Makovetska L.I.1, Domina E.A.1, Ivankova V.S.2

1R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,

2National Cancer Institute, Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine



Summary. Oncogynecological diseases in women are one of the global health problems, both in Ukraine and worldwide. An integral part of the treatment of such patients is radiation therapy, the consequence of which is the development of early and distant side complications from the tissues and organs surrounding the irradiated tumor. The initial link in the implementation of radiation complications is a violation of the redox balance that precedes the formation of genetic instability of cells. Aim: to investigate the changes in indicators of the redox balance in the blood of oncogynecological patients before the start of antitumor therapy as prognostic markers of radiation damage. Object and methods: the study was conducted on peripheral blood samples from 30 patients with cervical cancer (CC) and 38 patients with endometrial cancer (EC) as well as 33 conditionally healthy individuals. Patients received treatment at the National Cancer Institute of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine. The intensity of superoxide anion radical (O2) generation by peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) and pro-antioxidant ratio (PAR) in hemolysate were determined by chemiluminescence-induced methods and malondialdehyde (MDA) content in blood plasma by spectrophotometric method. Results: the analysis of the study results of the indicators ofredox balance in the blood of oncogynecological patients established that non-malignant cells surrounding the tumor, even before the start of antitumor therapy, are functionally altered. A significant increase in the intensity of O2 •- generation in PBL by 1.69 and 1.53 times, a 2.73 and 3.22-fold increase in the MDA content in the blood plasma, and a 1.37 and 1.34-fold increase in PAR in the hemolysate of patients with CC and EC, respectively, was revealed. This indicates an enhancement of prooxidant processes and, therefore, a decrease in the body’s antioxidant defense. A wide range of values for the studied parameters was registered, indicating the need for a personalized approach to planning and conducting radiation therapy for cancer patients. Conclusions: the obtained data indicate a violation of the redox balance in non-malignant cells surrounding the tumor in primary oncogynecological patients, which is a prerequisite for the development of early and distant radiation complications after anticancer treatment. The results provide a basis to considerit expedient to determine the studied parameters before the start of the course of antitumor therapy as prognostic biomarkers of radiation to predict the severity of healthy tissue damage and the personalization of treatment measures for oncogynecological patients.



  1. Fedorenko ZP, Sumkina OV. Zub VO, et al. Cancer in Ukraine 2021-2022. Incidence, mortality, activities of the oncological service. Bull Natl Cancer Register of Ukr; Kyiv, 2023; (24): 148 p. (in Ukrainian).
  2. World cancer report: Cancer research for cancer prevention. Wild CP, Weiderpass E, Stewart BW (eds). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2020. 611 p.
  3. Domina EA, Dumansky Medical and radiobiological aspects of radiation comdplications in patients with oncoginecological profile. Oncology 2018; 78 (4): 250–4. (in Ukrainian).
  4. De Ruysscher D, Niedermann G, Burnet NG, et al. Radiotherapy toxicity. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019; 5: doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0064-5.
  5. Wang JS, Wang HJ, Qian HL. Biological effects of radiation on cancer cells. Military Med Res 2018; 5: 20. doi: 10.1186/s40779-018-0167-4.
  6. Wei J, Wang B, Wang H, et al. Radiation-induced normal tissue damage: oxidative stress and epigenetic mechanisms. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2019: doi: 10.1155/2019/3010342.
  7. Kerns SL, Chuang KH, Hall W, et al. Radiation biology and oncology in the genomic era. Br J Radiol 2018; 91 (1091): 20170949. doi:10.1259/bjr.20170949.
  8. Greve B, Bölling T, Amler S, et al. Evaluation of different biomarkers to predict individual radiosensitivity in an inter-laboratory comparison – lessons for future studies. Plos One 2012; 7 (10): e47185.
  9. Domina E, Philchenkov A, Dubrovska A. Individual Response to Ionizing Radiaton and Personalized Radiotherapy. Crit Rev Oncog 2018; 23 (1–2): 69–92. doi: 10.1615/CritRevOncog.2018026308.
  10. Domina EA, Makovetska LI, Druzhyna MO. Relevant biochemical indices of blood radiosensitivity in gynecological cancer patients. Probl Radiac Med Radiobiol 2022; 27: 235– doi: 10.33145/2304-8336-2022-27-216-233.
  11. Druzhyna MO, Domina EA, Makovetska LI. Metabolites of oxidative stress as predictors of the radiation and carcinogenic risks. Oncology 2019; 79 (2): 170–5. (in Ukrainian).
  12. Product Information Histopaque®-1077 Hybri-Max™ (H8889) (
  13. Liochev SI, Fridovich I. Lucigenin (Bis-N-methylacridinium) as a mediator of superoxide anion production. Arch Biochem Biophys 1997; 337 (1): 115–20. doi: 10.1006/abbi.1997.9766.
  14. Druzhyna MO, Makovetska LI, Glavin OA, et al. The free-radical processes in peripheral blood of patients with benign breast disease. Oncology 2018; 78 (4): 250–4. (in Ukrainian).
  15. Serkiz YаI, Druzhina NA, Khrienko AP, et al. The chemiluminescence blood at radiation exposure. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1989. 176 р. (in Russian)
  16. L’vovskaia EI, Volchegorskiĭ IA, Shemiakov SE, Lifshits RI. Spectrophotometric determination of lipid peroxidation end products. Vopr Med Khim 1991; 37 (4): 92– (in Russian).
  17. Greenberg CS, Craddock PR. Rapid single-step membrane protein assay. Clin Chem 1982; 28 (7): 1725–6.
  18. Lakin GF. Moscow: Publishing house «Vysshaya shkola», 1990. 352 р. (in Russian).
  19. Azzam EI, Jay-Gerin J-P, Pain Ionizing radiation-induced metabolic oxidative stress and prolonged cell injury. Cancer Lett 2012; 327 (1–2): 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2011.12.012.
  20. Zahra K, Patel S, Dey T, et al. A study of oxidative stress in cervical cancer – an institutional study. Biochem Biophys Rep 2021; 25: 100881. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2020.100881.
  21. Chernikova NV, Goroshinskaya I, Frantsiyants EM, et al. Intensity of free-radical reactions in metastasizing cervical cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. Meeting Abstract, 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. 2021; 39 (15_suppl): DOI:10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.e17508.
  22. Shah S, Kalal BS. Oxidative stress in cervical cancer and its response to chemoradiation. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 16 (2): 124–8. doi: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2019.19577.
  23. Demirci S, Ozsaran Z, Celik HA, et al. The interaction between antioxidant status and cervical cancer: a case control study Tumori 2011; 97 (3): 290–5. doi: 10.1177/030089161109700306.
  24. Grace JN, Narendhirakannan RT. Detection and genotyping of high-risk HPV and evaluation of anti-oxidant status in cervical carcinoma patients in Tamil Nadu State, India–a ase control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011; 12 (10): 2689–95. PMID: 22320976.
  25. Goroshinskaya I, Popova N, Menshenina A, et al. Free radical processes in the blood of patients with cervical cancer receiving various postoperative treatment modalities. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019; 29 (4_suppl): doi:10.1136/ijgc-2019-ESGO.362.
  26. Jelić M, Mandić A, Kladar N. Lipid peroxidation, antioxidative defense and level of 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine in cervical cancer patients. J Med Biochem 2018; 37 (3): 336– doi: 10.1515/jomb-2017-0053.
  27. Sharma A, Rajappa M, Satyam A, Sharma M. Oxidant/anti-oxidant dynamics in patients with advanced cervical cancer: correlation with treatment response Mol Cell Biochem 2010; 341 (1–2): 65–72. doi: 10.1007/s11010-010-0437-2.

No comments » Add comment