Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

DNA double-strand breaks of human peripheral blood lymphocyte induced by CT examination of oral and maxillofacial region

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To explore whether a computed tomography (CT) examination of the head and neck region induces biological damage and whether the damage was correlated with the radiation dose.

Materials and methods

Peripheral blood was taken from 33 individuals who received head and neck CT examinations. Blood samples were divided into three groups: the control group and the in vivo and in vitro irradiation groups. The number of DNA double-strand breaks was estimated by comparing the changes in the rates of γ-H2AX foci formation in the peripheral blood before and after CT examination. The absorbed dose and effective dose were calculated with the software VirtualDose based on the Monte Carlo method, and the absorbed doses in blood were estimated accordingly.

Results

The γ-H2AX foci rates were increased in the in vivo (p < 0.001) and in vitro irradiation groups (p < 0.001) after CT examination when compared with those in the control group. The rate of γ-H2AX foci formation showed linear dose–responses for the CT dose index volume (CTDIvol), dose–length product (DLP), and blood dose after CT examination.

Conclusions

A CT examination of the head and neck region provides a high enough radiation dose to induce DNA double-strand breaks in cells in the peripheral blood. There was a linear correlation between the formation of DNA double-strand breaks and radiation doses after CT examination.

Clinical relevance

In addition to ensuring image quality, in a real clinical situation, the scanning area should be strictly administered, and repeated operations should be avoided to minimise the patient’s radiation dose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. UNSCEAR (2018) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation, Annex B. Epidemiological studies of cancer risk due to low-dose-rate radiation from environmental sources. UNSCEAR Publications. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2017.html. Accessed 30 March 2018

  2. Calabrese EJ (2013) Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose-response concept. Arch Toxicol 87(9):1621–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1104-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shah DJ, Sachs RK, Wilson DJ (2012) Radiation-induced cancer: a modern view. Br J Radiol 85(1020):e1166–e1173. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25026140

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner DJ (2004) Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 231(2):440–445. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312030880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232(3):735–738. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323031095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363(9406):345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15433-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedberg EC, Walker GC, Siede W, Wood RD, Schultz RA, Ellenberger T. (2006) DNA repair and mutagenesis, Washington

  8. Tuteja N, Tuteja R (2001) Unraveling DNA repair in human: molecular mechanisms and consequences of repair defect. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 36(3):261–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/20014091074192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lieber MR, Ma Y, Pannicke U, Schwarz K (2004) The mechanism of vertebrate nonhomologous DNA end joining and its role in V(D)J recombination. DNA Repair (Amst) 3(8–9):817–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burma S, Chen BPC, Chen DJ (2006) Role of non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) in maintaining genomic integrity. DNA Repair (Amst) 5:1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2006.05.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rich T, Allen RL, Wyllie AH (2000) Defying death after DNA damage. Nature 407(6805):777–783. https://doi.org/10.1038/35037717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoeijmakers JH (2009) DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N Engl J Med 361(15):1475–1485. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0804615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McKinnon PJ (2012) ATM and the molecular pathogenesis of ataxia telangiectasia. Annu Rev Pathol 7:303–321. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathol-011811-132509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rothkamm K, Balroop S, Shekhdar J, Fernie P, Goh V (2007) Leukocyte DNA damage after multi-detector row CT: a quantitative biomarker of low-level radiation exposure. Radiology 242(1):244–251. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2421060171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sedelnikova OA, Rogakou EP, Panyutin IG, Bonner WM (2002) Quantitative detection of (125)IdU-induced DNA double-strand breaks with gamma-H2AX antibody. Radiat Res 158(4):486–492. https://doi.org/10.1667/0033-7587(2002)158[0486:qdoiid]2.0.co;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernandez-Capetillo O, Lee A, Nussenzweig M, Nussenzweig A (2004) H2AX: the histone guardian of the genome. DNA Repair (Amst) 3(8–9):959–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.03.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF (2011) CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology 259(2):311–316. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101800

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Turner AC, Zhang D, Khatonabadi M, Zankl M, DeMarco JJ, Cagnon CH, Cody DD, Stevens DM, McCollough CH, McNitt-Gray MF (2011) The feasibility of patient size-corrected, scanner-independent organ dose estimates for abdominal CT exams. Med Phys 38(2):820–829. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3533897

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee C, Kim KP, Long DJ, Bolch WE (2012) Organ doses for reference pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing computed tomography estimated by Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys 39(4):2129–2146. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3693052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ding A, Gao Y, Liu H, Caracappa PF, Long DJ, Bolch WE, Liu B, Xu XG (2015) VirtualDose: a software for reporting organ doses from CT for adult and pediatric patients. Phys Med Biol 60(14):5601–5625. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ICRP (2002) Basic anatomical and physiologic data for use in radiological protection: reference values—a report of age- and genderrelated differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. ICRP publication no. 89. Ann ICRP 32:5–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6453(03)00002-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79(948):968–980. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/93277434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Atac GK, Parmaksiz A, Inal T, Bulur E, Bulgurlu F, Oncu T, Gundogdu S (2015) Patient doses from CT examinations in Turkey. Diagn Interv Radiol 21(5):428–434. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2015.14306

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Chinese Society of Image Quality Control And Safety (2017) Diagnostic Reference levels for CT examinations: an expert consensus. Chin J Radiol 51(11):817–822. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005?1201.2017.11.001 (In Chinese)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fukumoto W, Ishida M, Sakai C, Tashiro S, Ishida T, Nakano Y, Tatsugami F, Awai K (2017) DNA damage in lymphocytes induced by cardiac CT and comparison with physical exposure parameters. Eur Radiol 27(4):1660–1666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4519-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuefner MA, Brand M, Engert C, Schwab SA, Uder M (2015) Radiation induced DNA double-strand breaks in radiology. Rofo 187(10):872–878. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1553209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lobrich M, Rief N, Kuhne M, Heckmann M, Fleckenstein J, Rube C, Uder M (2005) In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(25):8984–8989. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0501895102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Vandevoorde C, Franck C, Bacher K, Breysem L, Smet MH, Ernst C, de Backer A, van de Moortele K, Smeets P, Thierens H (2015) gamma-H2AX foci as in vivo effect biomarker in children emphasize the importance to minimize x-ray doses in paediatric CT imaging. Eur Radiol 25(3):800–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3463-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Beels L, Bacher K, Smeets P, Verstraete K, Vral A, Thierens H (2012) Dose-length product of scanners correlates with DNA damage in patients undergoing contrast CT. Eur J Radiol 81(7):1495–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gao Y, Quinn B, Mahmood U, Long D, Erdi Y, St. Germain J, Pandit-Taskar N, Xu XG, Bolch WE, Dauer LT (2017) A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods. BMC Med Imaging 17(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0199-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Popp HD, Meyer M, Brendel S, Prinzhorn W, Naumann N, Weiss C, Seifarth W, Schoenberg SO, Hofmann WK, Henzler T, Fabarius A (2016) Leukocyte DNA damage after reduced and conventional absorbed radiation doses using 3rd generation dual-source CT technology. Eur J Radiol Open 3:134–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2016.06.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuefner MA, Grudzenski S, Schwab SA, Wiederseiner M, Heckmann M, Bautz W, Lobrich M, Uder M (2009) DNA double-strand breaks and their repair in blood lymphocytes of patients undergoing angiographic procedures. Invest Radiol 44(8):440–446. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181a654a5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Moquet J, Barnard S, Staynova A, Lindholm C, Monteiro Gil O, Martins V, Rößler U, Vral A, Vandevoorde C, Wojewódzka M, Rothkamm K (2017) The second gamma-H2AX assay inter-comparison exercise carried out in the framework of the European biodosimetry network (RENEB). Int J Radiat Biol 93(1):58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2016.1207822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81671034) and National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFC0807303)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, #22 Zhongguancun Nandajie, Hai Dian District, Beijing, 100081, China

    Pan Yang, Shuo Wang, Denggao Liu & Gang Li

  2. China CDC Key Laboratory of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Emergency, National Institute for Radiological Protection, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, 100088, People’s Republic of China

    Hua Zhao

Authors
  1. Pan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuo Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denggao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hua Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology (PKUSSIRB-201944052).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study. They received oral and written information about the design of the study and their right to withdraw at any time without negative effect on their treatment.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 124 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, P., Wang, S., Liu, D. et al. DNA double-strand breaks of human peripheral blood lymphocyte induced by CT examination of oral and maxillofacial region. Clin Oral Invest 24, 4617–4624 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03331-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03331-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation