Search

Purpose: 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., Materials and Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.

It is increasingly recognised that stakeholder views can be essential for ascertaining the credibility of those entrusted with protection of the public and workers against radiation risks, the robustness of the approaches to protection and the relevance of research underpinning radiation protection (RP). The CONCERT European Joint Programme of RP research included consideration of stakeholder views. These were evaluated by means of a publicly available survey, translated into 15 languages, to encourage responses from a wide range of European countries. The survey ran in 2017 and received some 1961 responses from many countries, although response rates varied widely between countries. The survey respondents were largely highly educated, with many having a professional connection to RP or the use of radiation in medicine or industry. Survey results indicated a high level of scientific/technical knowledge relevant to RP and indicated a general trust of most actors involved in the RP field, perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of the sampled population. Most expressed a reasonable level of satisfaction with the information available to them on radiation risk, but there is clearly room for improvement. Additionally, the survey identified potential training needs amongst the groups who responded. It is concluded that, while the survey results are limited by the non-representativeness of the respondents by comparison with the population of the European Union as a whole, it has been successful in gaining insights into areas where communication could be improved, where professional training gaps are present and where research could help to build wider trust in RP., (© 2021 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.)

Generally, intentional exposure of pregnant women is avoided as far as possible in both medical and occupational situations. This paper aims to summarise available information on sources of radiation exposure of the embryo/foetus primarily in medical settings. Accidental and unintended exposure is also considered. Knowledge on the effects of radiation exposure on the developing embryo/foetus remains incomplete-drawn largely from animal studies and two human cohorts but a summary is provided in relation to the key health endpoints of concern, severe foetal malformations/death, future cancer risk, and future impact on cognitive function. Both the specific education and training and also the literature regarding medical management of pregnant females is in general sparse, and consequently the justification and optimisation approaches may need to be considered on a case by case basis. In collating and reviewing this information, several suggestions for future basic science research, education and training, and radiation protection practice are identified., (Creative Commons Attribution license.)

The aim of this article was to explore the evidence for the revised European Union basic safety standard (BSS) radiation dose limits to the lens of the eye, in the context of medical occupational radiation exposures. Publications in the open literature have been reviewed in order to draw conclusions on the exposure profiles and doses received by medical radiation workers and to bring together the limited evidence for cataract development in medical occupationally exposed populations. The current status of relevant radiation-protection and monitoring practices and procedures is also considered. In conclusion, medical radiation workers do receive high doses in some circumstances, and thus working practices will be impacted by the new BSS. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that compliance with the new lower dose limits will be possible, although education and training of staff alongside effective use of personal protective equipment will be paramount. A number of suggested actions are given with the aim of assisting medical and associated radiation-protection professionals in understanding the requirements.

In 2009, the European High Level and Expert Group identified key policy and scientific questions to be addressed through a strategic research agenda for low-dose radiation risk. This initiated the establishment of a European Research Platform, called MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Research Initiative). In 2010, the DoReMi Network of Excellence was launched in the Euratom 7th Framework Programme. DoReMi has acted as an operational tool for the sustained development of the MELODI platform during its early years. A long-term Strategic Research Agenda for European low-dose radiation risk research has been developed by MELODI. Strategic planning of DoReMi research activities is carried out in close collaboration with MELODI. The research priorities for DoReMi are designed to focus on objectives that are achievable within the 6-y lifetime of the project and that are in areas where stimulus and support can help progress towards the longer-term strategic objectives., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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 overall aim of this contribution to the 'Second Bill Morgan Memorial Special Issue' is to provide a high-level review of a recent report developed by a Committee for the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) titled 'Approaches for Integrating Information from Radiation Biology and Epidemiology to Enhance Low-Dose Health Risk Assessment'. It derives from previous NCRP Reports and Commentaries that provide the case for integrating data from radiation biology studies (available and proposed) with epidemiological studies (also available and proposed) to develop Biologically-Based Dose-Response (BBDR) models. In this review, it is proposed for such models to leverage the adverse outcome pathways (AOP) and key events (KE) approach for better characterizing radiation-induced cancers and circulatory disease (as the example for a noncancer outcome). The review discusses the current state of knowledge of mechanisms of carcinogenesis, with an emphasis on radiation-induced cancers, and a similar discussion for circulatory disease. The types of the various informative BBDR models are presented along with a proposed generalized BBDR model for cancer and a more speculative one for circulatory disease. The way forward is presented in a comprehensive discussion of the research needs to address the goal of enhancing health risk assessment of exposures to low doses of radiation. The use of an AOP/KE approach for developing a mechanistic framework for BBDR models of radiation- induced cancer and circulatory disease is considered to be a viable one based upon current knowledge of the mechanisms of formation of these adverse health outcomes and the available technical capabilities and computational advances. The way forward for enhancing low-dose radiation risk estimates will require there to be a tight integration of epidemiology data and radiation biology information to meet the goals of relevance and sensitivity of the adverse health outcomes required for overall health risk assessment at low doses and dose rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since early April 2020, there has been intense debate over proposed clinical use of ionizing radiation to treat life-threatening pneumonia in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. At least twelve relevant papers appeared by 20 May 2020. The radiation dose proposed for clinical trials are a single dose (0.1–1 Gy) or two doses (a few mGy followed by 0.1–0.25 Gy involving a putative adaptive response, or 1–1.5 Gy in two fractions 2–3 days apart). The scientific rationale for such proposed so-called low dose radiotherapy (LDRT) is twofold (note that only doses below 0.1 Gy are considered as low doses in the field of radiation protection, but here we follow the term as conventionally used in the field of radiation oncology). Firstly, the potentially positive observations in human case series and biological studies in rodent models on viral or bacterial pneumonia that were conducted in the pre-antibiotic era. Secondly, the potential anti-inflammatory properties of LDRT, which have been seen when LDRT is applied locally to subacute degenerative joint diseases, mainly in Germany. However, the human and animal studies cited as supportive evidence have significant limitations, and whether LDRT produces anti-inflammatory effects in the inflamed lung or exacerbates ongoing COVID-19 damage remains unclear. Therefore, we conclude that the available scientific evidence does not justify clinical trials of LDRT for COVID-19 pneumonia, with unknown benefit and known mortality risks from radiogenic cancer and circulatory disease. Despite the significant uncertainties in these proposals, some clinical trials are ongoing and planned. This paper gives an overview of current situations surrounding LDRT for COVID-19 pneumonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies suggest iodinated contrast media (ICM) may increase organ dose and blood cell DNA damage for a given X-ray exposure. The impact of ICM on dose/damage to extravascular cells and cancer risks is unclear. Methods We used Monte Carlo modelling to investigate the microscopic distribution of absorbed dose outside the lumen of arteries, capillaries and interstitial fluids containing blood and various concentrations of iodine. Models were irradiated with four X-ray spectra representing clinical procedures. Results For the artery model, The average dose enhancement factors (DEF) to blood were 1.70, 2.38, 7.38, and 12.34 for mass concentrations of iodine in blood ( ρ i I ) of 5, 10, 50 and 100 mg/ml, respectively, compared to 0 mg/ml. Average DEFs were reduced to 1.26, 1.51, 3.48 and 5.56, respectively, in the first micrometre of the vessel wall, falling to 1.01, 1.02, 1.06 and 1.09 at 40–50 μm from the lumen edge. For the capillary models, DEF for extravascular tissues was on average 48% lower than DEF for the whole model, including capillaries. A similar situation was observed for the interstitial model, with DEF to the cell nucleus being 35% lower than DEF for the whole model. Conclusions While ICM may modify the absorbed doses from diagnostic X-ray examinations, the effect is smaller than suggested by assays of circulating blood cells or blood dose enhancement. Conversely, the potentially large increase in dose to the endothelium of blood vessels means that macroscopic organ doses may underestimate the risk of radiation induced cardiovascular disease for ICM-enhanced exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the response of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) to the 2011 statement from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) on tissue reactions and recommendation of a reduced dose limit for the lens of the eye. The response takes the form of a brief review of the most recent epidemiological and mechanistic evidence. This is presented together with a discussion of dose limits in the context of the related risk and the current status of eye dosimetry, which is relevant for implementation of the limits. It is concluded that although further work is desirable to quantify better the risk at low doses and following protracted exposures, along with research into the mechanistic basis for radiation cataractogenesis to inform selection of risk projection models, the HPA endorses the conclusion reached by the ICRP in their 2011 statement that the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye should be reduced from 150 to 20 mSv per year, averaged over a five year period, with no year's dose exceeding 50 mSv. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]