Search

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Development Programme is being explored in the radiation field, as an overarching framework to identify and prioritize research needs that best support strengthening of radiation risk assessment and risk management strategies. To advance the use of AOPs, an international horizon-style exercise (HSE) was initiated through the Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group (JTG) formed by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) High-Level Group on Low Dose Research (HLG-LDR) under the auspices of the Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). The intent of the HSE was to identify key research questions for consideration in AOP development that would help to reduce uncertainties in estimating the health risks following exposures to low dose and low dose-rate ionizing radiation. The HSE was conducted in several phases involving the solicitation of relevant questions, a collaborative review of open-ended candidate questions and an elimination exercise that led to the selection of 25 highest priority questions for the stated purpose. These questions were further ranked by over 100 respondents through an international survey. This final set of questions was judged to provide insights into how the OECD's AOP approach can be put into practice to meet the needs of hazard and risk assessors, regulators, and researchers. This paper examines the 25 priority questions in the context of hazard/risk assessment framework for ionizing radiation. By addressing the 25 priority questions, it is anticipated that constructed AOPs will have a high level of specificity, making them valuable tools for simplifying and prioritizing complex biological processes for use in developing revised radiation hazard and risk assessment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework, a systematic tool that can link available mechanistic data with phenotypic outcomes of relevance to regulatory decision-making, is being explored in areas related to radiation risk assessment. To examine the challenges including the use of AOPs to support the radiation protection community, an international horizon-style exercise was initiated through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency High-Level Group on Low Dose Research Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group. The objective of the HSE was to facilitate the collection of ideas from a range of experts, to short-list a set of priority research questions that could, if answered, improve the description of the radiation dose-response relationship for low dose/dose-rate exposures, as well as reduce uncertainties in estimating the risk of developing adverse health outcomes following such exposures. The HSE was guided by an international steering committee of radiation risk experts. In the first phase, research questions were solicited on areas that can be supported by the AOP framework, or challenges on the use of AOPs in radiation risk assessment. In the second phase, questions received were refined and sorted by the SC using a best-worst scaling method. During a virtual 3-day workshop, the list of questions was further narrowed. In the third phase, an international survey of the broader radiation protection community led to an orderly ranking of the top questions. Of the 271 questions solicited, 254 were accepted and categorized into 9 themes. These were further refined to the top 25 prioritized questions. Among these, the higher ranked questions will be considered as 'important' to drive future initiatives in the low dose radiation protection community. These included questions on the ability of AOPs to delineate responses across different levels of biological organization, and how AOPs could be applied to address research questions on radiation quality, doses or dose-rates, exposure time patterns and deliveries, and uncertainties in low dose/dose-rate effects. A better understanding of these concepts is required to support the use of the AOP framework in radiation risk assessment. Through dissemination of these results and considerations on next steps, the JTG will address select priority questions to advance the development and use of AOPs in the radiation protection community. The major themes observed will be discussed in the context of their relevance to areas of research that support the system of radiation protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiological studies have indicated that exposure of the heart to doses of ionizing radiation as low as 0.5 Gy increases the risk of cardiac morbidity and mortality with a latency period of decades. The damaging effects of radiation to myocardial and endothelial structures and functions have been confirmed radiobiologically at high dose, but much less are known at low dose. Integration of radiation biology and epidemiology data is a recommended approach to improve the radiation risk assessment process. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework offers a comprehensive tool to compile and translate mechanistic information into pathological endpoints which may be relevant for risk assessment at the different levels of a biological system. Omics technologies enable the generation of large volumes of biological data at various levels of complexity, from molecular pathways to functional organisms. Given the quality and quantity of available data across levels of biology, omics data can be attractive sources of information for use within the AOP framework. It is anticipated that radiation omics studies could improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms behind the adverse effects of radiation on the cardiovascular system. In this review, we explored the available omics studies on radiation-induced cardiovascular disease (CVD) and their applicability to the proposed AOP for CVD. The results of 80 omics studies published on radiation-induced CVD over the past 20 years have been discussed in the context of the AOP of CVD proposed by Chauhan et al. Most of the available omics data on radiation-induced CVD are from proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics, whereas few datasets were available from epigenomics and multi-omics. The omics data presented here show great promise in providing information for several key events (KEs) of the proposed AOP of CVD, particularly oxidative stress, alterations of energy metabolism, extracellular matrix (ECM), and vascular remodeling. The omics data presented here shows promise to inform the various levels of the proposed AOP of CVD. However, the data highlight the urgent need of designing omics studies to address the knowledge gap concerning different radiation scenarios, time after exposure, and experimental models. This review presents the evidence to build a qualitative omics-informed AOP and provides views on the potential benefits and challenges in using omics data to assess risk-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The circulatory system distributes nutrients, signaling molecules, and immune cells to vital organs and soft tissues. Epidemiological, animal, and in vitro cellular mechanistic studies have highlighted that exposure to ionizing radiation (IR) can induce molecular changes in cellular and subcellular milieus leading to long-term health impacts, particularly on the circulatory system. Although the mechanisms for the pathologies are not fully elucidated, endothelial dysfunction is proven to be a critical event via radiation-induced oxidative stress mediators. To delineate connectivities of events specifically to cardiovascular disease (CVD) initiation and progression, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) approach was used with consultation from field experts. AOPs are a means to organize information around a disease of interest to a regulatory question. An AOP begins with a molecular initiating event and ends in an adverse outcome via sequential linkages of key event relationships that are supported by evidence in the form of the modified Bradford-Hill criteria. Detailed guidelines on building AOPs are provided by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) AOP program. Here, we report on the questions and discussions needed to develop an AOP for CVD resulting from IR exposure. A recent workshop jointly organized by the MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative) and the ALLIANCE (European Radioecology Alliance) associations brought together experts from the OECD to present the AOP approach and tools with examples from the toxicology field. As part of this workshop, four working groups were formed to discuss the identification of adverse outcomes relevant to radiation exposures and development of potential AOPs, one of which was focused on IR-induced cardiovascular effects. Each working group comprised subject matter experts and radiation researchers interested in the specific disease area and included an AOP coach. The CVD working group identified the critical questions of interest for AOP development, including the exposure scenario that would inform the evidence, the mechanisms of toxicity, the initiating event, intermediate key events/relationships, and the type of data currently available. This commentary describes the four-day discussion of the CVD working group, its outcomes, and demonstrates how collaboration and expert consultation is vital to informing AOP construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Biologically based models of cancer risk; radiation epidemiology; molecular biology; integrative modeling; adverse outcome pathways EN Biologically based models of cancer risk radiation epidemiology molecular biology integrative modeling adverse outcome pathways 2 11 10 01/18/21 20210101 NES 210101 Introduction Increasing grasp of disease processes leading to cancer and concomitantly the establishment of observational data sets for the general population prompted the development of biologically based models of cancer risk (BBCR models) (Armitage and Doll [4]; Moolgavkar et al. [64]; Moolgavkar and Knudson [65]). In radiation epidemiology the first deployment of BBCR models occurred with the Life Span Study (LSS) of Japanese a-bomb survivors decades after their application to observational cancer data (Little et al. [55]; Little [54]; Heidenreich et al. [37]; Kai et al. [42]). Early pioneering studies of radiation risk in the LSS were based on descriptive models which linked excess rates of cancer incidence and mortality to radiation exposure by statistical association (Wakabayashi et al. [85]; Thompson et al. [82]). Persistent radiation effects and radiation-associated inflammation Radiation can modulate cancer initiation, progression, and transformation in multiple ways thereby leading to multiple cancer types. [Extracted from the article]

Thyroid cancer of papillary histology (PTC) is the dominant type in radio-epidemiological cohorts established after nuclear accidents or warfare. Studies on post-Chernobyl PTC and on thyroid cancer in the life span study (LSS) of Japanese a-bomb survivors consistently revealed high radiation risk after exposure during childhood and adolescence. For post-Chernobyl risk assessment overexpression of the CLIP2 gene was proposed as molecular biomarker to separate radiogenic from sporadic PTC. Based on such binary marker a biologically-based risk model of PTC carcinogenesis has been developed for observational Chernobyl data. The model featured two independent molecular pathways of disease development, of which one was associated with radiation exposure. To gain credibility the concept for a mechanistic risk model must be based on general biological features which transcend findings in a single cohort. The purpose of the present study is therefore to demonstrate portability of the model concept by application to PTC incidence data in the LSS. By exploiting the molecular two-path concept we improve the determination of the probability of radiation causing cancer (POC). The current analysis uses thyroid cancer incidence data of the LSS with thyroid cancer diagnoses and papillary histology (n = 292) from the follow-up period between 1958 and 2005. Risk analysis was performed with both descriptive and biologically-based models. Judged by goodness-of-fit all applied models described the data almost equally well. They yielded similar risk estimates in cohorts post-Chernobyl and LSS. The preferred mechanistic model was selected by biological plausibility. It reflected important features of an imperfect radiation marker which are not easily addressed by descriptive models. Precise model predictions of marker prevalence in strata of epidemiological covariables can be tested by molecular measurements. Application of the radiation-related molecular pathway from our preferred model in retrospective risk assessment decreases the threshold dose for 50% POC from 0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18; 0.64) Gy to 0.04 (95% CI 0.01; 0.19) Gy for females and from 0.43 (95% CI 0.17; 1.84) Gy to 0.19 (95% CI 0.05; 1.00) Gy for males. These improvements are still not sufficient to separate radiation-induced from sporadic PTC cases at very low doses <0.015 Gy typical for the Fukushima accident. Successful application of our preferred mechanistic model to LSS incidence data confirms and improves the biological two-path concept of radiation-induced PTC. Model predictions suggest further molecular validation studies to consolidate the basis of biologically-based risk estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Biologically-based mechanistic models that are used in combining current understanding of human carcinogenesis with epidemiological studies were reviewed. Assessment was made of how well they fit the data, whether they account for non-linear radiobiological low-dose effects, and whether they suggest any implications for the dose response at low doses and dose rates. However, the present paper does not make an attempt to provide a complete review of the existing literature on biologically-based models and their application to epidemiological data. Conclusion: In most studies the two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model of carcinogenesis was used. The model provided robust estimates of identifiable parameters and radiation risk. While relatively simple, it is flexible, so that more stages can easily be added, and tests made of various types of radiation action. In general, the model performed similarly or better than descriptive excess absolute and excess relative risk models, in terms of quality of fit and number of parameters. Only very rarely the shape of dose-response predicted by the models was investigated. For some tumors, when more detailed biological information was known, additional pathways were included in the model. The future development of these models will benefit from growing knowledge on carcinogenesis processes, and in particular from use of biobank tissue samples and advances in omics technologies. Their use appears a promising approach to investigate the radiation risk at low doses and low dose rates. However, the uncertainties involved are still considerable, and the models provide only a simplified description of the underlying complexity of carcinogenesis. Current assumptions in radiation protection including the linearnon-threshold (LNT) model are not in contradiction to what is presently known on the process of cancer development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]