and paraclinical effects of the procedure on vital organs and physiological pathways to reduce their adverse effects.

The REPAIR Project: Examining the Biological Impacts of Sub-Background Radiation Exposure within SNOLAB, a Deep Underground Laboratory

Considerable attention has been given to understanding the biological effects of low-dose ionizing radiation exposure at levels slightly above background. However, relatively few studies have been performed to examine the inverse, where natural background radiation is removed. The limited available data suggest that organisms exposed to sub-background radiation environments undergo reduced growth and an impaired capacity to repair genetic damage. Shielding from background radiation is inherently difficult due to high-energy cosmic radiation. SNOLAB, located in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, is a unique facility for examining the effects of sub-background radiation exposure. Originally constructed for astroparticle physics research, the laboratory is located within an active nickel mine at a depth of over 2,000 m. The rock overburden provides shielding equivalent to 6,000 m of water, thereby almost completely eliminating cosmic radiation. Additional features of the facility help to reduce radiological contamination from the surrounding rock. We are currently establishing a biological research program within SNOLAB: Researching the Effects of the Presence and Absence of Ionizing Radiation (REPAIR project). We hypothesize that natural background radiation is essential for life and maintains genomic stability, and that prolonged exposure to sub-background radiation environments will be detrimental to biological systems. Using a combination of whole organism and cell culture model systems, the effects of exposure to a sub-background environment will be examined on growth and development, as well as markers of genomic damage, DNA repair capacity and oxidative stress. The results of this research will provide further insight into the biological effects of low-dose radiation exposure as well as elucidate some of the processes that may drive evolution and selection in living systems. This Radiation Research focus issue contains reviews and original articles, which relate to the presence or absence of low-dose ionizing radiation exposure.

Cancer immunotherapy: how low-level ionizing radiation can play a key role

The cancer immunoediting hypothesis assumes that the immune system guards the host against the incipient cancer, but also "edits" the immunogenicity of surviving neoplastic cells and supports remodeling of tumor microenvironment towards an immunosuppressive and pro-neoplastic state. Local irradiation of tumors during standard radiotherapy, by killing neoplastic cells and generating inflammation, stimulates anti-cancer immunity and/or partially reverses cancer-promoting immunosuppression. These effects are induced by moderate (0.1-2.0 Gy) or high (>2 Gy) doses of ionizing radiation which can also harm normal tissues, impede immune functions, and increase the risk of secondary neoplasms. In contrast, such complications do not occur with exposures to low doses (≤0.1 Gy for acute irradiation or ≤0.1 mGy/min dose rate for chronic exposures) of low-LET ionizing radiation. Furthermore, considerable evidence indicates that such low-level radiation (LLR) exposures retard the development of neoplasms in humans and experimental animals. Here, we review immunosuppressive mechanisms induced by growing tumors as well as immunomodulatory effects of LLR evidently or likely associated with cancer-inhibiting outcomes of such exposures. We also offer suggestions how LLR may restore and/or stimulate effective anti-tumor immunity during the more advanced stages of carcinogenesis. We postulate that, based on epidemiological and experimental data amassed over the last few decades, whole- or half-body irradiations with LLR should be systematically examined for its potential to be a viable immunotherapeutic treatment option for patients with systemic cancer.

Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis

Objective To estimate the cumulative radiation exposure and lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence associated with lung cancer screening using annual low dose computed tomography (CT).Design Secondary analysis of data from a lung cancer screening trial and risk-benefit analysis.Setting 10 year, non-randomised, single centre, low dose CT, lung cancer screening trial (COSMOS study) which took place in Milan, Italy in 2004-15 (enrolment in 2004-05). Secondary analysis took place in 2015-16.Participants High risk asymptomatic smokers aged 50 and older, who were current or former smokers (≥20 pack years), and had no history of cancer in the previous five years.Main outcome measures Cumulative radiation exposure from low dose CT and positron emission tomography (PET) CT scans, calculated by dosimetry software; and lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence, calculated from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII (BEIR VII) report.Results Over 10 years, 5203 participants (3439 men, 1764 women) underwent 42 228 low dose CT and 635 PET CT scans. The median cumulative effective dose at the 10th year of screening was 9.3 mSv for men and 13.0 mSv for women. According to participants' age and sex, the lifetime attributable risk of lung cancer and major cancers after 10 years of CT screening ranged from 5.5 to 1.4 per 10 000 people screened, and from 8.1 to 2.6 per 10 000 people screened, respectively. In women aged 50-54, the lifetime attributable risk of lung cancer and major cancers was about fourfold and threefold higher than for men aged 65 and older, respectively. The numbers of lung cancer and major cancer cases induced by 10 years of screening in our cohort were 1.5 and 2.4, respectively, which corresponded to an additional risk of induced major cancers of 0.05% (2.4/5203). 259 lung cancers were diagnosed in 10 years of screening; one radiation induced major cancer would be expected for every 108 (259/2.4) lung cancers detected through screening.Conclusion Radiation exposure and cancer risk from low dose CT screening for lung cancer, even if non-negligible, can be considered acceptable in light of the substantial mortality reduction associated with screening.

Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: A Non Sequitur of Non-Trivial Proportion

Radiologic imaging is claimed to carry an iatrogenic risk of cancer, based on an uninformed commitment to the 70-y-old linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH). Credible evidence of imaging-related low-dose (<100 mGy) carcinogenic risk is nonexistent; it is a hypothetical risk derived from the demonstrably false LNTH. On the contrary, low-dose radiation does not cause, but more likely helps prevent, cancer. The LNTH and its offspring, ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), are fatally flawed, focusing only on molecular damage while ignoring protective, organismal biologic responses. Although some grant the absence of low-dose harm, they nevertheless advocate the "prudence" of dose optimization (i.e., using ALARA doses); but this is a radiophobia-centered, not scientific, approach. Medical imaging studies achieve a diagnostic purpose and should be governed by the highest science-based principles and policies. The LNTH is an invalidated hypothesis, and its use, in the form of ALARA dosing, is responsible for misguided concerns promoting radiophobia, leading to actual risks far greater than the hypothetical carcinogenic risk purportedly avoided. Further, the myriad benefits of imaging are ignored. The present work calls for ending the radiophobia caused by those asserting the need for dose optimization in imaging: the low-dose radiation of medical imaging has no documented pathway to harm, whereas the LNTH and ALARA most assuredly do.

The role of dose rate in radiation cancer risk: evaluating the effect of dose rate at the molecular, cellular and tissue levels using key events in critical pathways following exposure to low LET radiation

PURPOSE

This review evaluates the role of dose rate on cell and molecular responses. It focuses on the influence of dose rate on key events in critical pathways in the development of cancer. This approach is similar to that used by the U.S. EPA and others to evaluate risk from chemicals. It provides a mechanistic method to account for the influence of the dose rate from low-LET radiation, especially in the low-dose region on cancer risk assessment. Molecular, cellular, and tissues changes are observed in many key events and change as a function of dose rate. The magnitude and direction of change can be used to help establish an appropriate dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF).

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive data on key events suggest that exposure to low dose-rates are less effective in producing changes than high dose rates. Most of these data at the molecular and cellular level support a large (2-30) DREF. In addition, some evidence suggests that doses delivered at a low dose rate decrease damage to levels below that observed in the controls. However, there are some data human and mechanistic data that support a dose-rate effectiveness factor of 1. In summary, a review of the available molecular, cellular and tissue data indicates that not only is dose rate an important variable in understanding radiation risk but it also supports the selection of a DREF greater than one as currently recommended by ICRP ( 2007 ) and BEIR VII (NRC/NAS 2006 ).

Time to Reject the Linear-No Threshold Hypothesis and Accept Thresholds and Hormesis: A Petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

On February 9, 2015, I submitted a petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject the linear-no threshold (LNT) hypothesis and ALARA as the bases for radiation safety regulation in the United States, using instead threshold and hormesis evidence. In this article, I will briefly review the history of LNT and its use by regulators, the lack of evidence supporting LNT, and the large body of evidence supporting thresholds and hormesis. Physician acceptance of cancer risk from low dose radiation based upon federal regulatory claims is unfortunate and needs to be reevaluated. This is dangerous to patients and impedes good medical care. A link to my petition is available: http://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hormesis-Petition-to-NRC-02-09-15.pdf, and support by individual physicians once the public comment period begins would be extremely important.

Global Gene Expression Alterations as a Crucial Constituent of Human Cell Response to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation Exposure

Exposure to ionizing radiation (IR) is inevitable to humans in real-life scenarios; the hazards of IR primarily stem from its mutagenic, carcinogenic, and cell killing ability. For many decades, extensive research has been conducted on the human cell responses to IR delivered at a low dose/low dose (LD) rate. These studies have shown that the molecular-, cellular-, and tissue-level responses are different after low doses of IR (LDIR) compared to those observed after a short-term high-dose IR exposure (HDIR). With the advent of high-throughput technologies in the late 1990s, such as DNA microarrays, changes in gene expression have also been found to be ubiquitous after LDIR. Very limited subset of genes has been shown to be consistently up-regulated by LDIR, including CDKN1A. Further research on the biological effects and mechanisms induced by IR in human cells demonstrated that the molecular and cellular processes, including transcriptional alterations, activated by LDIR are often related to protective responses and, sometimes, hormesis. Following LDIR, some distinct responses were observed, these included bystander effects, and adaptive responses. Changes in gene expression, not only at the level of mRNA, but also miRNA, have been found to crucially underlie these effects having implications for radiation protection purposes.

Does Imaging Technology Cause Cancer? Debunking the Linear No-Threshold Model of Radiation Carcinogenesis

In the past several years, there has been a great deal of attention from the popular media focusing on the alleged carcinogenicity of low-dose radiation exposures received by patients undergoing medical imaging studies such as X-rays, computed tomography scans, and nuclear medicine scintigraphy. The media has based its reporting on the plethora of articles published in the scientific literature that claim that there is "no safe dose" of ionizing radiation, while essentially ignoring all the literature demonstrating the opposite point of view. But this reported "scientific" literature in turn bases its estimates of cancer induction on the linear no-threshold hypothesis of radiation carcinogenesis. The use of the linear no-threshold model has yielded hundreds of articles, all of which predict a definite carcinogenic effect of any dose of radiation, regardless of how small. Therefore, hospitals and professional societies have begun campaigns and policies aiming to reduce the use of certain medical imaging studies based on perceived risk:benefit ratio assumptions. However, as they are essentially all based on the linear no-threshold model of radiation carcinogenesis, the risk:benefit ratio models used to calculate the hazards of radiological imaging studies may be grossly inaccurate if the linear no-threshold hypothesis is wrong. Here, we review the myriad inadequacies of the linear no-threshold model and cast doubt on the various studies based on this overly simplistic model.