Predicting the risk of second malignant neoplasms is complicated by uncertainties regarding the shape of the dose–response relationship at high doses. Limited understanding of the competitive relationship between cell killing and the accumulation of DNA lesions at high doses, as well as the effects of other modulatory factors unique to radiation exposure during radiotherapy, such as dose heterogeneity across normal tissue and dose fractionation, contribute to these uncertainties. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of fractionated irradiations on two cell systems, focusing on the endpoints relevant for cancer induction. To simulate the heterogeneous dose distribution across normal tissue during radiotherapy, exponentially growing VH10 fibroblasts and AHH-1 lymphoblasts were irradiated with 9 and 12 fractions (VH10) and 10 fractions (AHH-1) at 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 Gy per fraction. The effects on cell growth, cell survival, radiosensitivity and the accumulation of residual DNA damage lesions were analyzed as functions of dose per fraction and the total absorbed dose. Residual γH2AX foci and other DNA damage markers (micronuclei, nuclear buds, and giant nuclei) were accumulated at high doses in both cell types, but in a cell type-dependent manner. The competitive relationship between cell killing and the accumulation of carcinogenic DNA damage following multifractional radiation exposure is cell type-specific.

Early and high-throughput individual dose estimates are essential following large-scale radiation exposure events. In the context of the Running the European Network for Biodosimetry and Physical Dosimetry (RENEB) 2021 exercise, gene expression assays were conducted and their corresponding performance for dose-assessment is presented in this publication. Three blinded, coded whole blood samples from healthy donors were exposed to 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) using the X-ray source Yxlon. These exposures correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed, low dose (no severe acute health effects expected) and high dose exposed individuals (requiring early intensive medical health care). Samples were sent to eight teams for dose estimation and identification of clinically relevant groups. For quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and microarray analyses, samples were lysed, stored at 20°C and shipped on wet ice. RNA isolations and assays were run in each laboratory according to locally established protocols. The time-to-result for both rough early and more precise later reports has been documented where possible. Accuracy of dose estimates was calculated as the difference between estimated and reference doses for all doses (summed absolute difference, SAD) and by determining the number of correctly reported dose estimates that were defined as ±0.5 Gy for reference doses <2.5 Gy and ±1.0 Gy for reference doses >3 Gy, as recommended for triage dosimetry. We also examined the allocation of dose estimates to clinically/diagnostically relevant exposure groups. Altogether, 105 dose estimates were reported by the eight teams, and the earliest report times on dose categories and estimates were 5 h and 9 h, respectively. The coefficient of variation for 85% of all 436 qRT-PCR measurements did not exceed 10%. One team reported dose estimates that systematically deviated several-fold from reported dose estimates, and these outliers were excluded from further analysis. Teams employing a combination of several genes generated about two-times lower median SADs (0.8 Gy) compared to dose estimates based on single genes only (1.7 Gy). When considering the uncertainty intervals for triage dosimetry, dose estimates of all teams together were correctly reported in 100% of the 0 Gy, 50% of the 1.2 Gy and 50% of the 3.5 Gy exposed samples. The order of dose estimates (from lowest to highest) corresponding to three dose categories (unexposed, low dose and highest exposure) were correctly reported by all teams and all chosen genes or gene combinations. Furthermore, if teams reported no exposure or an exposure >3.5 Gy, it was always correctly allocated to the unexposed and the highly exposed group, while low exposed (1.2 Gy) samples sometimes could not be discriminated from highly (3.5 Gy) exposed samples. All teams used FDXR and 78.1% of correct dose estimates used FDXR as one of the predictors. Still, the accuracy of reported dose estimates based on FDXR differed considerably among teams with one team's SAD (0.5 Gy) being comparable to the dose accuracy employing a combination of genes. Using the workflow of this reference team, we performed additional experiments after the exercise on residual RNA and cDNA sent by six teams to the reference team. All samples were processed similarly with the intention to improve the accuracy of dose estimates when employing the same workflow. Re-evaluated dose estimates improved for half of the samples and worsened for the others. In conclusion, this inter-laboratory comparison exercise enabled (1) identification of technical problems and corrections in preparations for future events, (2) confirmed the early and high-throughput capabilities of gene expression, (3) emphasized different biodosimetry approaches using either only FDXR or a gene combination, (4) indicated some improvements in dose estimation with FDXR when employing a similar methodology, which requires further research for the final conclusion and (5) underlined the applicability of gene expression for identification of unexposed and highly exposed samples, supporting medical management in radiological or nuclear scenarios.

Candidate ionising radiation exposure biomarkers must be validated in humans exposed in vivo. Blood from patients undergoing positron emission tomography - computed tomography scan (PET-CT) and skeletal scintigraphy (scintigraphy) was drawn before (0 h) and after (2 h) the procedure for correlation analyses of response of selected biomarkers with radiation dose and other available patient information. FDXR, CDKN1A, BBC3, GADD45A, XPCand MDM2 expression was determined by qRT-PCR, DNA damage (γH2AX) by flow cytometry, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels by flow cytometry using the 2', 7' – Dichlorofluorescin diacetate test in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). For ROS experiments, 0- and 2 h samples were additionally exposed to UVA to determine whether diagnostic irradiation conditioned the response to further oxidative insult. With some exceptions, radiological imaging induced weak γH2AX foci, ROS and gene expression fold changes, the latter with good coherence across genes within a patient. Diagnostic imaging did not influence oxidative stress in PBMC successively exposed to UVA. Correlation analyses with patient characteristics led to low correlation coefficient values. γH2AX fold change, which correlated positively with gene expression, presented a weak positive correlation with injected activity, indicating a radiation-induced subtle increase in DNA damage and subsequent activation of the DNA damage response pathway. The exposure discrimination potential of these biomarkers in the absence of control samples, as frequently demanded in radiological emergencies, was assessed using raw data. These results suggest that the variability of the response in heterogeneous populations might complicate identifying individuals exposed to low radiation doses.

Candidate ionising radiation exposure biomarkers must be validated in humans exposed in vivo. Blood from patients undergoing positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan (PET-CT) and skeletal scintigraphy (scintigraphy) was drawn before (0 h) and after (2 h) the procedure for correlation analyses of the response of selected biomarkers with radiation dose and other available patient information. FDXR, CDKN1A, BBC3, GADD45A, XPC, and MDM2 expression was determined by qRT-PCR, DNA damage (γH2AX) by flow cytometry, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels by flow cytometry using the 2′, 7′—dichlorofluorescein diacetate test in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). For ROS experiments, 0- and 2-h samples were additionally exposed to UVA to determine whether diagnostic irradiation conditioned the response to further oxidative insult. With some exceptions, radiological imaging induced weak γH2AX foci, ROS and gene expression fold changes, the latter with good coherence across genes within a patient. Diagnostic imaging did not influence oxidative stress in PBMC successively exposed to UVA. Correlation analyses with patient characteristics led to low correlation coefficient values. γH2AX fold change, which correlated positively with gene expression, presented a weak positive correlation with injected activity, indicating a radiation-induced subtle increase in DNA damage and subsequent activation of the DNA damage response pathway. The exposure discrimination potential of these biomarkers in the absence of control samples as frequently demanded in radiological emergencies, was assessed using raw data. These results suggest that the variability of the response in heterogeneous populations might complicate identifying individuals exposed to low radiation doses.

No abstract