Radiobiological Basis for Cancer Therapy by Total or Half-Body Irradiation

Sakamoto, Kiyohiko

doi:10.1080/15401420490900254

Cited by 51 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since 1998, we have been proving indirect mechanism of diminishing the cancer activity by slightly increased natural or artificial background radiation and low dose total/subtotal radiation therapy. In oppose to idea of radiogenic stimulation of anti-cancer immunity [8,9], the mechanism proposed by us bases on the redistribution of circulating morphogenic cells from tumor to exposed normal tissues [10][11][12][13], and was statistically tested [14,15]. As a proliferative resource of bone marrow is limited and associated very closely with the life span and the level of lymphopenia [16,17], the HBI with cumulative dose 9 Gy was employed mostly as myelosuppressive one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive principal of tumor control in radiological clinic

Shoutko¹,

Le²,

Ks³

et al. 2017

Radiol Diagn Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to verify the principle of indirect control a tumor on the base of morphogenic cells distraction from it, the 114 patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma were treated with subtotal half-body (low part) irradiation at low doses (0,1 Gy x 10 for 3 weeks or 3Gy x 3 daily), and obtained data were compared with that for 190 patients received conventional local irradiation of the tumor (2 Gy x 23 daily). The surgery and chemotherapy components were equalized in both groups. The 34 % and 11% of 5-years survival was obtained at low dose half body irradiation for primary and relapsed patients in comparison with conventional local radiotherapy (7% and 0%). It is concluded, that reparation /regeneration processes being provoked artificially in normal tissues of cancer host are capable to compete remotely with tumor for the morphogenic/feeding cells originated from bone marrow and circulating with the blood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive principal of tumor control in radiological clinic

Shoutko¹,

Le²,

Ks³

et al. 2017

Radiol Diagn Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…adverse side effects (Sakamoto, 2004;Farooque et al, 2011). Several retrospective human studies have shown a reduced cancer incidence from low dose radiation, however such studies are subject to many confounding factors, and so they are not discussed here.…”

Section: Shifting the Paradigm In Radiation Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting the Paradigm in Radiation Safety

Doss¹

2012

Dose-Response

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ᮀ The current radiation safety paradigm using the linear no-threshold (LNT) model is based on the premise that even the smallest amount of radiation may cause mutations increasing the risk of cancer. Autopsy studies have shown that the presence of cancer cells is not a decisive factor in the occurrence of clinical cancer. On the other hand, suppression of immune system more than doubles the cancer risk in organ transplant patients, indicating its key role in keeping occult cancers in check. Low dose radiation (LDR) elevates immune response, and so it may reduce rather than increase the risk of cancer. LNT model pays exclusive attention to DNA damage, which is not a decisive factor, and completely ignores immune system response, which is an important factor, and so is not scientifically justifiable. By not recognizing the importance of the immune system in cancer, and not exploring exercise intervention, the current paradigm may have missed an opportunity to reduce cancer deaths among atomic bomb survivors. Increased antioxidants from LDR may reduce aging-related non-cancer diseases since oxidative damage is implicated in these. A paradigm shift is warranted to reduce further casualties, reduce fear of LDR, and enable investigation of potential beneficial applications of LDR.

show abstract

“…From the 1970s until the present, patients have been treated with low doses of radiation, in a number of studies, to prevent and cure cancer (Chaffey et al 1976, Choi et al 1979, Sakamoto et al 1997, Richaud et al 1998, Sakamoto 2004, Pollycove 2007. UNSCEAR 1994 contains a review of 192 studies of radiation hormesis (or the adaptive response).…”

Section: Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Energy and Health

Cuttler¹,

Pollycove

2008

Dose-Response

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ᮀ Energy needs worldwide are expected to increase for the foreseeable future, but fuel supplies are limited. Nuclear reactors could supply much of the energy demand in a safe, sustainable manner were it not for fear of potential releases of radioactivity. Such releases would likely deliver a low dose or dose rate of radiation, within the range of naturally occurring radiation, to which life is already accustomed. The key areas of concern are discussed. Studies of actual health effects, especially thyroid cancers, following exposures are assessed. Radiation hormesis is explained, pointing out that beneficial effects are expected following a low dose or dose rate because protective responses against stresses are stimulated. The notions that no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless and that a nuclear accident could kill hundreds of thousands are challenged in light of experience: more than a century with radiation and six decades with reactors. If nuclear energy is to play a significant role in meeting future needs, regulatory authorities must examine the scientific evidence and communicate the real health effects of nuclear radiation. Negative images and implications of health risks derived by unscientific extrapolations of harmful effects of high doses must be dispelled. Keywords: sustainable nuclear energy, radiation health effects, radiation hormesis, social acceptance, regulatory implications INTRODUCTIONAs populations grow and developing countries strive for a higher standard of living, the rate of energy consumption rises, as shown in Figure 1. By 2030, global energy demand is projected to increase by 50%, with electricity generation nearly doubling worldwide-an annual increase of 2.4% (IEA 2003, IEA 2008, DOE/EIA 2008a). Nuclear energy is receiving much attention today because of concerns about our energy sources. Environmental groups are urging large reductions in our combustion of coal and hydrocarbons (the source of 88.6% of our primary energy) to reduce the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global warming is controversial, the pollution from large-scale burning of coal and other fuels is generally recognized as having an adverse impact on air quality and health. Sharply rising oil and gas prices both generate and reflect concerns about future supplies of these fuels, yet many environmental groups advocate options that avoid the use of nuclear power for electrical generation. They feel that such use would expose living organisms to radiation and increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.This article discusses nuclear energy and how this energy source affects health. Many people are very apprehensive about nuclear power. For more than sixty years, they have received much information that associates nuclear technologies with health risks and almost no information about the health benefits. They are worried about potential exposure to nuclear radiation and consequent cell damage. The incidence of adverse health...

show abstract

Radiobiological Basis for Cancer Therapy by Total or Half-Body Irradiation

Abstract: The tumor control effects by total-body irradiation (TBI) or half-body irradiation (HBI) on

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

Competitive principal of tumor control in radiological clinic

Competitive principal of tumor control in radiological clinic

Shifting the Paradigm in Radiation Safety

Nuclear Energy and Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About