A correct scan interpretation depends on the knowledge of both the physiological distribution of the tracers and the uptake of possible variants and pitfalls. The aim of this critical review is to provide a comprehensive knowledge of physiological distribution of these three tracers, as well as an updated overview of variants and pitfalls.In order to assess the health risk of low-dose radiation to radiation professionals, monitoring is performed through chromosomal aberration analysis and micronuclei (MN) analysis. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/bay-2927088-sevabertinib.html MN formation has drawbacks for monitoring in the low-dose range. Nucleoplasmic bridge (NPB) analysis, with a lower background level, has good dose-response relationships at both high and relatively low dose ranges. Dicentric and ring chromosomes were analyzed in 199 medical radiation professionals, and NPB/MN yields were analyzed in 205 radiation professionals. The effects of sex, age of donor, types of work, and length of service on these cytogenetic endpoints were also analyzed. The yields of the three cytogenetic endpoints were significantly higher in radiation professionals versus controls. Frequencies of dicentric plus ring chromosomes were affected by length of service. NPB frequencies were influenced by type of work and length of service. MN yields were affected not only by types of work and length of service but also by donor sex and age. In conclusion, dicentric plus ring chromosomes, NPB, and MN can be induced by low-dose radiation in radiation professionals. NPB is a potential biomarker to assess the health risk of occupational low-dose radiation exposure.Chromosomal aberrations (CAs) in peripheral blood lymphocytes can be used as biomarkers of cancer risk. Cytogenetic tests were conducted on 2396 healthy Hungarian individuals and cancer incidence was followed up from 1989 to 2018. Venous blood samples were obtained from the subjects and metaphases from lymphocyte cultures were prepared. We compared the CA frequencies of the various smoking (1-5; 6-10; 11-19; or 20-40 cigarettes/day) and exposure (irradiation; chemical industry; chemical research laboratory) groups. Chromatid break (p = 0.0002), total aberration (p = 0.002), and aberrant cell (p = 0.001) frequencies were higher in smokers than in non-smokers. For very heavy smokers, total CAs were significantly higher than for non-smokers ( less then 0.001) or less intensive smokers (p = 0.003-0.0006). Intensity of smoking was a predictor of chromosomal aberrations, while duration was not. During follow-up, 177 (7.3 %) cancer cases were found. A Cox-regression model showed that subjects with cell values ≥2 CAs developed cancer more frequently (hazard ratio = 1.39; 95 % CI, 1.02-1.90). The relative risks of cancer were 1.06 (95 % CI 0.53-2.06) for light smokers and 1.74 (95 % CI 1.08-2.77) for very heavy smokers. The distributions of cancer sites showed differences between smoker and non-smoker groups in male smokers, lung cancer, in non-smokers, prostate, and in females (both groups) breast cancer were most common. Cancer incidence correlated with chromosome aberrations; smoking was not a confounder in this relationship.We recently reported that when low doses of ionizing radiation induce low numbers of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in G2-phase cells, about 50 % of them are repaired by homologous recombination (HR) and the remaining by classical non-homologous end-joining (c-NHEJ). However, with increasing DSB-load, the contribution of HR drops to undetectable (at ∼10 Gy) as c-NHEJ dominates. It remains unknown whether the approximately equal shunting of DSBs between HR and c-NHEJ at low radiation doses and the predominant shunting to c-NHEJ at high doses, applies to every DSB, or whether the individual characteristics of each DSB generate processing preferences. When G2-phase cells are irradiated, only about 10 % of the induced DSBs break the chromatids. This breakage allows analysis of the processing of this specific subset of DSBs using cytogenetic methods. Notably, at low radiation doses, these DSBs are almost exclusively processed by HR, suggesting that chromatin characteristics awaiting characterization underpin chromatid breakage and determine the preferential engagement of HR. Strikingly, we also discovered that with increasing radiation dose, a pathway switch to c-NHEJ occurs in the processing of this subset of DSBs. Here, we confirm and substantially extend our initial observations using additional methodologies. Wild-type cells, as well as HR and c-NHEJ mutants, are exposed to a broad spectrum of radiation doses and their response analyzed specifically in G2 phase. Our results further consolidate the observation that at doses less then 2 Gy, HR is the main option in the processing of the subset of DSBs generating chromatid breaks and that a pathway switch at doses between 4-6 Gy allows the progressive engagement of c-NHEJ. PARP1 inhibition, irrespective of radiation dose, leaves chromatid break repair unaffected suggesting that the contribution of alternative end-joining is undetectable under these experimental conditions.Individual radiosensitivity is a critical problem in radiotherapy because of the treatment restrictions it imposes. We have tested whether induction/repair of genomic lesions correlates with the acute cutaneous effects of radiotherapy. Peripheral blood samples of 56 healthy volunteers and 18 patients with breast cancer were studied. DNA damage and DNA repair capacity were assessed in vitro (alkaline comet assay). Patients without skin reaction did not show significant differences from healthy individuals, with respect to either initial or radiation-induced DNA damage. Similar DNA repair kinetics, fitting a decreasing exponential response, were observed in both groups, and there were no significant differences in residual genotoxic damage. In contrast, patients exhibiting acute side effects showed significantly lower DNA repair ability and significantly more residual damage, compared to patients without radiotoxicity. This approach may help to identify patients who are at greater risk of radiotherapy side effects. However, many other factors, such as dosimetry, irradiated volume, and lifestyle should also be considered in the evaluation of individual radiosensitivity.