Workshop 1

Sunday 25th August 

Xstrahl’s SARRP User Meeting

We would like to cordially invite you to Xstrahl’s SARRP user meeting on August 25th 2019 coordinated in conjunction with the ICRR 2019 meeting in Manchester, UK. The user meeting aims to bring together the minds of SARRP scientists from USA and Europe, to share outstanding research, and to build a scientific consortium that will help improve our technology and workflow.

Please let us know by the 1st of May 2019 if you are interested in joining our user meeting and whether you would like to contribute with an oral presentation. You can register your interest by writing to Sara Chiblak at

We look forward to seeing you in 2019. Mancunian friendliness is legendary, and an enthusiastic welcome is guaranteed!

Workshop 2

Sunday 25th August 

The Role of Extracellular Vesicles in Mediating Ionizing Radiation-Induced Bystander and Systemic Effects

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are key mediators of intercellular communication both under physiological conditions and in a wide range of pathologies. Recent studies have shown the role of EVs in mediating radiation-induced bystander and systemic effects. One main aim of this satellite meeting is to present recent scientific data related to the impact of ionizing radiation on EV biology and function.

In the frame of the Euratom-funded CONCERT project two research projects (LEU-TRACK and SEPARATE) specifically investigate the role of EVs in mediating radiation-induced bystander effects. LEU-TRACK focuses on the role of blood and bone marrow-derived EVs in mediating radiation-induced leukaemogenesis, and SEPARATE will investigate exosomes from exposed tissues, and their specific bioactive cargo, for their role in mediating out-of-target effects in vitro and in vivo A further specific aim of this satellite meeting is to present latest findings generated in these two projects.

Workshop 3

Monday 26th August

Nano-technologies in RT

The field of nanomedicine has learned much from the first 20+ years of preclinical and clinical application of nanoparticles towards detection and treating cancer.  From these studies, the most effective and innovative materials have been used to develop and scale-up next generation nanomedicines-some that have properties required to increase the effects of clinically-relevant radiotherapy and many of which also can deliver drugs or similar therapeutics to the tumor. The state of the research and development as well as examples of clinical implementation and needed next steps will be presented by a panel of invited and proffered speakers ranging from basic science and imaging to clinical study leaders.  The goal of the workshop will be to illustrate the wide and multi-faceted potential of these particle platforms and update participants on the latest advances in their use.

Workshop 4

Monday 26th August

Radiation Effect on CNS During Infancy: Underlying Mechanisms and Implications on Quality of Life in Adult and Aging

Based on the outcome of the FP7 EU project CEREBRAD (Cognitive and cerebrovascular effects induced by low dose radiation) (GA n:295552) and based on the progress in the field of late radiation effect after childhood exposure (for diagnostic or therapy), this workshop will bring together epidemiologists, radiobiologists, dosimetrist, medical practionners to debate and make the state of the art on different aspects of the quality of life of adults previously exposed at young age in clinical settings. On the other hand more advanced molecular neuro findings to relate the cause to effect will be discussed to evaluate late cognitive impairments and accelerated aging.

Workshop 5

Tuesday 27th August

International Symposium on Chromosomal Aberrations ISCA12

All state-of-the-art technologies for basic and applied aspects of chromosomal aberrations, the elucidation of the mechanisms underlying their formation and their impact on chromosome fragility, genomic instability and carcinogenesis. The Symposium will give the opportunity to the invited speakers and participating scientists to present their work and share their vision on the latest achievements.


Andrzej Wojcik Stockholm University

Christian Johannes, University Duisburg-Essen

Stephen C West The Francis Crick Institute, London

Rhona Anderson Brunel University, London

Marco Durante GSI, Darmstadt

George Iliakis University of Duisburg-Essen,

Adayabalam Balajee

Susan Bailey Colorado state University

Michael Cornforth UTMB

Georgia I. Terzoudi, Energy & Safety National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Athens

Laure Sabatier, CEA, Fontenay aux Roses

Yumiko Suto, National Institute for quantum and Radiobiological Science and Technology, Chiba

Serge Candeias, CEA Grenoble

Rose Yun Li, University of California, San Francisco

Gene Koh, Sanger Centre, Cambridge

Maria Gomolka, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz

Workshop 6 & 7

Tuesday 27th August & Wednesday 28th August

Key Question to be addressed: Since an ecosystem approach is better suited to fulfil goals of environmental radiation protection, what is preventing its development?



This is the fifth in series of international workshops sponsored by the International Union of Radioecologists (IUR) bridging radiobiology and radioecology. It stems from the initial consensus recognition that ecosystem approaches are better suited to fulfil environmental radiation protection goals (consensus statements from Miami consensus Symposium, 2015; see Bréchignac et al. 2016) .

The format will be structured around three main statements, each with 3-4 defined sub statements or questions designed to stimulate discussion around the issue of the development of an ecosystem approach in radiation protection:


Broad statements which may be impeding development

  1. Radiation is not a problem in the environment (why develop a system if we do not see immediate big effects) Big effects may appear much later (cf. The biodiversty decline that is going on, or cf. an eutrophication process in a lake…)
  1. Not all change is bad, but no change may not indicate that nothing bad is going on. Focus on detection of negative effects can miss the detection of adaptive and protective effects operating at the ecosystem level . Some changes at system level might be misinterpreted. for example, a population density that rises (like a pullulation) may be interpreted as a positive ecosystem level effect when it actually results from the eradication of the predator partner, signaling a decline of ecosystem health.
  2. Mechanistic studies need also to be system and field based to be useful (field v lab studies reveal discrepancies)

The expected output will be a joint paper and a plan to establish a working group within IUR and/or IAEA   possibly within a successor to the MODARIA project, to plan coordinated multi-group experiments and produce reports.

A key focus at this workshop will be not only to reach areas of agreement, but also to better understand areas where consensus may not be reached– to understand what we disagree on and why, what the knowledge gaps are, as well as what could be done – what studies/experiments are needed.

The workshop will be embedded within the ICRR meeting as part of the Environmental stream. It will be preceded on the Tuesday morning by a radioecology session planned by Deborah Oughton and will continue into Wednesday. After the workshop the second formal environment symposium will take place organised by Carmel Mothersill.   A dinner will be organised for Tuesday evening.


Workshop plan

Ist afternoon – discussion centred around “inflammatory statements” and difficult questions – intended to identify main areas of consensus and disensus. A “debate’ style approach is planned with opening statements by two delegates with opposing views.

2nd morning – drawing on previous discussions – what can and should be done in practice (protocol, hypothesis, experimental design)


Statements and Questions

  1. Radiation is not a problem in the environment

    • “Nature” in Chernobyl and Fukushima doing just fine; Ecologists cause more damage to Chernobyl wildlife than radioactivity
    • Changes seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima suggest that environmental risks of radiation are underestimated
    • Assessments of the impact of radiation on ecosystem stability should be based on the assumption of a “threshold” for ecological effects (that would possibly embed an accumulated stress hypothesis).
  2. Not all change is bad, but no change may not indicate that nothing bad is going on
    • The ecosystem is so complex that an ecosystem approach is doomed to fail/inappropriate i.e. Is the complexity, that an ecosystem approach entails a good enough argument to refrain from conducting the necessary research?
    • The adverse outcome pathway approach (AOP) should be replaced by a modified outcome pathway approach (MOP) ) – to consider beneficial outcomes for biota or adaptive responses and adaptive evolution resulting from exposure to low doses of radiation and other stressors.
    • The multiple stressor issue means that laboratory based experiments designed around 1 or 2 stressors at a time) are broadly useless
  3. Mechanistic studies need also to be system and field based to be useful
    • Neural, immune and humoral systemic responses determine outcome after low dose exposures
    • DNA is a relatively unimportant target at low/chronic exposures in the environment
    • Radioadaptive response contributing to population level survival is a crucial mechanism for exposed biota
    • The role of non-targeted effects is underestimated in the environment.

Workshop 8

Wednesday 28th August

Molecular and Clinical Aspects of Individual Radiosensitivity

The workshop focusses on clinical acute and late normal tissue reactions occurring after external beam radiation therapy. The workshop should contribute to clarifying the number of patients who would profit from a pre-screening test systems by discussing problems associated with:

  1. classifying patients in grades 2, 3 and 4 according to CTCAE criteria of different tumor entities,
  2. the correlation of acute and late radiation therapy treatment effects and the possible resulting actions in treatment change,
  3. the problems of subjective and non-quantitative classifying criteria,
  4. the value of imaging normal tissue complications for classification.

The outcome of the workshop is to give clear recommendations for harmonization and improvement of normal tissue complication classification and on who will be affected by potential treatment change.


Session 1 of the workshop (14:00-16.15) will have two presentations followed by a discussion structured by questions.
Invited speakers for session 1:

  • Dr. Jenny Chang-Claude, DKFZ, Munich, Germany.  What fraction of individuals show radiosensitivity.
  • Dr. Navita Somaiah, ICR, Sutton, UK. If a patient is radiosensitive, can radiotherapy be beneficially modified.


Session 2 of the workshop (16.45-18.00) will be announced shortly.


We acknowledge support from the MELODI Platform for this workshop.