| 1. |
- Hall, Janet, et al.
(author)
-
Ionizing radiation biomarkers in epidemiological studies - An update
- 2017
-
In: Mutation Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 1383-5742 .- 1388-2139. ; 771, s. 59-84
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Recent epidemiology studies highlighted the detrimental health effects of exposure to low dose and low dose rate ionizing radiation (IR): nuclear industry workers studies have shown increased leukaemia and solid tumour risks following cumulative doses of < 100 mSv and dose rates of < 10 mGy per year; paediatric patients studies have reported increased leukaemia and brain tumours risks after doses of 30-60 mGy from computed tomography scans. Questions arise, however, about the impact of even lower doses and dose rates where classical epidemiological studies have limited power but where subsets within the large cohorts are expected to have an increased risk. Further progress requires integration of biomarkers or bioassays of individual exposure, effects and susceptibility to IR. The European DoReMi (Low Dose Research towards Multidisciplinary Integration) consortium previously reviewed biomarkers for potential use in IR epidemiological studies. Given the increased mechanistic understanding of responses to low dose radiation the current review provides an update covering technical advances and recent studies. A key issue identified is deciding which biomarkers to progress. A roadmap is provided for biomarker development from discovery to implementation and used to summarise the current status of proposed biomarkers for epidemiological studies. Most potential biomarkers remain at the discovery stage and for some there is sufficient evidence that further development is not warranted. One biomarker identified in the final stages of development and as a priority for further research is radiation specific mRNA transcript profiles.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pernot, Eileen, et al.
(author)
-
Ionizing radiation biomarkers for potential use in epidemiological studies
- 2012
-
In: Mutation Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 1383-5742 .- 1388-2139. ; 751:2, s. 258-286
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Ionizing radiation is a known human carcinogen that can induce a variety of biological effects depending on the physical nature, duration, doses and dose-rates of exposure. However, the magnitude of health risks at low doses and dose-rates (below 100 mSv and/or 0.1 mSv min(-1)) remains controversial due to a lack of direct human evidence. It is anticipated that significant insights will emerge from the integration of epidemiological and biological research, made possible by molecular epidemiology studies incorporating biomarkers and bioassays. A number of these have been used to investigate exposure, effects and susceptibility to ionizing radiation, albeit often at higher doses and dose rates, with each reflecting time-limited cellular or physiological alterations. This review summarises the multidisciplinary work undertaken in the framework of the European project DoReMi (Low Dose Research towards Multidisciplinary Integration) to identify the most appropriate biomarkers for use in population studies. In addition to logistical and ethical considerations for conducting large-scale epidemiological studies, we discuss the relevance of their use for assessing the effects of low dose ionizing radiation exposure at the cellular and physiological level. We also propose a temporal classification of biomarkers that may be relevant for molecular epidemiology studies which need to take into account the time elapsed since exposure. Finally, the integration of biology with epidemiology requires careful planning and enhanced discussions between the epidemiology, biology and dosimetry communities in order to determine the most important questions to be addressed in light of pragmatic considerations including the appropriate population to be investigated (occupationally, environmentally or medically exposed), and study design. The consideration of the logistics of biological sample collection, processing and storing and the choice of biomarker or bioassay, as well as awareness of potential confounding factors, are also essential.
|
|
