Literature DB >> 20065672

Current use and future needs of biodosimetry in studies of long-term health risk following radiation exposure.

Steven L Simon1, André Bouville, Ruth Kleinerman.   

Abstract

Biodosimetry measurements can potentially be an important and integral part of the dosimetric methods used in long-term studies of health risk following radiation exposure. Such studies rely on accurate estimation of doses to the whole body or to specific organs of individuals in order to derive reliable estimates of cancer risk. However, dose estimates based on analytical dose reconstruction (i.e., models) or personnel monitoring measurements (i.e., film badges) can have substantial uncertainty. Biodosimetry can potentially reduce uncertainty in health risk studies by corroboration of model-based dose estimates or by using them to assess bias in dose models. While biodosimetry has begun to play a more significant role in long-term health risk studies, its use is still generally limited in that context due to one or more factors including inadequate limits of detection, large inter-individual variability of the signal measured, high per-sample cost, and invasiveness. Presently, the most suitable biodosimetry methods for epidemiologic studies are chromosome aberration frequencies from fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of peripheral blood lymphocytes and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements made on tooth enamel. Both types of measurements, however, are usually invasive and require biological samples that can be difficult to obtain. Moreover, doses derived from these methods are not always directly relevant to the tissues of interest. To increase the value of biodosimetry to epidemiologic studies, a number of issues need to be considered, including limits of detection, effects of inhomogenous exposure of the body, how to extrapolate from the tissue sampled to the tissues of interest, and how to adjust dosimetry models applied to large populations based on sparse biodosimetry measurements. The requirements of health risk studies suggest a set of characteristics that, if satisfied by new biodosimetry methods, would increase the overall usefulness of biodosimetry in determining radiation health risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20065672      PMCID: PMC2806653          DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181a86628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   1.316


  23 in total

1.  Collaborative exercise on the use of FISH chromosome painting for retrospective biodosimetry of Mayak nuclear-industrial personnel.

Authors:  M Bauchinger; H Braselmann; J R Savage; A T Natarajan; G I Terzoudi; G E Pantelias; F Darroudi; M Figgitt; C S Griffin; S Knehr; N D Okladnikova; S Santos; G Snigiryova
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.694

2.  Three somatic genetic biomarkers and covariates in radiation-exposed Russian cleanup workers of the chernobyl nuclear reactor 6-13 years after exposure.

Authors:  Irene M Jones; Heather Galick; Paula Kato; Richard G Langlois; Mortimer L Mendelsohn; Gloria A Murphy; Pavel Pleshanov; Marilyn J Ramsey; Cynthia B Thomas; James D Tucker; Ludmila Tureva; Irina Vorobtsova; David O Nelson
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.841

3.  Dose reconstruction for therapeutic and diagnostic radiation exposures: use in epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Marilyn Stovall; Rita Weathers; Catherine Kasper; Susan A Smith; Lois Travis; Elaine Ron; Ruth Kleinerman
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 4.  Retrospective assessment of radiation exposure using biological dosimetry: chromosome painting, electron paramagnetic resonance and the glycophorin a mutation assay.

Authors:  R A Kleinerman; A A Romanyukha; D A Schauer; J D Tucker
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk Among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: design, epidemiological methods and descriptive results.

Authors:  M Vrijheid; E Cardis; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; Y-O Ahn; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; H Engels; G Gulis; R R Habib; Y Hosoda; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Moser; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 6.  Current status of cytogenetic procedures to detect and quantify previous exposures to radiation.

Authors:  M A Bender; A A Awa; A L Brooks; H J Evans; P G Groer; L G Littlefield; C Pereira; R J Preston; B W Wachholz
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Stable chromosome aberrations in atomic bomb survivors: results from 25 years of investigation.

Authors:  Y Kodama; D Pawel; N Nakamura; D Preston; T Honda; M Itoh; M Nakano; K Ohtaki; S Funamoto; A A Awa
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Radiation dose-response relationships for thyroid nodules and autoimmune thyroid diseases in Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors 55-58 years after radiation exposure.

Authors:  Misa Imaizumi; Toshiro Usa; Tan Tominaga; Kazuo Neriishi; Masazumi Akahoshi; Eiji Nakashima; Kiyoto Ashizawa; Ayumi Hida; Midori Soda; Saeko Fujiwara; Michiko Yamada; Eri Ejima; Naokata Yokoyama; Masamichi Okubo; Keizo Sugino; Gen Suzuki; Renju Maeda; Shigenobu Nagataki; Katsumi Eguchi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Estimating cancer risks from low doses of ionizing radiation.

Authors:  C E Land
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-09-12       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  A New Era of Low-Dose Radiation Epidemiology.

Authors:  Cari M Kitahara; Martha S Linet; Preetha Rajaraman; Estelle Ntowe; Amy Berrington de González
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2015-09

Review 2.  Prevention of future incidents and investigational lines.

Authors:  Miguel J Martín; José Zapatero; Mario López
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2011-07-16

3.  Chromosome Translocations, Inversions and Telomere Length for Retrospective Biodosimetry on Exposed U.S. Atomic Veterans.

Authors:  Miles J McKenna; Erin Robinson; Lynn Taylor; Christopher Tompkins; Michael N Cornforth; Steven L Simon; Susan M Bailey
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 2.841

4.  LONG-TERM BIODOSIMETRY REDUX.

Authors:  Steven L Simon; André Bouville
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  A critical assessment of biodosimetry methods for large-scale incidents.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood; Robert M Gougelet; Michael E Rea; Roberto J Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

6.  The use of portable OSL and IRSL measurements of NaCl in low dose assessments following a radiological or nuclear emergency.

Authors:  Hamdan Alghamdi; David Sanderson; Lorna Carmichael; Alan Cresswell; L Martin
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-08-30

7.  Guidelines for exposure assessment in health risk studies following a nuclear reactor accident.

Authors:  André Bouville; Martha S Linet; Maureen Hatch; Kiyohiko Mabuchi; Steven L Simon
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Dose-dependent decrease in anti-oxidant capacity of whole blood after irradiation: A novel potential marker for biodosimetry.

Authors:  Lue Sun; Yohei Inaba; Keizo Sato; Aki Hirayama; Koji Tsuboi; Ryuji Okazaki; Koichi Chida; Takashi Moritake
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.