The impact of dose rate on the linear no threshold hypothesis

ALARA in Urology: Steps to Minimise Radiation Exposure During All Parts of the Endourological Journey

Purpose of the Review

The global burden of kidney stone disease (KSD) and its management relies on ionising radiation. This includes the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of KSD patients. The concept ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) developed in response to the radiation risks and the key principles include optimisation, justification and limitation of radiation. This article provides an overview of the topic including background to the risks and steps that can be taken during all stages of endourological management.

Recent Findings

Our review suggests that ionising radiation is an invaluable tool in delineating the anatomy, localising disease, guiding manoeuvres and monitoring treatment in patients with KSD. It therefore plays an integral role in many stages of patient care; preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively.

The reduction of radiation pre- and post-surgical intervention relies on the use of low-radiation CT scan and ultrasound scan. It can also be achieved through various intraoperative techniques or fluoroless techniques in selected patients/procedures, customised to the patients and procedural complexity.

Summary

There are many parts of the patient journey where exposure to radiation can take place. Urologists must be diligent to minimise and mitigate this wherever possible as they too face exposure risks. Implementation of strategies such as teaching programmes, fluoroscopy checklists and judicious use of CT imaging among other things is a step towards improving practice in this area.

Perturbed transcriptional profiles after chronic low dose rate radiation in mice

Adverse health outcomes of ionizing radiation given chronically at low dose rates are highly debated, a controversy also relevant for other stressors. Increased knowledge is needed for a more comprehensive understanding of the damaging potential of ionizing radiation from all dose rates and doses. There is a lack of relevant low dose rate data that is partly ascribed to the rarity of exposure facilities allowing chronic low dose rate exposures. Using the FIGARO facility, we assessed early (one day post-radiation) and late (recovery time of 100-200 days) hepatic genome-wide transcriptional profiles in male mice of two strains (CBA/CaOlaHsd and C57BL/6NHsd) exposed chronically to a low dose rate (2.5 mGy/h; 1200h, LDR), a mid-dose rate (10 mGy/h; 300h, MDR) and acutely to a high dose rate (100 mGy/h; 30h, HDR) of gamma irradiation, given to an equivalent total dose of 3 Gy. Dose-rate and strain-specific transcriptional responses were identified. Differently modulated transcriptional responses across all dose rate exposure groups were evident by the representation of functional biological pathways. Evidence of changed epigenetic regulation (global DNA methylation) was not detected. A period of recovery markedly reduced the number of differentially expressed genes. Using enrichment analysis to identify the functional significance of the modulated genes, perturbed signaling pathways associated with both cancer and non-cancer effects were observed, such as lipid metabolism and inflammation. These pathways were seen after chronic low dose rate and were not restricted to the acute high dose rate exposure. The transcriptional response induced by chronic low dose rate ionizing radiation suggests contribution to conditions such as cardiovascular diseases. We contribute with novel genome wide transcriptional data highlighting dose-rate-specific radiation responses and emphasize the importance of considering both dose rate, duration of exposure, and variability in susceptibility when assessing risks from ionizing radiation.

Development of a dose-rate dosimeter for x-ray CT scanner using silicon x-ray diode

In an x-ray diagnosis, it is important to evaluate the entrance dose rate, as the dose rate of exposure becomes highest in that position. To investigate the effect of the entrance dose rate of x-ray CT scanners, a dose-rate dosimeter comprising a silicon x-ray diode (Si-XD), a CMOS dual operational amplifier, resistors, capacitors, and a mini-substrate measuring 20 × 17 mm² were developed. The Si-XD is desirable for measuring the changing entrance dose rate, as it enables the reduction of the response time, dimensions, and cost of the dosimeter. The dosimeter was connected to a microcomputer (mbed), and the output voltages from the dosimeter were measured using an analog-digital converter in the mbed. The output voltages were proportional to the tube currents at a constant tube voltage of 100 kV using an industrial x-ray tube, and the calibrated dose rates corresponded well to those obtained using a commercially available semiconductor dosimeter. However, owing to the energy dependence of the dosimeter, the calibrated dose rate was ∼10% higher than that of a commercially available semiconductor dosimeter at the lower tube voltage. In the angular dependence of the dosimeter, the flatness measured from 60° to 120° was ∼103% in this study. A fundamental study for measuring the dose-rate variations with rotation was performed. The results showed a different profile than the angular dependence due to the distance from the source and the complex factors of the scattered radiation.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

Evaluation of induced biological effects in rats by continuous and natural gamma radiation using a physical simulator

PURPOSE

The effects of radioactivity on human health have been debated for many years but there are still important gaps that need to be addressed especially related to the effects of high natural background radiation on the local population. The beach of Meaípe, in the city of Guarapari (Brazil), emits natural gamma radiation due to the presence of monazite sands. We aimed to investigate the effects of gamma radiation doses on the biological system of wistar rats using a physical simulator of gamma radiation designed using Meaípe monazite sands.

METHODS

Female Wistar rats were divided into three groups, submitted to no radiation (control group) and to continuous radiation levels, one of very high level (20 μSv h^-1) and another of high level (3.6 μSv h^-1). The three group of animals were monitored weekly for 3 months and at the end of the study the animals were sacrificed, and the organs were extracted and weighed for anthropometric, oxidative stress and histological evaluations.

RESULTS

Exposure to radiation released by the monazite sands did not cause anthropometric alterations or blood pressure change in the animals. Similarly, there was no change in the quantification of ovarian follicles between the radiation groups and the control group. There was no difference in the oxidative stress quantification by the thiobarbituric acid reactive substance and advanced oxidation protein product methods in the ovaries. There were no evidenced damages in the structure of the renal tissue. It was observed the presence of granulomas in the hepatic tissue and alterations in the nuclei of the hepatocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the continuous exposure of females rats to 3.6 and 20 μSv h^-1 doses of gamma radiation slightly affected the hepatic tissue, but did not alter the histological parameters in the kidneys and ovaries and oxidative stress.

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

All too often the family physician, orthopedic surgeon, dentist or chiropractor is met with radiophobic concerns about X-ray imaging in the clinical setting. These concerns, however, are unwarranted fears based on common but ill-informed and perpetuated ideology versus current understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation exposures. Themes of X-ray hesitancy come in 3 forms: 1. All radiation exposures are harmful (i.e. carcinogenic); 2. Radiation exposures are cumulative; 3. Children are more susceptible to radiation. Herein we address these concerns and find that low-dose radiation activates the body's adaptive responses and leads to reduced cancers. Low-dose radiation is not cumulative as long as enough time (e.g. 24 hrs) passes prior to a repeated exposure, and any damage is repaired, removed, or eliminated. Children have more active immune systems; the literature shows children are no more affected than adults by radiation exposures. Medical X-rays present a small, insignificant addition to background radiation exposure that is not likely to cause harm. Doctors and patients alike should be better informed of the lack of risks from diagnostic radiation and the decision to image should rely on the best evidence, unique needs of the patient, and the expertise of the physician-not radiophobia.