Evaluation of tumor volume reduction of nasal carcinomas versus sarcomas in dogs treated with definitive fractionated megavoltage radiation: 15 cases (2010–2016)

Abstract

ObjectiveLocal control is a major challenge in treating canine nasal tumors, and cytoreduction following radiation therapy has been recommended to extend survival and to delay local recurrence. Our objective was to compare the effect of definitive radiotherapy on the tumor volume of intranasal carcinomas compared to sarcomas. We evaluated 15 dogs that received radiotherapy within 1 month of initial CT scan, and post radiation CT scans performed within 3 months of completing full course definitive megavoltage radiation. Tumor reduction volume based on CT scans were obtained and compared between carcinoma and sarcoma groups.ResultsThe following tumor types were treated; carcinoma (8/15), sarcoma (7/15). The mean nasal tumor size before radiation therapy was 24.5 cm3 and tumor size after radiation therapy was 13.5 cm3 resulting in a mean reduction of 55.1% reduction in tumor size for both carcinomas and sarcomas. The carcinoma group displayed a volume reduction of 67.1% (SD ± 16.9) and the sarcoma group displayed a volume reduction of 21.3% (SD ± 39.7). Within the study period carcinomas were more responsive in the reduction of volume than sarcomas with fractionated megavoltage radiation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3190-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Volumetric tumor response assessment is inefficient without overt clinical benefit compared to conventional, manual veterinary response assessment in canine nasal tumors

“…A recent study demonstrated complementary results regarding tumor type, wherein carcinomas had a greater volume reduction than sarcomas following fractionated megavoltage radiation. 54 This supports the premise that tumors that rapidly respond to radiation therapy often also have rapid recurrence and growth, which is reflected in the difference in progression-free interval between sarcomas and carcinomas demonstrated here. However, it is possible that this apparent difference reflects a selection bias, such as if the dogs with sarcomas were cases deemed more amenable to radiation therapy than others, or if other dogs with sarcomas were excluded from the study because they died or were euthanized before the initial 6-week follow-up period.…”

Age at cancer diagnosis by breed, weight, sex, and cancer type in a cohort of over 3,000 dogs: determining the optimal age to initiate cancer screening in canine patients

“…19,75,95,96,116 These doubling times would correspond to latency periods of 1 to 3 years based on the calculation presented above. However, these estimates are likely conservative since cancer is not typically diagnosed as soon as it reaches the threshold of clinical detection; in dogs, cancers are often diagnosed, or present for treatment, in the range of 2.5 to 10 cm 49,62,63,74,78,83,98,105,107,108,117 (containing 10 billion to 500 billion cells), corresponding to latency periods upwards of 5 years.…”

“…19,75,95,96,116 These doubling times would correspond to latency periods of 1 to 3 years based on the calculation presented above. However, these estimates are likely conservative since cancer is not typically diagnosed as soon as it reaches the threshold of clinical detection; in dogs, cancers are often diagnosed, or present for treatment, in the range of 2.5 to 10 cm 49,62,63,74,78,83,98,105,107,108,117 (containing 10 billion to 500 billion cells), corresponding to latency periods upwards of 5 years. This estimate is consistent with multi-year latency periods previously documented in dogs following exposure to ionizing radiation: 2 to 10+ years for bone malignancies, 43,59,76 2 to 4 years for hemangiosarcomas, 116 4 to 10+ years for hepatic malignancies, 48 and 3 to 10+ years for pulmonary malignancies.…”

Effects of different combined regimens of cisplatin, metformin, and quercetin on nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells and subcutaneous xenografts

“…The grouping was as follows: A: control group, intraperitoneal injection of normal saline every 12 h; B: cisplatin group, intraperitoneal injection of cisplatin (0.1 g/mL) followed by injection of normal saline 12 h later; C: quercetin group, Intraperitoneal injection of quercetin (2.5 g/mL) followed by injection of normal saline 12 h later; D: Cisplatin → metformin group, intraperitoneal injection of cisplatin (0.1 g/mL) followed by metformin (1.5 g/mL) 12 h; E: quercetin + cisplatin + metformin group, intraperitoneal injection of a mixture of quercetin (2.5 g/mL), cisplatin (0.1 g/mL) and metformin (1.5 g/mL), injection of normal saline 12 h. Each group was administered once a day, 100 μL/nude mouse, for 5–8 days. During the experiment, the maximum diameter (LD) and minimum diameter (SD) of the tumor were measured every 3 days, and the calculation formula 19 of tumor volume (V) = LD × SD 2 × 0.52, tumor growth rate, and tumor growth inhibition rate (TGI) were calculated. Compare and analyze the difference of single-drug, two-drug combination and three-drug combination.…”