4.1 Article

18F-FDG PET/CT scanning: Biological effects on patients: Entrance surface dose, DNA damage, and chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2018.12.010

关键词

Low-dose radiation; Adaptive response

资金

  1. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), India [58/04/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT), a combination of PET and CT, is used in tumor staging, therapy planning, and treatment response monitoring. During PET imaging, patients receive low doses of radiation, which can induce an adaptive response and necessitate higher doses for therapeutic efficacy. Higher doses may augment toxicity to normal cells. We are examining the effects of short-term, low-dose exposures to ionizing radiation. Entrance Surface Dose (ESD) to head, shoulders, and pelvis regions were measured using Li2B4O7: Mn thermoluminescent dosimeters. Induced DNA damage in lymphocytes was measured using gamma-H2AX, p53(Ser-15), chromosome aberrations, and micronucleus formation in subjects (n = 25) who underwent F-18-FDG PET/CT. The mean ESD +/- SD value obtained were 32.40 +/- 16.86, 32.58 +/- 14.22, 32.02 +/- 15.42, 43.55 +/- 18.25 and 42.80 +/- 24.67 mGy for the head, right shoulder, left shoulder, right pelvic, and left pelvic regions, respectively. The effective doses of PET and CT ranged from 4.01 to 6.61 and 16.40-72.18 mSv, respectively, and the obtained Dose Length Product (DLP) varied from 1093 to 4812 mGy*cm. There was no correlation between DLP and ESD (r(2) = 0.1). The chromosome aberration assay showed a significant increase (p < 0.05), post-scanning vs. pre-scanning; the gamma-H2AX, p53(Ser-15), and micronucleus assays did not show significant increases. Induced DNA damage showed inter-individual variation among the study subjects. Our results imply that the patients received a biologically significant dose during F-18-PET/CT scanning and precautions may be needed to reduce any long-term risk of exposure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据