The threat of a large-scale radiological or nuclear (R/N) incident looms in the present-day climate, as noted most recently in an editorial in Scientific American (March 2021). These large-scale incidents are infrequent but affect large numbers of people. Smaller-scale R/N incidents occur more often, affecting smaller numbers of people. There is more awareness of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in the medical community; however, ionising radiation-induced injuries to the skin are much less understood. This article will provide an overview of radiation-induced injuries to the skin, deeper tissues, and organs. The history and nomenclature; types and causes of injuries; pathophysiology; evaluation and diagnosis; current medical management; and current research of the evaluation and management are presented. Cutaneous radiation injuries (CRI) or local radiation injuries (LRI) may lead to cutaneous radiation syndrome, a sub-syndrome of ARS. These injuries may occur from exposure to radioactive particles suspended in the environment (air, soil, water) after a nuclear detonation or an improvised nuclear detonation (IND), a nuclear power plant incident, or an encounter with a radioactive dispersal or exposure device. These incidents may also result in a radiation-combined injury; a chemical, thermal, or traumatic injury, with radiation exposure. Skin injuries from medical diagnostic and therapeutic imaging, medical misadministration of nuclear medicine or radiotherapy, occupational exposures (including research) to radioactive sources are more common but are not the focus of this manuscript. Diagnosis and evaluation of injuries are based on the scenario, clinical picture, and dosimetry, and may be assisted through advanced imaging techniques. Research-based multidisciplinary therapies, both in the laboratory and clinical trial environments, hold promise for future medical management. Great progress is being made in recognising the extent of injuries, understanding their pathophysiology, as well as diagnosis and management; however, research gaps still exist.

No abstract

No abstract

Treatment of accidental radiation-induced myelosuppression is primarily based on supportive care and requires specific treatment based on hematopoietic growth factors injection or hematopoietic cell transplantation for the most severe cases. The cytokines used consisted of pegylated erythropoietin (darbepoetin alfa) 500 IU once per week, pegylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) 6 mg × 2 once, stem cell factor 20 μg.kg–1 for five days, and romiplostim (TPO analog) 10 μg.kg−1 once per week, with different combinations depending on the accidents. As the stem cell factor did not have regulatory approval for clinical use in France, the French regulatory authorities (ANSM, formerly, AFSSAPS) approved their compassionate use as an investigational drug “on a case-by-case basis”. According to the evolution and clinical characteristics, each patient's treatment was adopted on an individual basis. Daily blood count allows initiating G-CSF and SCF delivery when granulocyte <1,000/mm3, TPO delivery when platelets <50,000/mm3, and EPO when Hb<80 g/L. The length of each treatment was based on blood cell recovery criteria. The concept of “stimulation strategy” is linked to each patient's residual hematopoiesis, which varies among them, depending on the radiation exposure's characteristics and heterogeneity. This paper reports the medical management of 8 overexposed patients to ionizing radiation. The recovery of bone marrow function after myelosuppression was accelerated using growth factors, optimized by multiple-line combinations. Particularly in the event of prolonged exposure to ionizing radiation in dose ranges inducing severe myelosuppression (in the order of 5 to 8 Gy), with no indication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

MEDIRAD (Implications of Medical Low Dose Radiation Exposure) is an innovative European research project funded by EURATOM which seeks to bring closer together the nuclear and medical research communities in order to advance science for radiation protection in radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, and diagnostic and interventional radiology. The project also aims to promote links between science and society, with the goal of better protecting patients and professionals, through the publication of recommendations based on MEDIRAD research findings (http://www.medirad-project.eu/). The MEDIRAD Stakeholder Forum (SF) was designed to set up a dialogue between the Consortium member organisations and the society regarding the recommendations, which are expected from this project. We envisage three successive steps in this dialogue (1: first SF consultation identifying the needs for improved medical radiological protection; 2: drafting science based MEDIRAD recommendation and 3: second SF consultation to collect feedback), which are implemented throughout the project. A first overview of input of the Stakeholder Forum about the topics to be addressed in the MEDIRAD recommendations, based on an exploratory questionnaire, is presented in this article. Quantitative and qualitative in-depth analysis leads to the identification of 11 priority thematics.