2019
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1577569
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of DNA damage in patients undergoing non-contrast and contrast enhanced whole body PET/CT investigations using comet assay and micronucleus assay

Abstract: Total 84 patients were included in this study out of which 50 were males and 34 were females. During overall comparison between males and females, no significant difference was noted in DNA damage parameters: Comet TM and MNBC%.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They did not investigate the dose-dependency of the induced DNA damage either, but focused on the difference between a patient group that received a contrast agent and a corresponding non-contrast group. As a result, they report a significant increase in DNA damage in the contrast group compared to the non-contrast group [20], which is in accordance with the observations made in the present ex vivo study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They did not investigate the dose-dependency of the induced DNA damage either, but focused on the difference between a patient group that received a contrast agent and a corresponding non-contrast group. As a result, they report a significant increase in DNA damage in the contrast group compared to the non-contrast group [20], which is in accordance with the observations made in the present ex vivo study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In a recent study, Nautiyal et al investigated the effect of ionizing radiation in patients undergoing non-contrast and contrast-enhanced [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT examinations using both comet assay and micronucleus assay [20]. They did not investigate the dose-dependency of the induced DNA damage either, but focused on the difference between a patient group that received a contrast agent and a corresponding non-contrast group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients were positioned inside the scanner for contrast-enhanced WB PET/CT examination, and were injected with Iohexol, Omnipaque 300 based on the patient body weight at dose of 84.57 ± 16.69 ml and flow rate of 2–4 ml/s (GE Healthcare; Shanghai co., Ltd. Shanghai, China) [ 24 ]. A scout scan (in which the patient first undergoes an ‘overview’ or ‘scout’ scan procedure during which X-ray projection data are obtained to identify the axial extent of the CT and PET study), breath-holding lung CT, WB CT and PET (from head to mid-thigh) and low-dose cine CT (provides cross-sectional millisecond tomography that is used for the correction of motion due to diaphragmatic movement) were obtained in an arms-up position and the imaging parameters for WB CT were followed according to our previous study [ 22 ]. After completion of CT, the attenuated corrected emission images were acquired for 2 min per bed position in a 3-dimensional mode for a total acquisition time of approximately 15–20 mins.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our previous study observed that 18 F-FDG induced DSBs formation in isolated peripheral blood lymphocytes and chromosomal aberrations in a V79 cell line [ 20 , 21 ]. We also observed DNA breaks by comet and micronucleus assay after exposure to PET/CT procedure [ 22 ]. In the present study, we extended that work through quantifying the DSBs formation in patients’ blood samples by γ-H2AX assay, and assessed the total DNA RNA oxidative damage burden by quantifying urinary 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (from DNA), 8-hydroxyguanosine (from RNA) and 8-hydroxyguanine (DNA and RNA) levels.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In diagnostic nuclear medicine applications, especially in longitudinal procedures, the role of radiobiology and the longterm consequences of radiobiology-related findings, such as reported in studies on DNA damage and repair, still has to be defined [95][96][97][98][99][100][101]. Currently, these studies provide no evidence that diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures are not safe.…”
Section: Position Of the Eanmmentioning
confidence: 99%