| Literature DB >> 26349546 |
Yu Abe1, Tomisato Miura2, Mitsuaki A Yoshida3, Risa Ujiie1, Yumiko Kurosu1, Nagisa Kato1, Atsushi Katafuchi1, Naohiro Tsuyama1, Takashi Ohba4, Tomoko Inamasu4, Fumio Shishido5, Hideyoshi Noji6, Kazuei Ogawa6, Hiroshi Yokouchi7, Kenya Kanazawa7, Takashi Ishida7, Satoshi Muto8, Jun Ohsugi8, Hiroyuki Suzuki8, Tetsuo Ishikawa9,10, Kenji Kamiya11,10, Akira Sakai1,10.
Abstract
Excess risk of leukemia and brain tumors after CT scans in children has been reported. We performed dicentric chromosome assay (DCAs) before and after CT scan to assess effects of low-dose ionizing radiation on chromosomes. Peripheral blood (PB) lymphocytes were collected from 10 patients before and after a CT scan. DCA was performed by analyzing either 1,000 or 2,000 metaphases using both Giemsa staining and centromere-fluorescence in situ hybridization (Centromere-FISH). The increment of DIC formation was compared with effective radiation dose calculated using the computational dosimetry system, WAZA-ARI and dose length product (DLP) in a CT scan. Dicentric chromosome (DIC) formation increased significantly after a single CT scan, and increased DIC formation was found in all patients. A good correlation between the increment of DIC formation determined by analysis of 2,000 metaphases using Giemsa staining and those by 2,000 metaphases using Centromere-FISH was observed. However, no correlation was observed between the increment of DIC formation and the effective radiation dose. Therefore, these results suggest that chromosome cleavage may be induced by one CT scan, and we recommend 2,000 or more metaphases be analyzed in Giemsa staining or Centromere-FISH for DCAs in cases of low-dose radiation exposure.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26349546 PMCID: PMC4563376 DOI: 10.1038/srep13882
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient background data.
| 1 | Lung cancer | Chest | 8 | Operation | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI, PET |
| 2 | Lymphoma | Cervix, Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis | 3 | Chemotherapy | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI |
| 3 | Lymphoma | Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis | 11 | Chemotherapy & Radiotherapy | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI, PET |
| 4 | Chest abnormal shadow | Chest | 15 | (−) | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI |
| 5 | Chest abnormal shadow | Chest | 22 | (−) | (+) | (+) | Chest, UGI |
| 6 | Lymphoma | Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis | 14 | Chemotherapy | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI |
| 7 | Lymphoma | Cervix, Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis | 2 | Chemotherapy & Radiotherapy | (+) | (+) | Chest, UGI, PET |
| 8 | Lymphoma | Cervix, Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis | 28 | Chemotherapy | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI |
| 9 | Lymphoma | Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis | 7 | Chemotherapy | (+) | (+) | Chest, UGI, PET |
| 10 | Chest abnormal shadow | Chest | 14 | (−) | (−) | (+) | Chest, UGI |
#1Chemotherapy or radiotherapy had been performed at least five years before this study.
#2These patients had given up smoking at least ten years before this study.
#3All patients except one (No. 10) took examinations of CT scanning more than 5 times during the past 5 years.
#4UGI: X-ray examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract, PET: positron emission tomography.
Increment in DIC formation resulting from CT scan.
| 1 | 5 | 8 | 3/2000 | 5.78 | 619.1 |
| 2 | 5 | 9 | 4/2000 | 21.90 | 2557.8 |
| 3 | 9 | 12 | 3/2000 | 23.26 | 2514 |
| 4 | 5 | 7 | 2/2000 | 6.85 | 1369.7 |
| 5 | 0 | 4 | 4/2000 | 12.99 | 1880.3 |
| 6 | 3 | 10 | 7/2000 | 23.07 | 3265.6 |
| 7 | 15 | 17 | 2/2000 | 23.21 | 5321.6 |
| 8 | 12 | 14 | 2/2000 | 60.27 | 5501.3 |
| 9 | 4 | 10 | 6/2000 | 40.96 | 2788.6 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 0/2000 | 24.13 | 1393.4 |
| 1 | 2 | 5 | 3/2000 | 5.78 | 619.1 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 | 2/2000 | 21.90 | 2557.8 |
| 3 | 5 | 9 | 4/2000 | 23.26 | 2514 |
| 4 | 3 | 4 | 1/2000 | 6.85 | 1369.7 |
| 5 | 3 | 6 | 3/2000 | 12.99 | 1880.3 |
| 6 | 2 | 8 | 6/2000 | 23.07' | 3265.6 |
| 7 | 11 | 15 | 4/2000 | 23.21 | 5321.6 |
| 8 | 13 | 14 | 1/2000 | 60.27 | 5501.3 |
| 9 | 2 | 8 | 6/2000 | 40.96 | 2788.6 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 1/2000 | 24.13 | 1393.4 |
Figure 1Number of DICs formed before the CT scan and comparison of the number of DICs formed before and after the CT scan.
The line indicates the mean value. There was no significant difference between patients with and without treatment history, as determined using both Giemsa staining (p = 0.0847) (a) and Centromere-FISH (p = 0.1512) (b). Significantly more DICs were formed after the CT scan than before the CT scan, as determined using both Giemsa staining (p = 0.0007) (c) and Centromere-FISH (p = 0.0006) (d).
Figure 2Relationship between the increment of DIC formation and the effective radiation dose, as calculated using WAZA-ARI.
No correlation was observed with the results of either Giemsa staining (R2 = 0.00238) (a) or Centromere-FISH (R2 = 0.00147) (b).
Figure 3Relationship of the increment of DIC formation between analysis of 1,000 and 2,000 metaphases using either Giemsa staining or Centromere-FISH, or between the results of Giemsa staining and Centromere-FISH in analysis of either 1,000 or 2,000 metaphases.
No correlation was observed with the results of Giemsa staining (R2 = 0.06692) (a), but a correlation was observed with the results of Centromere-FISH (R2 = 0.60864) (b). No correlation was observed in the analysis of 1,000 metaphases (R2 = 0.18283) (c), but a correlation was observed in the analysis of 2,000 metaphases (R2 = 0.65942) (d).