Literature DB >> 32175928

Scientific and Logistical Considerations When Screening for Radiation Risks by Using Biodosimetry Based on Biological Effects of Radiation Rather than Dose: The Need for Prior Measurements of Homogeneity and Distribution of Dose.

Harold M Swartz, Ann Barry Flood1, Vijay K Singh, Steven G Swarts2.   

Abstract

An effective medical response to a large-scale radiation event requires prompt and effective initial triage so that appropriate care can be provided to individuals with significant risk for severe acute radiation injury. Arguably, it would be advantageous to use injury rather than radiation dose for the initial assessment; i.e., use bioassays of biological damage. Such assays would be based on changes in intrinsic biological response elements; e.g., up- or down-regulation of genes, proteins, metabolites, blood cell counts, chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, micro-RNA, cytokines, or transcriptomes. Using a framework to evaluate the feasibility of biodosimetry for triaging up to a million people in less than a week following a major radiation event, Part 1 analyzes the logistical feasibility and clinical needs for ensuring that biomarkers of organ-specific injury could be effectively used in this context. We conclude that the decision to use biomarkers of organ-specific injury would greatly benefit by first having independent knowledge of whether the person's exposure was heterogeneous and, if so, what was the dose distribution (to determine which organs were exposed to high doses). In Part 2, we describe how these two essential needs for prior information (heterogeneity and dose distribution) could be obtained by using in vivo nail dosimetry. This novel physical biodosimetry method can also meet the needs for initial triage, providing non-invasive, point-of-care measurements made by non-experts with immediate dose estimates for four separate anatomical sites. Additionally, it uniquely provides immediate information as to whether the exposure was homogeneous and, if not, it can estimate the dose distribution. We conclude that combining the capability of methods such as in vivo EPR nail dosimetry with bioassays to predict organ-specific damage would allow effective use of medical resources to save lives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32175928      PMCID: PMC7269859          DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001244

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   2.922


  37 in total

1.  Detection of partial-body exposure to ionizing radiation by the automatic detection of dicentrics.

Authors:  Aurelie Vaurijoux; Eric Gregoire; Sandrine Roch-Lefevre; Pascale Voisin; Cecile Martin; Philippe Voisin; Laurence Roy; Gaetan Gruel
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  A hybrid phantom system for patient skin and organ dosimetry in fluoroscopically guided interventions.

Authors:  David Borrego; Daniel A Siragusa; Stephen Balter; Wesley E Bolch
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The capacity, capabilities and needs of the WHO BioDoseNet member laboratories.

Authors:  N A Maznyk; R C Wilkins; Z Carr; D C Lloyd
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  Biological Dosimetry by the Triage Dicentric Chromosome Assay - Further validation of International Networking.

Authors:  Ruth C Wilkins; Horst Romm; Ursula Oestreicher; Leonora Marro; Mitsuaki A Yoshida; Y Suto; Pataje G S Prasanna
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  Advances in a framework to compare bio-dosimetry methods for triage in large-scale radiation events.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Holly K Boyle; Gaixin Du; Eugene Demidenko; Roberto J Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 0.972

6.  Automated Triage Radiation Biodosimetry: Integrating Imaging Flow Cytometry with High-Throughput Robotics to Perform the Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay.

Authors:  Qi Wang; Matthew A Rodrigues; Mikhail Repin; Sergey Pampou; Lindsay A Beaton-Green; Jay Perrier; Guy Garty; David J Brenner; Helen C Turner; Ruth C Wilkins
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  Developments in Biodosimetry Methods for Triage With a Focus on X-band Electron Paramagnetic Resonance In Vivo Fingernail Dosimetry.

Authors:  Steven G Swarts; Jason W Sidabras; Oleg Grinberg; Dmitriy S Tipikin; Maciej M Kmiec; Sergey V Petryakov; Wilson Schreiber; Victoria A Wood; Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.316

8.  Individualized adjustments to reference phantom internal organ dosimetry-scaling factors given knowledge of patient external anatomy.

Authors:  Michael B Wayson; Wesley E Bolch
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Triage dose assessment for partial-body exposure: dicentric analysis.

Authors:  Pataje G S Prasanna; Maria Moroni; Terry C Pellmar
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

10.  Electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry for a large-scale radiation incident.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood; Benjamin B Williams; Ruhong Dong; Steven G Swarts; Xiaoming He; Oleg Grinberg; Jason Sidabras; Eugene Demidenko; Jiang Gui; David J Gladstone; Lesley A Jarvis; Maciej M Kmiec; Kyo Kobayashi; Piotr N Lesniewski; Stephen D P Marsh; Thomas P Matthews; Roberto J Nicolalde; Patrick M Pennington; Timothy Raynolds; Ildar Salikhov; Dean E Wilcox; Bassem I Zaki
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.316

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Neuroprotective agents effective against radiation damage of central nervous system.

Authors:  Mária Lalkovicova
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 5.135

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.