Health risks of low photon energy imaging

Shielding characteristics of nanocomposites for protection against X- and gamma rays in medical applications: effect of particle size, photon energy and nano-particle concentration

In recent decades, nanomaterials have been extensively investigated for many applications. Composites doped with different metal nanoparticles have been suggested as effective shielding materials to replace conventional lead-based materials. The use of concretes as structural and radiation protective material has been influenced by the addition of nanomaterials. Several elements with high atomic number and density, such as lead, bismuth, and tungsten, have the potential to form nanoparticles that offer significant enhancements in the shielding ability of composites. Their performance for a range of particle concentrations, particle sizes, and photon energies have been investigated. This review is an attempt to gather the data published in the literature about the application of nanomaterials in radiation shielding, including the use of polymer composites and concretes for protection against X-rays and gamma radiation.

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 ).

Exposure Risks Among Children Undergoing Radiation Therapy: Considerations in the Era of Image Guided Radiation Therapy

Recent improvements in toxicity profiles of pediatric oncology patients are attributable, in part, to advances in the field of radiation oncology such as intensity modulated radiation (IMRT) and proton therapy (IMPT). While IMRT and IMPT deliver highly conformal dose to targeted volumes, they commonly demand the addition of 2- or 3-dimensional imaging for precise positioning--a technique known as image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). In this manuscript we address strategies to further minimize exposure risk in children by reducing effective IGRT dose. Portal X rays and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) are commonly used to verify patient position during IGRT and, because their relative radiation exposure is far less than the radiation absorbed from therapeutic treatment beams, their sometimes significant contribution to cumulative risk can be easily overlooked. Optimizing the conformality of IMRT/IMPT while simultaneously ignoring IGRT dose may result in organs at risk being exposed to a greater proportion of radiation from IGRT than from therapeutic beams. Over a treatment course, cumulative central-axis CBCT effective dose can approach or supersede the amount of radiation absorbed from a single treatment fraction, a theoretical increase of 3% to 5% in mutagenic risk. In select scenarios, this may result in the underprediction of acute and late toxicity risk (such as azoospermia, ovarian dysfunction, or increased lifetime mutagenic risk) in radiation-sensitive organs and patients. Although dependent on variables such as patient age, gender, weight, body habitus, anatomic location, and dose-toxicity thresholds, modifying IGRT use and acquisition parameters such as frequency, imaging modality, beam energy, current, voltage, rotational degree, collimation, field size, reconstruction algorithm, and documentation can reduce exposure, avoid unnecessary toxicity, and achieve doses as low as reasonably achievable, promoting a culture and practice of "gentle IGRT."

Are Risks From Medical Imaging Still too Small to Be Observed or Nonexistent?

Several radiation-related professional societies have concluded that carcinogenic risks associated with doses below 50-100 mSv are either too small to be detected, or are nonexistent. This is especially important in the context of doses from medical imaging. Radiation exposure to the public from medical imaging procedures is rising around the world, primarily due to increased utilization of computed tomography. Professional societies and advisory bodies consistently recommend against multiplying small doses by large populations to predict excess radiation-induced cancers, in large part because of the potential for sensational claims of health impacts which do not adequately take the associated uncertainties into account. Nonetheless, numerous articles have predicted thousands of future cancers as a result of CT scanning, and this has generated considerable concern among patients and parents. In addition, some authors claim that we now have direct epidemiological evidence of carcinogenic risks from medical imaging. This paper critically examines such claims, and concludes that the evidence cited does not provide direct evidence of low-dose carcinogenicity. These claims themselves have adverse public health impacts by frightening the public away from medically justified exams. It is time for the medical and scientific communities to be more assertive in responding to sensational claims of health risks.

Multidetector CT dose: clinical practice improvement strategies from a successful optimization program

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to collect data relating to radiation dose delivered by multidetector CT scanning at 10 hospitals and private practices in Queensland, Australia, and to test methods for dose optimization training, including audit feedback and didactic, face-to-face, small-group teaching of optimization techniques.

METHODS

Ten hospital-based public and private sector radiology practices, with one CT scanner per site, volunteered for the project. Data were collected for a variety of common adult and pediatric CT scanning protocols, including tube current-time product, pitch, collimation, tube voltage, the use of dose modulation, and scan length. A one-day feedback and optimization training workshop was conducted for participating practices and was attended by the radiologist and medical imaging technologist responsible for the project at each site. Data were deidentified for the workshop presentation. During the feedback workshop, a detailed analysis and discussion of factors contributing to dose for higher dosing practices for each protocol occurred. The postoptimization training data collection phase allowed changes to median and spread of doses to be measured.

RESULTS

During the baseline survey period, data for 1,208 scans were collected, and data from 1,153 scans were collected for the postoptimization dose survey for the 4 adult protocols (noncontrast brain CT, CT pulmonary angiography , CT lumbar spine, and CT urography). A mean decrease in effective dose was achieved with all scan protocols. Average reductions of 46% for brain CT, 28% for CT pulmonary angiography, 29% for CT lumbar spine, and 24% CT urography were calculated. It proved impossible to collect valid pediatric data from most sites, because of the small numbers of children presenting for multidetector CT, and phantom data were acquired during the preoptimization and postoptimization phase. Substantial phantom dose reductions were demonstrated at all sites.

CONCLUSION

Audit feedback and small-group teaching about optimization enabled clinically meaningful dose reduction for a variety of common adult scans. However, access to medical radiation physicists, assistance with time-consuming data collection, and technical support from a medical imaging technologist were costly and critical to the success of the program.

Human Lung Cancer Risks from Radon - Part III - Evidence of Influence of Combined Bystander and Adaptive Response Effects on Radon Case-Control Studies - A Microdose Analysis

Since the publication of the BEIR VI (1999) report on health risks from radon, a significant amount of new data has been published showing various mechanisms that may affect the ultimate assessment of radon as a carcinogen, in particular the potentially deleterious Bystander Effect (BE) and the potentially beneficial Adaptive Response radio-protection (AR). The case-control radon lung cancer risk data of the pooled 13 European countries radon study (Darby et al 2005, 2006) and the 8 North American pooled study (Krewski et al 2005, 2006) have been evaluated. The large variation in the odds ratios of lung cancer from radon risk is reconciled, based on the large variation in geological and ecological conditions and variation in the degree of adaptive response radio-protection against the bystander effect induced lung damage. The analysis clearly shows Bystander Effect radon lung cancer induction and Adaptive Response reduction in lung cancer in some geographical regions. It is estimated that for radon levels up to about 400 Bq m(-3) there is about a 30% probability that no human lung cancer risk from radon will be experienced and a 20% probability that the risk is below the zero-radon, endogenic spontaneous or perhaps even genetically inheritable lung cancer risk rate. The BEIR VI (1999) and EPA (2003) estimates of human lung cancer deaths from radon are most likely significantly excessive. The assumption of linearity of risk, by the Linear No-Threshold Model, with increasing radon exposure is invalid.

Human Lung Cancer Risks from Radon - Part II - Influence from Combined Adaptive Response and Bystander Effects - A Microdose Analysis

In the prior Part I, the potential influence of the low level alpha radiation induced bystander effect (BE) on human lung cancer risks was examined. Recent analysis of adaptive response (AR) research results with a Microdose Model has shown that single low LET radiation induced charged particles traversals through the cell nucleus activates AR. We have here conducted an analysis based on what is presently known about adaptive response and the bystander effect (BE) and what new research is needed that can assist in the further evaluation human cancer risks from radon. We find that, at the UNSCEAR (2000) worldwide average human exposures from natural background and man-made radiations, the human lung receives about a 25% adaptive response protection against the radon alpha bystander damage. At the UNSCEAR (2000) minimum range of background exposure levels, the lung receives minimal AR protection but at higher background levels, in the high UNSCEAR (2000) range, the lung receives essentially 100% protection from both the radon alpha damage and also the endogenic, spontaneously occurring, potentially carcinogenic, lung cellular damage.

Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses

Controversy exists regarding the biological effectiveness of low energy x-rays used for mammography breast screening. Recent radiobiology studies have provided compelling evidence that these low energy x-rays may be 4.42 +/- 2.02 times more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy x-rays. These data include a study involving in vitro irradiation of a human cell line using a mammography x-ray source and a high energy source which matches the spectrum of radiation observed in survivors from the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Current radiation risk estimates rely heavily on data from the atomic bomb survivors, and a direct comparison between the diagnostic energies used in the UK breast screening programme and those used for risk estimates can now be made. Evidence highlighting the increase in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of mammography x-rays to a range of x-ray energies implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography x-rays are potentially underestimated by a factor of four. A pooled analysis of three measurements gives a maximal RBE (for malignant transformation of human cells in vitro) of 4.02 +/- 0.72 for 29 kVp (peak accelerating voltage) x-rays compared to high energy electrons and higher energy x-rays. For the majority of women in the UK NHS breast screening programme, it is shown that the benefit safely exceeds the risk of possible cancer induction even when this higher biological effectiveness factor is applied. The risk/benefit analysis, however, implies the need for caution for women screened under the age of 50, and particularly for those with a family history (and therefore a likely genetic susceptibility) of breast cancer. In vitro radiobiological data are generally acquired at high doses, and there are different extrapolation mechanisms to the low doses seen clinically. Recent low dose in vitro data have indicated a potential suppressive effect at very low dose rates and doses. Whilst mammography is a low dose exposure, it is not a low dose rate examination, and protraction of dose should not be confused with fractionation. Although there is potential for a suppressive effect at low doses, recent epidemiological data, and several international radiation risk assessments, continue to promote the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. Finally, recent studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more sensitive than mammography in detecting invasive breast cancer in women with a genetic sensitivity. Since an increase in the risk associated with mammographic screening would blur the justification of exposure for this high risk subgroup, the use of other (non-ionising) screening modalities is preferable.

Mammogram and diagnostic X-rays--evidence of protective Bystander, Adaptive Response (AR) radio-protection and AR retention at high dose levels

PURPOSE

The recently published dose response data by Dr Redpath's research group for low energy (30 kVp) mammography X-rays, displaying Adaptive Response (AR) radio-protective behavior, is significant for millions of American women that undergo annual breast cancer screening. We here, using the recently developed Microdose Model that encompasses the Bystander Effect (BE) and AR behavior, examine the data for BE, AR and high radiation domination by the priming radiations high dose Direct Damage.

RESULTS

The dose response is divided into three regions, Bystander Effect Region, Adaptive Response Region and Direct Damage Region (with possible retention of the AR protection). The Bystander Effect Region is below the microdose Specific Energy deposition for single photon induced charged particle traversals through the cell nucleus (the microdose Specific Energy Deposition per Traversal value = < z1 > = 0.638 cGy per Hit). Strong evidence is shown that a protective BE of about 50% occurs at a very low dose of 0.054 cGy, the BE is depleted reverting the response back to nearly the zero dose control value at 0.27 cGy, a 42% AR protection then is developed at 1.08 cGy and then the Direct Damage increasingly begins to dominate in the range from 5.4-21.6 cGy. Using the precise Method of Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE), the high dose Direct Damage Region is examined. We show that to the dose of 21.6 cGy the AR protection is retained in spite of the significant Direct Damage. We apply the same MLE analysis to the Redpath data for 137Cs gammas and find that the AR protection is completely dissipated at high Direct Damage inducing doses of 100 cGy.

CONCLUSIONS

The model shows that a protective BE of about 50% occurs at a low factor of 12 below single tracks traversals where less than 10% of the cell nuclei have been hit. Poisson distributed single tracks activates the 42% AR protection. The AR protection is retained at high dose but one needs to understand why 137Cs does not. Other Redpath group AR data sets for 137Cs, 232 MeV protons, and brachytherapy 125I photons did not reveal BE since the lowest data points were above the < z1 > for the radiations, but diagnostic X-rays do.

"Protective bystander effects simulated with the state-vector model"--HeLa x skin exposure to Cs not protective bystander response but mammogram and diagnostic X-rays are

The recent Dose Response journal article "Protective Bystander Effects Simulated with the State-Vector Model" (Schollnberger and Eckl 2007) identified the suppressive (below natural occurring, zero primer dose, spontaneous level) dose response for HeLa x skin exposure to (137)Cs gamma rays (Redpath et al 2001) as a protective Bystander Effect (BE) behavior. I had previously analyzed the Redpath et al (2001) data with a Microdose Model and conclusively showed that the suppressive response was from Adaptive Response (AR) radio-protection (Leonard 2005, 2007a). The significance of my microdose analysis has been that low LET radiation induced single (i.e. only one) charged particle traversals through a cell can initiate a Poisson distributed activation of AR radio-protection. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify the distinctions relative to the BE and the AR behaviors for the Redpath groups (137)Cs data, show conversely however that the Redpath group data for mammography (Ko et al 2004) and diagnostic (Redpath et al 2003) X-rays do conclusively reflect protective bystander behavior and also herein emphasize the need for radio-biologist to apply microdosimetry in planning and analyzing their experiments for BE and AR. Whether we are adamantly pro-LNT, adamantly anti-LNT or, like most of us, just simple scientists searching for the truth in radio-biology, it is important that we accurately identify our results, especially when related to the LNT hypothesis controversy.

A composite microdose Adaptive Response (AR) and Bystander Effect (BE) model-application to low LET and high LET AR and BE data

PURPOSE

It has been suggested that Adaptive Response (AR) may reduce risk of adverse health effects due to ionizing radiation. But very low dose Bystander Effects (BE) may impose dominant deleterious human risks. These conflicting behaviors have stimulated controversy regarding the Linear No-Threshold human risk model. A dose and dose rate-dependent microdose model, to examine AR behavior, was developed in prior work. In the prior work a number of in vitro and in vivo dose response data were examined with the model. Recent new data show AR behavior with some evidence of very low dose BE. The purpose of this work is to supplement the microdose model to encompass the Brenner and colleagues BaD (Bystander and Direct Damage) model and apply this composite model to obtain new knowledge regarding AR and BE and illustrate the use of the model to plan radio-biology experiments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The biophysical composite AR and BE Microdose Model quantifies the accumulation of hits (Poisson distributed, microdose specific energy depositions) to cell nucleus volumes. This new composite AR and BE model provides predictions of dose response at very low dose BE levels, higher dose AR levels and even higher dose Direct (linear-quadratic) Damage radiation levels.

RESULTS

We find good fits of the model to both BE data from the Columbia University microbeam facility and combined AR and BE data for low Linear Energy Transfer (LET) and high LET data. A Bystander Factor of about 27,000 and an AR protection factor of 0.61 are obtained for the low LET in vivo mouse spleen exposures. A Bystander Factor of 317 and an AR protection factor of 0.53 are obtained for high LET radon alpha particles in human lymphocytes. In both cases the AR is activated at most by one or two radiation induced charged particle traversals through the cell nucleus.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the model analysis is consistent with a premise that both Bystander damage and Adaptive Response radioprotection can occur in the same cell type, derived from the same cell species. The model provides an analytical tool to biophysically study the combined effects of BE and AR.

A review: Development of a microdose model for analysis of adaptive response and bystander dose response behavior

Prior work has provided incremental phases to a microdosimetry modeling program to describe the dose response behavior of the radio-protective adaptive response effect. We have here consolidated these prior works (Leonard 2000, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c) to provide a composite, comprehensive Microdose Model that is also herein modified to include the bystander effect. The nomenclature for the model is also standardized for the benefit of the experimental cellular radio-biologist. It extends the prior work to explicitly encompass separately the analysis of experimental data that is 1.) only dose dependent and reflecting only adaptive response radio-protection, 2.) both dose and dose-rate dependent data and reflecting only adaptive response radio-protection for spontaneous and challenge dose damage, 3.) only dose dependent data and reflecting both bystander deleterious damage and adaptive response radio-protection (AR-BE model). The Appendix cites the various applications of the model. Here we have used the Microdose Model to analyze the, much more human risk significant, Elmore et al (2006) data for the dose and dose rate influence on the adaptive response radio-protective behavior of HeLa x Skin cells for naturally occurring, spontaneous chromosome damage from a Brachytherapy type (125)I photon radiation source. We have also applied the AR-BE Microdose Model to the Chromosome inversion data of Hooker et al (2004) reflecting both low LET bystander and adaptive response effects. The micro-beam facility data of Miller et al (1999), Nagasawa and Little (1999) and Zhou et al (2003) is also examined. For the Zhou et al (2003) data, we use the AR-BE model to estimate the threshold for adaptive response reduction of the bystander effect. The mammogram and diagnostic X-ray induction of AR and protective BE are observed. We show that bystander damage is reduced in the similar manner as spontaneous and challenge dose damage as shown by the Azzam et al (1996) data. We cite primary unresolved questions regarding adaptive response behavior and bystander behavior. The five features of major significance provided by the Microdose Model so far are 1. Single Specific Energy Hits initiate Adaptive Response. 2. Mammogram and diagnostic X-rays induce a protective Bystander Effect as well as Adaptive Response radio-protection. 3. For mammogram X-rays the Adaptive Response protection is retained at high primer dose levels. 4. The dose range of the AR protection depends on the value of the Specific Energy per Hit, 1 >. 5. Alpha particle induced deleterious Bystander damage is modulated by low LET radiation.

Non-problematic risks from low-dose radiation-induced DNA damage clusters

Radiation-induced DNA damage clusters have been proposed and are usually considered to pose the threat of serious biological damage. This has been attributed to DNA repair debilitation or cessation arising from the complexity of cluster damage. It will be shown here, contrary to both previous suggestions and perceived wisdom, that radiation induced damage clusters contribute to non-problematic risks in the low-dose, low-LET regime. The very complexity of cluster damage which inhibits and/or compromises DNA repair will ultimately be responsible for the elimination and/or diminution of precancerous and cancerous cells.