BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Analysis of radiation-induced chromosomal aberrations is regarded as the "gold standard" for classifying individual radiosensitivity. A variety of different parameters can be used. The crucial question, however, is to explore which parameter is suited best to describe the differences between patients with increased radiosensitivity and healthy individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, five patients with severe radiation-induced late effects of at least grade 3, classified according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and eleven healthy individuals were examined retrospectively. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were irradiated in vitro with 0.7 Gy and 2.0 Gy prior to cultivation and stained by means of three-color fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The detailed analysis was focused on the number of breaks per metaphase, on breaks from complex chromosomal rearrangements per metaphase, as well as on the percentage of translocations, dicentric chromosomes, breaks, and excess acentric fragments-each in comparison with the total number of mitoses analyzed. RESULTS: Using the number of breaks from complex chromosomal rearrangements after 2.0 Gy, radiosensitive patients as endpoint were clearly to be distinguished (p = 0.001) from healthy individuals. Translocations (p = 0.001) as well as breaks per metaphase (p = 0.002) were also suitable indicators for detecting differences between patients and healthy individuals. The parameters "percentage of dicentric chromosomes", "breaks", and "excess acentric fragments" in comparison to the total number of mitoses analyzed could neither serve as meaningful nor as significant criteria, since they showed a strong interindividual variability. CONCLUSION: To detect a difference in chromosomal aberrations between healthy and radiosensitive individuals, the parameters "frequency of breaks per metaphase", "complex chromosomal rearrangements", and "translocations" are most suitable.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Analysis of radiation-induced chromosomal aberrations is regarded as the "gold standard" for classifying individual radiosensitivity. A variety of different parameters can be used. The crucial question, however, is to explore which parameter is suited best to describe the differences between patients with increased radiosensitivity and healthy individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, five patients with severe radiation-induced late effects of at least grade 3, classified according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and eleven healthy individuals were examined retrospectively. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were irradiated in vitro with 0.7 Gy and 2.0 Gy prior to cultivation and stained by means of three-color fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The detailed analysis was focused on the number of breaks per metaphase, on breaks from complex chromosomal rearrangements per metaphase, as well as on the percentage of translocations, dicentric chromosomes, breaks, and excess acentric fragments-each in comparison with the total number of mitoses analyzed. RESULTS: Using the number of breaks from complex chromosomal rearrangements after 2.0 Gy, radiosensitive patients as endpoint were clearly to be distinguished (p = 0.001) from healthy individuals. Translocations (p = 0.001) as well as breaks per metaphase (p = 0.002) were also suitable indicators for detecting differences between patients and healthy individuals. The parameters "percentage of dicentric chromosomes", "breaks", and "excess acentric fragments" in comparison to the total number of mitoses analyzed could neither serve as meaningful nor as significant criteria, since they showed a strong interindividual variability. CONCLUSION: To detect a difference in chromosomal aberrations between healthy and radiosensitive individuals, the parameters "frequency of breaks per metaphase", "complex chromosomal rearrangements", and "translocations" are most suitable.
Authors: Deborah E Citrin; Pataje G S Prasanna; Amanda J Walker; Michael L Freeman; Iris Eke; Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff; Molykutty J Arankalayil; Eric P Cohen; Ruth C Wilkins; Mansoor M Ahmed; Mitchell S Anscher; Benjamin Movsas; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Marc S Mendonca; Thomas A Wynn; C Norman Coleman Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Antje Fahrig; T Koch; M Lenhart; P Rieckmann; R Fietkau; Luitpold Distel; B Schuster Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Tina Jost; Barbara Schuster; Lucie Heinzerling; Thomas Weissmann; Rainer Fietkau; Luitpold V Distel; Markus Hecht Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 4.033