Replicative senescence is a fundamental feature in normal human diploid cells and results from dysfunctional telomeres at the Hayflick cell division

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafe^TM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R² = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications.

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has lowered the annual equivalent eye-lens dose to 20 mSv. Although occupational exposure can be high in nuclear medicine (NM) departments, few studies have been conducted regarding eye-lens exposure among NM staff. This study aimed to estimate the annual lens doses of staff in an NM department and identify factors contributing to lens exposure. Four nurses and six radiographers performing positron emission tomography (PET) examinations and four radiographers performing radioisotope (RI) examinations (excluding PET) were recruited for this study. A lens dosimeter was attached near the left eye to measure the 3-mm-dose equivalent; a personal dosimeter was attached to the left side of the neck to measure the 1-cm- and 70-µm-dose equivalents. Measurements were acquired over six months, and the cumulative lens dose was doubled to derive the annual dose. Correlations between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses, between the lens dose and the numbers of procedures, and between the lens dose and the amounts of PET drugs (radiopharmaceuticals) injected were examined. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to compare lens and personal-dosimeter doses. The estimated annual doses were 0.93 ± 0.13 mSv for PET nurses, 0.71 ± 0.41 mSv for PET radiographers, and 1.10 ± 0.53 mSv for RI radiographers. For PET nurses, but not for PET or RI radiographers, there was a positive correlation between the numbers of procedures and lens doses and between amounts injected and lens doses. There was a significant difference between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses of PET nurses. The use of protective measures, such as shielding, should prevent NM staff from receiving lens doses > 20 mSv/year. However, depending on the height of the protective shield, PET nurses may be unable to assess the lens dose accurately using personal dosimeters.

We describe a protocol for creating localized DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) with minimal requirements that can be applied in cell biology and molecular biology. This protocol is based on the combination of 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) labeling and ultraviolet C (UVC) irradiation through porous membranes. Cells are labeled with 10 μM BrdU for 48-72 h, washed with Ca(2+)- and Mg(2+)-free PBS(-), covered by polycarbonate membranes with micropores and exposed to UVC light. With this protocol, localized DSBs are created within subnuclear areas, irrespective of the cell cycle phase. Recruitment of proteins involved in DNA repair, DNA damage response, chromatin remodeling and histone modifications can be visualized without any specialized equipment. The quality is the same as that obtained by laser microirradiation or by any other focal irradiation. DSBs become visible within 30 min of UVC irradiation.without figure