This study examined the dose response of an optically stimulated luminescence dosemeter (OSLD) to megavoltage photon and electron beams. A nanoDot™ dosemeter was used to measure the dose response of the OSLD. Photons of 6-15 MV and electrons of 9-20 MeV were delivered by a Varian 21iX machine (Varian Medical System, Inc. Milpitas, CA, USA). The energy dependency was <1 %. For the 6-MV photons, the dose was linear until 200 cGy. The superficial dose measurements revealed photon irradiation to have an angular dependency. The nanoDot™ dosemeter has potential use as an in vivo dosimetric tool that is independent of the energy, has dose linearity and a rapid response compared with normal in vivo dosimetric tools, such as thermoluminescence detectors. However, the OSLD must be treated very carefully due to the high angular dependency of the photon beam.
PurposeRadiation therapy is a highly effective treatment for patients with solid tumors. However, it can cause damage and inflammation in normal tissues. Here, we investigated the effects of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) as radioprotection agent for the small intestine in a mouse model.Materials and MethodsWhole abdomen was evenly irradiated with total a dose of 15 Gy. Mice were treated with either ALA (100 mg/kg, intraperitoneal injection [i.p.]) or saline (equal volume, i.p.) the prior to radiation as 100 mg/kg/day for 3 days. Body weight, food intake, histopathology, and biochemical parameters were evaluated.ResultsSignificant differences in body weight and food intake were observed between the radiation (RT) and ALA + RT groups. Moreover, the number of crypt cells was higher in the ALA + RT group. Inflammation was decreased and recovery time was shortened in the ALA + RT group compared with the RT group. The levels of inflammation-related factors (i.e., phosphorylated nuclear factor kappa B and matrix metalloproteinase-9) and mitogen-activated protein kinases were significantly decreased in the ALA + RT group compared with those in the RT group.ConclusionsALA treatment prior to radiation decreases the severity and duration of radiation-induced enteritis by reducing inflammation, oxidative stress, and cell death.
BackgroundWe compared the treatment outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and metastasectomy in patients with pulmonary metastases.MethodsTwenty‐one patients received SBRT (total radiation doses 60 Gy in 3 fractions or 48 Gy in 4 fractions) and 30 underwent metastasectomy, most (93.3%) with wedge resection. The patients were followed for a median of 13.7 months. The tumor size in the SBRT group was larger than in the metastasectomy group (median 2.5 vs. 1.25 cm; P = 0.015). Patients with synchronous metastases were more likely to be treated with SBRT than with metastasectomy (P = 0.006).ResultsThere was no significant difference in the local control rates of the treatment groups (P = 0.163). Progression‐free survival (PFS) was longer in the metastasectomy than in the SBRT group (P = 0.02), with one and two‐year PFS rates of 51.1% and 46% versus 23.8% and 11.9%, respectively. The one and two‐year overall survival (OS) rates were 95% and 81.8% in the metastasectomy group and 79.5% and 68.2%, in the SBRT group, respectively. In multivariate analysis, synchronous metastasis was related to poor PFS, and tumor size was the most significant factor affecting OS. There were no significant differences in PFS and OS between treatment groups after dividing patients according to the presence or absence of synchronous metastases.ConclusionsSBRT is considered a suitable local modality against pulmonary metastases; however, patients with synchronous metastases are only likely to obtain a small benefit from local treatment with either SBRT or surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.