The Historical Use of Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Sinus Infections

Calabrese, Edward J.; Dhawan, Gaurav

doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-004.calabrese

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 71 Calabrese and Dhawan also reported on 3000 patients suffering from sinus infections treated successfully, and some involved children. 72 The same authors also reported on the successful treatment of otitis media and cervical lymphadenitis, many being children. 73 The radiation doses employed to treat these diseases ranged from 30-100 roentgen; importantly, no reports of long-term harm has ever been documented to occur from these treatments.…”

Section: Radiophobic Concern #3: Children Are More Susceptible To Radmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…73 The radiation doses employed to treat these diseases ranged from 30-100 roentgen; importantly, no reports of long-term harm has ever been documented to occur from these treatments. 61,[70][71][72][73][74] It should be mentioned that the treatment for cervical lymphadenitis involved nasopharyngeal radium irradiation (NRI) treatment. This was used to shrink lymph tissues in the neck.…”

Section: Radiophobic Concern #2: Radiation Exposures Are Cumulativementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Radiophobic Concern #3: Children Are More Susceptible To Radmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients’ Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

Oakley

Harrison²

2020

Dose-Response

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All too often the family physician, orthopedic surgeon, dentist or chiropractor is met with radiophobic concerns about X-ray imaging in the clinical setting. These concerns, however, are unwarranted fears based on common but ill-informed and perpetuated ideology versus current understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation exposures. Themes of X-ray hesitancy come in 3 forms: 1. All radiation exposures are harmful (i.e. carcinogenic); 2. Radiation exposures are cumulative; 3. Children are more susceptible to radiation. Herein we address these concerns and find that low-dose radiation activates the body’s adaptive responses and leads to reduced cancers. Low-dose radiation is not cumulative as long as enough time (e.g. 24 hrs) passes prior to a repeated exposure, and any damage is repaired, removed, or eliminated. Children have more active immune systems; the literature shows children are no more affected than adults by radiation exposures. Medical X-rays present a small, insignificant addition to background radiation exposure that is not likely to cause harm. Doctors and patients alike should be better informed of the lack of risks from diagnostic radiation and the decision to image should rely on the best evidence, unique needs of the patient, and the expertise of the physician—not radiophobia.

show abstract

Section: Radiophobic Concern #3: Children Are More Susceptible To Radmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Radiophobic Concern #2: Radiation Exposures Are Cumulativementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients’ Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

Oakley

Harrison²

2020

Dose-Response

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long before high dose radiotherapy became a standard treatment for cancer, LDRT has been employed to treat benign diseases because of its anti-inflammatory effect. Indeed, LDRT was a popular and effective treatment for a myriad of inflammatory or infectious disease ranging from arthritis to sinusitis, ear infection, and potentially deadly infection such as pneumonia and gas gangrene [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. A single treatment of 20 cGy to 200 cGy has been reported to be effective in inducing fast and lasting effects for those conditions [29].…”

Section: Pathophysiology Of Covid 19 Pneumonitismentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole-lung Low Dose Irradiation for SARS-Cov2 Induced Pneumonia in the Geriatric Population: An Old Effective Treatment for a New Disease? Recommendation of the International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group

Lara¹,

Nguyen²,

Macias-Verde³

et al. 2020

Aging and disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cytokine storm induced by SARS-Cov2 may produce pneumonitis which may be fatal for older patients with underlying lung disease. Hyper-elevation of Interleukin1 (IL-1), Tumor necrosis factor-1alfa (TNF-1 alfa), and Interleukin 6 (IL-6) produced by inflammatory macrophage M1 may damage the lung alveoli leading to severe pneumonitis, decreased oxygenation, and potential death despite artificial ventilation. Older patients may not be suitable candidates for pharmaceutical intervention targeting IL-1/6 blockade or artificial ventilation. Low dose total lung (LDTL) irradiation at a single dose of 50 cGy may stop this cytokine cascade, thus preventing, and/or reversing normal organs damage. This therapy has been proven in the past to be effective against pneumonitis of diverse etiology and could be used to prevent death of older infected patients. Thus, LDRT radiotherapy may be a cost-effective treatment for this frail patient population whom radiation-induced malignancy is not a concern because of their advanced age. This hypothesis should be tested in future prospective trials.

show abstract

“…In fact, radiotherapy which delivers radiation doses much higher than X-rays, has been used to successfully treat many human diseases including neurodegenerative and inflammatory conditions, infections, and cancers ( Table 2 ). 44 , 47 - 69 …”

Section: Estimated Theoretical Cumulative Effective Doses Remain Belomentioning

confidence: 99%

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiographic imaging for scoliosis screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management is the gold standard assessment tool. Scoliosis patients receive many repeat radiographs, typically 10-25 and as many as 40-50, equating to a maximum 50 mGy of cumulative exposure. It is argued this amount of radiation exposure is not carcinogenic to scoliosis patients for 5 main reasons: 1. Estimated theoretical cumulative effective doses remain below the carcinogenic dose threshold; 2. Scoliosis patient x-rays are delivered in serial exposures and therefore, mitigate any potential cumulative effect; 3. Linear no-threshold cancer risk estimates from scoliosis patient cohorts are flawed due to faulty science; 4. Standardized incidence/mortality ratios demonstrating increased cancers from aged scoliosis cohorts are confounded by the effects of the disease entity itself making it impossible to claim cause and effect resulting from low-dose radiation exposures from spinal imaging; 5. Children are not more susceptible to radiation damage than adults. Radiophobia concerns from patients, parents, and doctors over repeat imaging for scoliosis treatment and management is not justified; it adds unnecessary anxiety to the patient (and their parents) and interferes with optimal medical management. X-rays taken in the evidence-based management of scoliosis should be taken without hesitation or concern about negligible radiation exposures.

show abstract

The Historical Use of Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Sinus Infections

Cited by 30 publications

References 25 publications

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients’ Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients’ Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

Whole-lung Low Dose Irradiation for SARS-Cov2 Induced Pneumonia in the Geriatric Population: An Old Effective Treatment for a New Disease? Recommendation of the International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About