ПРОМЕНЕВА ДІАГНОСТИКА ОНКОЛОГІЧНИХ ЗАХВОРЮВАНЬ В СУЧАСНИХ УМОВАХ

Е.А. Дьоміна

Інститут експериментальної патології, онкології і радіобіології ім. Р.Є. Кавецького НАН України, Київ, Україна

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/oncology.2023.02.104

Проведено аналіз стану променевої діагностики злоякісних новоутворень в сучасних умовах порівняно з іншими країнами. Розглянуто та коротко охарактеризовано сучасні методи променевої діагностики онкологічних захворювань, визначено причини недостатньої ефективності їх раннього виявлення. Відмічено, що підвищення частоти медичних радіологічних процедур відбувається, головним чином, за рахунок широкого використання комп’ютерної томографії. Акцентовано увагу на канцерогенних ризиках малих доз медичного опромінення із залученням сучасних високоінформативних методів променевої діагностики. Розглянуто принцип ALARA (As Low As Reasonable Achievable). Обгрунтовано необхідність удосконалення системи радіаційного захисту в медицині.

Посилання

1. UNEP Effects and sources. UN Environmental Programme, 2016. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency and Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, 2016. 56 p.
2. Word Health Organization / Global initiative on Radiation Safety in Healthcare Setting. Wjrdl Health Organization. Technical meeting repor Geneva, 2008. 100 p.
3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation Protection and safety medical uses of ionizing rad Specific safety guide. Vienna, IAEA, 2018. №SSG-46. 340 p.
4. Domina EA, Ivankova On the issue of radiation safety of diagnostic exposure in oncology. Promeneva diagnostyka, promeneva terapiya 2019; (3–4): 38–43.
5. International Atomic Energy Agency. World Health Organi- zation. Bonn call for action. International Atomic Energy Agency. World Health Organization. 10 Action to Improve Radiation Protection in Medicine in the Next Decade: https//who.int/ionizing.radiation/medicalradiation_ expozure/BonnCaliforAction2014.pdf
6. Krasnoselskyi MV, Starenkyi VP, Averianova LО, et al. Problems and prospects for the development of radiation oncology in Journal NAMN Ukraine 2021: 27 (4): 256-62. https:/doi.org/10.37621/JNAMSU-2021-4-4. (in Ukrainian)
7. Kundiev JuI, Nagornaya AM, Varivonchyk DV. Occupational cancer: epidemiology and prev Kyiv: Naukova dum- ka, 2008. 335 p. (in Ukrainian)
8. Ternova SK, Sinitcyn Prospects for the development of methods of radiation diagnostics. Analytical review, 2019. https://rosoncoweb.ru/library/radiodiagnostics/002.php.2019.
9. Chekhun VF, Domina EA. A current look at the stochastic effects of ionizing radiation (before the 36th anniversary of the Chornobyl catastrophe). Oncology 2022; 24 (1): 5–10. doi:  10.32471/oncology.2663-7928.t-24-1-2022-g.10339. (in Ukrainian)

10. Radiation Protection 180 2. Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thirty-six European Countries. European Commission, 2014. 73 p.
11. Wattsson S, Siderberg Radiation dose management in CT, PECT/CT and PET/Ct techniques. Radiat Protect Dosim, 2011; 147 (1–2): 13–21. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncr261.
12. Kashcheev VV, Pryachin , Kuraschvily YuB. Methodology for assessing the radiation risks of medical exposure on the example of repeated passage of CT scan. Radiation and risk 2021; 30 (4): 24–39.
13. ICPR, Radiological Protection in Cone Beam Com- puted Tomography (CBCT). ICPR Publication 129. Ann ICRP 44(1).
14. Fahey , Treves ST, Adelstein SJ. Minimizing and com- municating radiation risk in pediatric nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (8): 1240–51. doi: 10.2967/jnumed. 109.069609.
15. Communicating radiation risks in pediatric imaging: infor- mation to support health care discussions about benefit and Geneva: WHO, 2016. 88 p.
16. Rydj Fundamentals and clinical application of X-ray computed tomography. In: Radiation diagnostics. Moscow 2007: 53–67.
17. Kovalenko YuM, Balashow SV. How to ensure the effective- ness of X-ray diagnostics in modern c Promeneva diagnostyka, promeneva therapiya 2019; (3–4): 44–8. (in Ukrainian).
18. Boellaard R, Delgado-Botton R, Oyen WJ, et al. FDG PET/ CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: ver- sion 0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 328–54. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.
19. Anderson T, Elman S, Matesan M, et al. Pictoral review of NCCN guidelines for use of FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2017; 58 (1): https://jnm.snmjournals.org/ content/58/supplement_1/974.
20. Murano T. Radiation exposure and risk-benefi analysis in cancer screening using FDG-PET: results of a Japanese nationwide survey. Ann Nucl Med 2011; 25: 657–66. doi: 1007/s12149-011-0511-1.
21. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomos- ynthesis and advanced Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48 (5): 917–29. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.06.009.
22. Joiner MC, Kogel A Basic clinical radiobiology. Fifth edi- tion. Boca Raton, Florida: Pablishing CRC Press, 2018. 350 p.
23. Uyba VV, Akleev AV, Azizova TV, et al. Results of the 65th session of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (SCEAR), Vienna, June 11–14, Med Radiology, Radiation Safety 2018; 63 (5): 77–88.
24. Radiation safety standards (NRB-96). Hygienic standards. Moscow: Information and publishing work, 127 p.
25. Norms of radiation safety in Ukraine; addendum: Radia- tion protection against the potential potential prominence (NRBU-97/D-2000).
26. Tollefsen T, Cinelli G, Bossew P. et al. From the European indoor radon map towards an Atlas of natural radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2014; 162 (1–2): 129–34. doi:11093/rpd/ncu244.
27. Tukov AR, Shafranskyi IL, Biriukov AP, Prochorova Branch register of persons exposed to radiation as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Med Radiology, Radiation Safety 2016; 61 (3): 62–7.
28. Arutiunian RV, Grachov VA. Risk-oriented approach to the analysis of safe living near nuclear facilities. Radiation and risk 2018; 27 (2): 117–40.
29. Dumansky YuV, Chekhun VF. Oncology in Ukraine: prob- lems and ways of Oncology 2022; 24 (3–4): 130–135. doi: 10.32471/oncology.2663-7928.t-24-3-2022- g.10652. (in Ukrainian)