Current Issue : July - September Volume : 2019 Issue Number : 3 Articles : 5 Articles
IMPT plans with various multi-angle beams were planned by the Varian Eclipse\ntreatment planning system for one case of brain cancer. Dose distributions\nfor each plan, along with the associated linear energy transfer distributions,\nwere recomputed using an in-house fast Monte Carlo dose calculator\nwith a FRBE of 1.1 or with a previously published VRBE model. We then\ncompared dosimetric parameters obtained by the VRBE with those obtained\nby the FRBE. Biological doses obtained by the VRBE for the clinical target\nvolume in all plans were 1% - 2% larger than those obtained by the FRBE.\nThe minimum dose obtained by the VRBE for the right optic nerve in the\nMFO IMPT with 4 fields was 70% larger than that obtained by the FRBE, but\nthe difference was only 18.1 cGy (RBE). The difference in maximum dose for\nthe right optic nerve in the MFO IMPT with 5 fields was less than 10.4%, but\nthe difference was 131.8 cGy (RBE). The mean difference in maximum dose\nwas less than 2% for all other organs at risk. We found that biological dose\nwith the FRBE had any dose errors in IMPT with various multi-angle beams....
To evaluate the gastrocnemius/soleus and biceps brachii muscle stiffness by\nAcoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) elastography in the hemiplegia patients,\nsixty patients with hemiplegia after stroke were recruited. Baseline data\nwere collected including age, gender, body mass index, education level, dominant\nside, affected side, time since stroke, stroke etiology. All patients were\nevaluated with before treatment and posttreatment with Broonstroom staging,\nModified Ashworth spasticity scale, and Functional Independence Measures\nscale. The patient was divided into 3 groups: 1) Neuromuscular electrical\nstimulation group, 2) Rehabilitation group, 3) Neurumusculer electrical stimulation\n+Rehabilitation group. Affected and unaffected side biceps and gastrocnemius,\nARFI elastography measurements were used to measure thickness\nand elastic values. In addition, before and after treatment, length and\nthickness were measured from all patients. Of the 60 subjects, 28 were female\n(46.7%) and 32 (53.3%) were males, with an average age of����...
The capability of error detection of patient-specific QA tools plays an important\nrole in verifying MLC motion accuracy. The goal of this study was to investigate\nthe capability in error detection of portal dosimetry, MapCHECK2\nand MatriXX QA tools in IMRT plans. The 9 fields IMRT for 4 head and neck\nplans and 7 fields IMRT for 4 prostate plans were selected for the error detection\nof QA devices. The measurements were undertaken for the original plan\nand the modified plans, where the known errors were introduced for increasing\nand decreasing of prescribed dose.....................
Esophageal cancer prognosis remains poor in current clinical practice. We previously\nreported that moscatilin can induce apoptosis and mitotic catastrophe in esophageal cancer cells,\naccompanied by upregulation of polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1) expression. We aimed to validate in\nvitro activity and Plk1 expression in vivo following moscatilin treatment and to examine the\ntreatmentâ??s radiosensitizing effect. Human esophageal cancer cells were implanted in nude mice.\nMoscatilin was intraperitoneally (i.p.) injected into the mice. Tumor size, body weight, white\nblood cell counts, and liver and renal function were measured. Aberrant mitosis and Plk1\nexpression were assessed. Colony formation was used to measure survival fraction after radiation.\nMoscatilin significantly suppressed tumor growth in mice bearing human esophageal xenografts\nwithout affecting body weight, white blood cell counts, or liver and renal function. Moscatilin also\ninduced aberrant mitosis and apoptosis. Plk1 expression was markedly upregulated in vivo.\nMoreover, moscatilin pretreatment enhanced CE81T/VGH and BE3 cell radioresponse in vitro.\nMoscatilin may inhibit growth of human esophageal tumors and sensitize esophageal cancer cells\nto radiation therapy....
Head and neck cancer (HNC) is the sixth cause of cancer-related death worldwide.\nHead and neck squamous cells carcinoma (HNSCC) is the most frequent subtype of HNC.\nThe development of HNSCC is associated to alcohol consumption, smoking or infection by high-risk\nhuman Papillomavirus (HR-HPV). Although the incidence of cancers associated with alcohol and\ntobacco has diminished, HNSCC associated with HR-HPV has significantly increased in recent years.\nHowever, HPV-positive HNSCC responds well to treatment, which includes surgery followed by\nradiation or chemoradiation therapy. Radiation therapy (RT) is based on ionizing radiation (IR)\nchanging cell physiology. IR can directly interact with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or produce\nreactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS), provoking DNA damage. When DNA damage is not\nrepaired, programmed cell death (apoptosis and/or autophagy) is induced. However, cancer cells\ncan acquire resistance to IR avoiding cell death, where reprogramming of energy metabolism has\na critical role and is intimately connected with hypoxia, mitochondrial physiology, oxidative stress\n(OS) and autophagy. This review is focused on the reprogramming of energy metabolism in response\nto RT in HPV-positive and HPV-negative HNSCC, showing their differences in cellular metabolism\nmanagement and the probable direction of treatments for each subtype of HNSCC....
Loading....