Advertisement

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 93–98 | Cite as

The effect of the β-emitting yttrium-90 citrate on the dose–response of dicentric chromosomes in human lymphocytes: a basis for biological dosimetry after radiosynoviorthesis

  • E. SchmidEmail author
  • H.-J. Selbach
  • M. Voth
  • J. Pinkert
  • F. J. Gildehaus
  • R. Klett
  • M. Haney
Original Paper

Abstract

The production of dicentric chromosomes in human lymphocytes by β-particles of yttrium-90 (Y-90) was studied in vitro to provide a basis of biological dosimetry after radiosynoviorthesis (RSO) of persistent synovitis by intra-articular administration of yttrium-90 citrate colloid. Since the injected colloid may leak into the lymphatic drainage exposing other parts of the body to radiation, the measurement of biological damage induced by β-particles of Y-90 is important for the assessment of radiation risk to the patients. A linear dose–response relationship (α = 0.0229 ± 0.0028 dicentric chromosomes per cell per gray) was found over the dose range of 0.2176–2.176 Gy. The absorbed doses were calculated for exposure of blood samples to Y-90 activities from 40 to 400 kBq using both Monte Carlo simulation and an analytical model. The maximum low-dose RBE, the RBEM which is equivalent to the ratio of the α coefficients of the dose–response curves, is well in line with published results obtained earlier for irradiation of blood of the same donor with heavily filtered 220 kV X-rays (3.35 mm copper), but half of the RBEM relative to weakly filtered 220 kV X-rays. Therefore, it can be concluded that for estimating an absorbed dose during RSO by the technique of biological dosimetry, in vitro and in vivo data for the same radiation quality are necessary.

Keywords

Human Lymphocyte Relative Biological Effectiveness Track Length Tritiated Water Monte Carlo Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    IAEA (1986) Biological dosimetry: chromosomal aberration analysis for dose assessment. IAEA Technical Reports (Vienna), Series 260, pp 1–68Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stevenson AC, Bedford J, Dolphin GW, Purrott RJ, Lloyd DC, Hill AGS, Hill HFH, Gumpel JM, Williams D, Scott JT, Ramsey HW, Bruckner FE, Fearn BDA (1973) Cytogenetic and scoring study of patients receiving intra-articular injections of gold-198 and yttrium-90. Ann Rheum Dis 32:112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jalava S, Salonius AC (1974) Chromosomes of patients treated with yttrium-90. Lancet 1:807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gumpel JM, Stevenson AC (1974) Chromosomal damage after intra-articular injection of different colloids of yttrium 90. Rheumatol Rehabil 14:7–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doyle DV, Glass JS, Gow PJ, Daker M, Grahame R (1977) A clinical and prospective chromosomal study of yttrium-90 synovectomy. Rheumatol Rehabil 16:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lloyd DC, Reeder EJ (1978) Chromosome aberrations and intra-articular yttrium-90. Lancet 1:617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams PL, Crawley JCW, Freeman AM, Lloyd DC, Gumpel JM (1981) Feasibility of out-patient management after intra-articular yttrium-90: comparison of two regimens. Br Med J 282:13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ICRP (2003) Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor (wR). Annals of the ICRP, Publication 92. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hori TA, Nakai S (1978) Unusual dose–response of chromosome aberrations induced in human lymphocytes by very low dose exposures to tritium. Mutat Res 50:101–110Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prosser JS, Lloyd DC, Edwards AA, Stather JW (1983) The induction of chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes by exposure to tritiated water in vitro. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 4:21–26Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vulpis N (1984) The induction of chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes by in vitro irradiation with (-particles from tritiated water. Radiat Res 97:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd DC, Moquet JE, Oram S, Edwards AA, Lucas JN (1998) Accidental intake of tritiated water: a cytogenetic follow-up case on translocation stability and dose reconstruction. Int J Radiat Biol 73:543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deng W, Morrison DP, Gale KI, Lucas JN (1998) Biological dosimetry of beta-ray exposure from tritium using chromosome translocations in human lymphocytes analysed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Radiat Res 150:400–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vulpis N, Scarpa G (1986) Induction of chromosome aberrations by 90Sr (-particles in cultured human lymphocytes. Mutat Res 163:277–283Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watt DE (1996) Quantities for dosimetry of ionizing radiations in liquid water. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmid E, Bauchinger M, Streng S, Nahrstedt U (1984) The effect of 220 kVp x-rays with different spectra on the dose response of chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes. Radiat Environ Biophys 23:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wagner R, Schmid E, Bauchinger M (1983) Application of conventional and FPG staining for the analysis of chromosome aberrations induced by low levels of dose in human lymphocytes. Mutat Res 109:65–71Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krumrey M, Ulm G, Schmid E (2004) Dicentric chromosomes in monolayers of human lymphocytes produced by monochromatized synchrotron radiation with photon energies from 1.83 to 17.4 keV. Radiat Environ Biophys 43:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bauchinger M, Schmid E (1998) LET dependence of yield ratios of radiation-induced intra- and interchromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes. Int J Radiat Biol 74:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Briesmeister JF (2000) MCNPTM—a general Monte Carlo N-particle transport code, version 4C. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Report LA-13709-MGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ICRU (1997) Dosimetry of external beta rays for radiation protection. ICRU Report 56:108, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tabata T, Andreo P (1998) Semiempirical formulas for the detour factor of 1- to 50-Mev electrons in condensed materials. Radiat Phys Chem 53:353–360CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lloyd DC, Edwards AA (1983) Chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes: Effect of radiation quality, dose, and dose rate. In: Ishihara T, Sasaki MS (eds) Radiation-induced chromosome damage in man. Alan R. Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prosser JS, Izard BE, Brown JK, Hetherington ELR, Lambrecht RM, Cato L, Wallace M, Whithell J, Wiseman J, Hoschl R, George S, Laurent R, Butler P, Smart R, Edmonts J, Lovegrove F, Warwick A (1993) Induction of micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes of patients treated for rheumatoid or osteo-arthritis of the knee with dysprosium-165 hydroxide macroaggregates or yttrium-90 silicate. Cytobios 73:7–15Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prosser JS, Moquet JE, Lloyd DC, Edwards AA (1988) Radiation induction of micronuclei in human lymphocytes. Mutat Res 199:37–45Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ICRP (1991) 1990 recommendation of the international commission on radiological protection. Annals of the ICRP, vol 21, Publication 60. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Straume T (1995) High-energy gamma rays in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: implications for risk and wR. Health Phys 69:954–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmid E, Bauchinger M (1998) LET dependence of dicentric yields in human lymphocytes induced by low doses of sparsely ionizing radiations and its implication for risk assessments. Health Phys 74:719–721Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Schmid
    • 1
    Email author
  • H.-J. Selbach
    • 2
  • M. Voth
    • 3
  • J. Pinkert
    • 4
  • F. J. Gildehaus
    • 5
  • R. Klett
    • 6
  • M. Haney
    • 7
  1. 1.Radiobiological InstituteUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department 6.2Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)BraunschweigGermany
  3. 3.Schering AGBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Schering Deutschland GmbHBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital of Giessen and MarburgGiessenGermany
  7. 7.Institute of RadiobiologyGSF-National Research Center for Environment and HealthNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations