OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare induced DNA double-strand breaks by cardiac computed tomography (CT) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA). METHODS:56 patients with suspected coronary artery disease were randomised to undergo either CCA or cardiac CT. DNA double-strand breaks were assessed in fluorescence microscopy of blood lymphocytes as indicators of the biological effects of radiation exposure. Radiation doses were estimated using dose-length product (DLP) and dose-area product (DAP) with conversion factors for CT and CCA, respectively. RESULTS: On average there were 0.12 ± 0.06 induced double-strand breaks per lymphocyte for CT and 0.29 ± 0.18 for diagnostic CCA (P < 0.001). This relative biological effect of ionising radiation from CCA was 1.9 times higher (P < 0.001) than the effective dose estimated by conversion factors would have suggested. The correlation between the biological effects and the estimated radiation doses was excellent for CT (r = 0.951, P < 0.001) and moderate to good for CCA (r = 0.862, P < 0.001). One day after radiation, a complete repair of double-strand breaks to background levels was found in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion factors may underestimate the relative biological effects of ionising radiation from CCA. DNA double-strand break assessment may provide a strategy for individualised assessments of radiation. KEY POINTS: • Radiation dose causes concern for both conventional coronary angiography and cardiac CT. • Estimations of the biological effects of ionising radiation may become feasible. • Fewer DNA double-strand breaks are induced by cardiac CT than CCA. • Conversion factors may underestimate the relative effects of ionising radiation from CCA.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare induced DNA double-strand breaks by cardiac computed tomography (CT) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA). METHODS: 56 patients with suspected coronary artery disease were randomised to undergo either CCA or cardiac CT. DNA double-strand breaks were assessed in fluorescence microscopy of blood lymphocytes as indicators of the biological effects of radiation exposure. Radiation doses were estimated using dose-length product (DLP) and dose-area product (DAP) with conversion factors for CT and CCA, respectively. RESULTS: On average there were 0.12 ± 0.06 induced double-strand breaks per lymphocyte for CT and 0.29 ± 0.18 for diagnostic CCA (P < 0.001). This relative biological effect of ionising radiation from CCA was 1.9 times higher (P < 0.001) than the effective dose estimated by conversion factors would have suggested. The correlation between the biological effects and the estimated radiation doses was excellent for CT (r = 0.951, P < 0.001) and moderate to good for CCA (r = 0.862, P < 0.001). One day after radiation, a complete repair of double-strand breaks to background levels was found in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion factors may underestimate the relative biological effects of ionising radiation from CCA. DNA double-strand break assessment may provide a strategy for individualised assessments of radiation. KEY POINTS: • Radiation dose causes concern for both conventional coronary angiography and cardiac CT. • Estimations of the biological effects of ionising radiation may become feasible. • Fewer DNA double-strand breaks are induced by cardiac CT than CCA. • Conversion factors may underestimate the relative effects of ionising radiation from CCA.
Authors: Jacob Geleijns; Raoul M S Joemai; Marc Dewey; Albert de Roos; Maria Zankl; Alfonso Calzado Cantera; Marçal Salvadó Artells Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M A Kuefner; S Grudzenski; J Hamann; S Achenbach; Michael Lell; K Anders; S A Schwab; L Häberle; M Löbrich; M Uder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Carl D Elliston; Andrew E Arai; Marcus Y Chen; Richard Mather; Gregory D N Pearson; Robert L Delapaz; Edward Nickoloff; Ajoy Dutta; David J Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dorothee Deckbar; Thomas Stiff; Barbara Koch; Caroline Reis; Markus Löbrich; Penny A Jeggo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: D B Pryor; L Shaw; C B McCants; K L Lee; D B Mark; F E Harrell; L H Muhlbaier; R M Califf Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1993-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Richard Harbron; Elizabeth A Ainsbury; Simon D Bouffler; Rick J Tanner; Jonathan S Eakins; Mark S Pearce Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: E Kuon; S B Felix; K Weitmann; I Büchner; A Hummel; M Dörr; T Reffelmann; A Riad; M C Busch; K Empen Journal: Herz Date: 2014-10-04 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: E Kuon; K Weitmann; A Hummel; M Dörr; T Reffelmann; A Riad; M C Busch; S B Felix; W Hoffmann; K Empen Journal: Herz Date: 2013-12-08 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: C Vandevoorde; C Franck; K Bacher; L Breysem; M H Smet; C Ernst; A De Backer; K Van De Moortele; P Smeets; H Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amira Bryll; Wirginia Krzyściak; Anna Jurczak; Robert Chrzan; Anna Lizoń; Andrzej Urbanik Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.390