Literature DB >> 15387138

The neoplastic transformation potential of mammography X rays and atomic bomb spectrum radiation.

G J Heyes1, A J Mill.   

Abstract

Considerable controversy currently exists regarding the biological effectiveness of 29 kVp X rays which are used for mammography screening. This issue must be resolved to enable proper evaluation of radiation risks from breast screening. Here a definitive assessment of the biological effectiveness of 29 kVp X rays compared to the quality of radiation to which the atomic bomb survivors were exposed is presented for the first time. The standard radiation sources used were (a) an atomic bomb simulation spectrum and (b) 2.2 MeV electrons from a strontium-90/yttrium-90 (90Sr/90Y) radioactive source. The biological end point used was neoplastic transformation in vitro in CGL1 (HeLa x human fibroblast hybrid) cells. No significant difference was observed for the biological effectiveness of the two high-energy sources for neoplastic transformation. A limiting relative biological effectiveness (RBE(M)) of 4.42 +/- 2.02 was observed for neoplastic transformation by 29 kVp X rays compared to these two sources. This compares with values of 4.67 +/- 3.93 calculated from previously published data and 3.58 +/- 1.77 when the reference radiation was 200 and 220 kVp X rays. This suggests that the risks associated with mammography screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed and that the risk-benefit relationship of mammography exposures may need to be re-examined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15387138     DOI: 10.1667/rr3212

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  10 in total

1.  RBE of 25 kV X-rays for the survival and induction of micronuclei in the human mammary epithelial cell line MCF-12A.

Authors:  Anna Lehnert; Elisabeth Lessmann; Jörg Pawelke; Wolfgang Dörr
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2006-09-08       Impact factor: 1.925

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

Authors:  Bobby E Leonard
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  Relative biological effectiveness of 25 and 10 kV X-rays for the induction of chromosomal aberrations in two human mammary epithelial cell lines.

Authors:  Elke Beyreuther; Wolfgang Dörr; Anna Lehnert; Elisabeth Lessmann; Jörg Pawelke
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Is there reliable experimental evidence for different dicentric yields in human lymphocytes produced by mammography X-rays free-in-air and within a phantom?

Authors:  L Büermann; M Krumrey; M Haney; E Schmid
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2005-04-06       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  "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.

Authors:  Bobby E Leonard
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 7.  A review of dosimetry studies on external-beam radiation treatment with respect to second cancer induction.

Authors:  X George Xu; Bryan Bednarz; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-06-09       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Gene expression changes and DNA damage after ex vivo exposure of peripheral blood cells to various CT photon spectra.

Authors:  Hanns Leonhard Kaatsch; Benjamin Valentin Becker; Simone Schüle; Patrick Ostheim; Kai Nestler; Julia Jakobi; Barbara Schäfer; Thomas Hantke; Marc A Brockmann; Michael Abend; Stephan Waldeck; Matthias Port; Harry Scherthan; Reinhard Ullmann
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Differential Radiosensitizing Effect of 50 nm Gold Nanoparticles in Two Cancer Cell Lines.

Authors:  Miguel Ángel Pérez-Amor; Leonardo Barrios; Gemma Armengol; Joan Francesc Barquinero
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-09

10.  MiR-34a is up-regulated in response to low dose, low energy X-ray induced DNA damage in breast cells.

Authors:  Luiza Stankevicins; Ana Paula Almeida da Silva; Flavia Ventura Dos Passos; Evelin Dos Santos Ferreira; Maria Cecilia Menks Ribeiro; Mariano G David; Evandro J Pires; Samara Cristina Ferreira-Machado; Yegor Vassetzky; Carlos Eduardo de Almeida; Claudia Vitoria de Moura Gallo
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 3.481

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.