Following a mass-casualty nuclear disaster, effective medical triage has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. In order to best use the available scarce resources, there is an urgent need for biodosimetry tools to determine an individual’s radiation dose. Initial triage for radiation exposure will include location during the incident, symptoms, and physical examination. Stepwise triage will include point of care assessment of less than or greater than 2 Gy, followed by secondary assessment, possibly with high throughput screening, to further define an individual’s dose. Given the multisystem nature of radiation injury, it is unlikely that any single biodosimetry assay can be used as a stand-alone tool to meet the surge in capacity with the timeliness and accuracy needed. As part of the national preparedness and planning for a nuclear or radiological incident, we reviewed the primary literature to determine the capabilities and limitations of a number of biodosimetry assays currently available or under development for use in the initial and secondary triage of patients. Understanding the requirements from a response standpoint and the capability and logistics for the various assays will help inform future biodosimetry technology development and acquisition. Factors considered include: type of sample required, dose detection limit, time interval when the assay is feasible biologically, time for sample preparation and analysis, ease of use, logistical requirements, potential throughput, point-of-care capability, and the ability to support patient diagnosis and treatment within a therapeutically relevant time point.

Cellular senescence is an essential tumor suppressive mechanism that prevents the propagation of oncogenically activated, genetically unstable, and/or damaged cells. Induction of tumor cell senescence is also one of the underlying mechanisms by which cancer therapies exert antitumor activity. However, an increasing body of evidence from preclinical studies demonstrates that radiation and chemotherapy cause accumulation of senescent cells (SnCs) both in tumor and normal tissue. SnCs in tumors can, paradoxically, promote tumor relapse, metastasis, and resistance to therapy, in part, through expression of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype. In addition, SnCs in normal tissue can contribute to certain radiation- and chemotherapy-induced side effects. Because of its multiple roles, cellular senescence could serve as an important target in the fight against cancer. This commentary provides a summary of the discussion at the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Radiation, Senescence, and Cancer (August 10-11, 2020, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD) regarding the current status of senescence research, heterogeneity of therapy-induced senescence, current status of senotherapeutics and molecular biomarkers, a concept of "one-two punch" cancer therapy (consisting of therapeutics to induce tumor cell senescence followed by selective clearance of SnCs), and its integration with personalized adaptive tumor therapy. It also identifies key knowledge gaps and outlines future directions in this emerging field to improve treatment outcomes for cancer patients.

The effective medical management of a suspected acute radiation overexposure incident necessitates recording dynamic medical data, measuring appropriate radiation bioassays, and estimating dose from dosimeters and radioactivity assessments in order to provide diagnostic information to the treating physician and a dose assessment for personnel radiation protection records. The accepted generic multiparameter and early-response approach includes measuring radioactivity and monitoring the exposed individual; observing and recording prodromal signs/symptoms and erythema; obtaining complete blood counts with white blood cell differential; sampling blood for the chromosome-aberration cytogenetic bioassay using the "gold standard" dicentric assay (translocation assay for long times after exposure) for dose assessment; bioassay sampling, if appropriate, to determine radioactivity contamination; and using other available dosimetry approaches. In the event of a radiological mass-casualty incident, current national resources need to be enhanced to provide suitable dose assessment and medical triage and diagnoses. This capability should be broadly based and include stockpiling reagents and devices; establishing deployable (i.e., hematology and biodosimetry) laboratories and reference (i.e., cytogenetic biodosimetry, radiation bioassay) laboratories; networking qualified reference radioactivity-counting bioassay laboratories, cytogenetic biodosimetry, and deployable hematology laboratories with the medical responder community and national radiation protection program; and researching efforts to identify novel radiation biomarkers and develop applied biological dosimetry assays monitored with clinical, deployable, and hand-held analytical systems. These research and applied science efforts should ultimately contribute towards approved, regulated biodosimetry devices or diagnostic tests integrated into a national radioprotection program.

This interlaboratory comparison validates the dicentric chromosome assay for assessing radiation dose in mass casualty accidents and identifies the advantages and limitations of an international biodosimetry network. The assay's validity and accuracy were determined among five laboratories following the International Organization for Standardization guidelines. Blood samples irradiated at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute were shipped to all laboratories, which constructed individual radiation calibration curves and assessed the dose to dose-blinded samples. Each laboratory constructed a dose-effect calibration curve for the yield of dicentrics for (60)Co gamma rays in the 0 to 5-Gy range, using the maximum likelihood linear-quadratic model, Y = c + alphaD + betaD(2). For all laboratories, the estimated coefficients of the fitted curves were within the 99.7% confidence intervals (CIs), but the observed dicentric yields differed. When each laboratory assessed radiation doses to four dose-blinded blood samples by comparing the observed dicentric yield with the laboratory's own calibration curve, the estimates were accurate in all laboratories at all doses. For all laboratories, actual doses were within the 99.75% CI for the assessed dose. Across the dose range, the error in the estimated doses, compared to the physical doses, ranged from 15% underestimation to 15% overestimation.

There is an urgent need to improve reproducibility and translatability of preclinical data in order to fully exploit opportunities for molecular therapeutics involving radiation and radio-chemotherapy. For in vitro the clonogenic assay remains the current state-of-the-art of preclinical assays, while newer moderate- and high-throughput assays offer the potential for rapid initial screening. Studies of radiation response modification by molecularly targeted agents can be improved using more physiologic 3D culture models. Elucidating effects on the cancer stem cells (CSC, and CSC-like) and developing biomarkers for defining targets and measuring responses are also important. In vivo studies are necessary to confirm in vitro findings, further define mechanism of action and address immune modulation and treatment-induced modification of the microenvironment. Newer in vivo models include genetically engineered and patient derived xenograft mouse models and spontaneously occurring cancers in domesticated animals. Selection of appropriate endpoints is important for in vivo studies, for example, regrowth delay measures bulk tumor killing while local tumor control assesses effects on CSC. The reliability of individual assays requires standardization of procedures and cross-laboratory validation. Radiation modifiers must be tested as part of clinical standard of care, which includes radio-chemotherapy for most tumors. Radiation models are compatible with, but also differ from those used for drug screening. Furthermore, the mechanism of a drug as a chemotherapy enhancer may be different than its interaction with radiation and/or radio-chemotherapy. This provides an opportunity to expand the use of molecular-targeted agents.