DOCSLIB.ORG

Radiotherapy Dose-Fractionation 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Radiotherapy Dose-Fractionation 2 The Royal College of Radiologists Board of Faculty of Clinical Oncology Radiotherapy Dose-Fractionation 2 The Royal College of Radiologists, a registered charity, exists to This document is designed to support, not dictate, decision advance the science and practice of Radiology and Oncology. making. Clinical practice is varied. Although guidance can, to some extent, encompass a part of this variation, there can be It produces standards documents to provide guidance to Clinical no set of guidelines that will deal with all possible eventualities. Oncologists and others involved in the delivery of cancer services This is where clinical judgement and guidelines complement each with the aim of defining good practice, advancing practice and other. Clinical practice is changing rapidly. Readers are referred improving services for the benefit of patients. back to the source literature to inform their clinical judgment. Radiotherapy Dose–Fractionation June 2006 The Royal College of Radiologists Board of Faculty of Clinical Oncology Radiotherapy Dose-Fractionation Contents 1 Dean’s foreword 4 2 Executive summary 5 3 Introduction 6 3.1 Background 6 3.2 Methodology 8 3.3 Fractionation in radiotherapy: A brief history 10 3.4 Fractionation and organs at risk (OAR) 14 3.5 Radiation therapy as a complex intervention 16 3.6 Radiotherapy planning and dose-prescription 20 4 Guidance on radiotherapy dose-fractionation 21 4.1 Anal cancer 21 4.2 Bladder cancer 23 4.3 Breast cancer 26 4.4 Central nervous system (CNS) malignancy 30 4.5 Gastro-oesophageal cancer 33 4.6 Gynaecological malignancy 37 4.7 Head and neck cancer 40 4.8 Lung cancer 43 4.9 Lymphoma 49 4.10 Paediatric cancer 53 4.11 Prostate cancer 54 4.12 Rectal cancer 58 4.13 Sarcoma 60 4.14 Seminoma 62 4.15 Bone metastases 64 4.16 Cerebral metastases 67 4.17 Spinal cord compression 70 5 Summary of recommendations 73 6 Planning for the future 76 7 Clinical audit, service development and research 80 8 Acknowledgements 82 1. Dean’s foreword It is with a strong feeling of privilege and pride that I write this introduction to our Dose-Fractionation document. Since the establishment of the Faculty of Clinical Oncology in 1992, we have published nearly 50 documents relating to many aspects of our professional lives, oncology service manage- ment and specific clinical problem areas. I have no compunction in stating that this one is the most important contribution that the Faculty as an entity has made to the practice of Radiotherapy in the UK during these last 15 years. It has also involved more Fellows and been subject to more open consultation than any previous document, and yet from inception to delivery this enormous project has taken only 18 months. So many of our Fellows have played an active part that it would dangerous for me to attempt to start identifying individuals but there is one exception to that principle. Michael Williams convinced me that the Officers’ dream of pulling together the evidence base for UK fractionation policies in a professional and non-confrontational way was achievable. He has, as many of you know, personally led the process very actively throughout, has harnessed the many disparate talents of our drafters and edited the document into a style that I think we can be very proud of. I do feel that I need to record the Faculty’s enormous debt to him in particular and to the members of the working 4 party and the contributors. I am also very excited for the Faculty because we are now going to publish the full document on the College website in a manner that allows each subspecialty chapter to be published individually, but in a standard RCR format. It is the intention of Officers that the individual site orientated chapters will become the responsibility of the Faculty’s new Site Orientated eNetworks (SOeNs) and that they will be stimulated to review their element of the advice annually. They will be able to modify, rework and republish their chapter(s) when it is agreed that it is professionally possible to support change. We are, therefore, taking our most important Faculty project and, utilising the new college IT resources, thrusting it into the electronic era for the benefit, we believe, of UK Radiotherapy and its present and future patients. Dr Robin Hunter Vice-President and Dean Faculty of Clinical Oncology June 2006 Radiotherapy Dose–Fractionation June 2006 2. Executive summary 2.1 One in three patients in the UK develops cancer during their lifetime, and 50% of these patients should receive radiotherapy treatment. The demand for radiotherapy is increasing at 3% per annum. 2.2 Surveys demonstrate variations in radiotherapy practice with some departments conforming to the international norm of curative treatment delivered over a 6–7 week period and others, at least in part due to historical resource constraint, delivering curative regimens of 3–4 weeks’ duration. 2.3 The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) has therefore commissioned this report, in order to identify fractionation regimens for which there is high quality evidence for both safety and efficacy. 2.4 The report also identifies areas where further research is required to provide such evidence. 2.5 The report aims, where possible, to recommend evidence-based treatment regimen(s) for a given clinical situation and, where no such firm evidence exists, to present acceptable treatment options, ranked according to the level of evidence available. 5 2.6 It has only been possible to make ten Grade A recommendations for radical treatment and six for palliative treatment. 2.7 In many clinical situations, a state of equipoise exists, where the available published evidence is insufficient to favour one particular treatment regimen over another. We await the results of clinical trials to resolve these issues. 2.8 Where equipoise exists, and trial data are not available, clinicians should exercise considerable caution when considering changes in their treatment practice, based on the understandable desire to minimise resource utilisation. Radiotherapy is a complex intervention, and great harm can result from well-intentioned changes in practice, based solely on theory or an inadequate evidence base. Radiotherapy Dose–Fractionation June 2006 6 3. Introduction 3.1 Background 3.1.1 Radiotherapy fractionation in the UK differs from that in the rest of the world. Over the last 60 years, alternative radiotherapy fractionation regimens have been developed in the UK, at least in part to conserve resources. Shorter regimens using fewer fractions than North America and Europe are often used in radical treatment. This is based on extensive and well- documented clinical research particularly in Manchester and Edinburgh.1–5 In much of the USA and Europe fractions of 2 Gy or less are the standard of care.6 3.1.2 Clinical practice in the UK was surveyed in 1989.7 Clinicians were asked about the prescriptions which they would write for patients in six different cancer scenarios. A wide variety of dose-fractionation regimens was demonstrated and in only one of the six scenarios did more than 25% of clinical oncologists say they would prescribe the same treatment regimen. 3.1.3 An audit of radiotherapy practice in the UK in September 2003 showed that practice had become more uniform and closer to practice in North America and Europe over the last 15 years.8 However, there were significant variations in both radical and palliative treatment. For radical radiotherapy, 54% of prescriptions were for a fraction size of 1.8–2.0 Gy, but the distribution was bi-modal and 20% of patients were prescribed fraction sizes of 2.7–3.0 Gy.8 There were important differences in resource use for the treatment of common malignancies. 3.1.4 The Board of Faculty of Clinical Oncology therefore convened a working party in 2004 with the following terms of reference: • To develop a statement on evidence-based clinical practice from published peer-reviewed evidence. • To produce short consensus statements about the management of the major malignancies, including palliative treatment. • To define evidence-based radiotherapy regimens for each major malignancy. • To identify trials in progress which may have a major effect on practice. • To identify other significant areas for clinical trial. Radiotherapy Dose–Fractionation June 2006 3.1.5 The focus of this project was on linear accelerator use, and skin cancer was consequently excluded from consideration. In addition, rarer malignancies were excluded unless they had a particularly good evidence base, as the impact on resource use would be slight. 3.1.6 Brachytherapy may form part of the patient’s treatment but was not considered further in this project. References 1 Paterson R. The Treatment of Malignant Disease by Radiotherapy (2nd edn). London: Edward Arnold, 1963. 2 Hendry JH, Roberts SA, Slevin NJ, et al. Influence of radiotherapy treatment time on control of laryngeal cancer: Comparisons between centres in Manchester, UK and Toronto, Canada. Radiother Oncol 1994, 31:14–22. 3 Withers HR, Peters LJ, Taylor JM, et al. Local control of carcinoma of the tonsil by radiation therapy: An analysis of patterns of fractionation in nine institutions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995, 33:549–562. 4 Withers HR, Peters LJ, Taylor JM, et al. Late normal tissue sequelae from radiation therapy for carcinoma of the tonsil: Patterns of fractionation study of radiobiology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995, 33:563–568. 7 5 Gowda RV, Henk JM, Mais KL, et al. Three weeks radiotherapy for T1 glottic cancer: The Christie and Royal Marsden Hospital experience. Radiother Oncol 2003, 68:105–111. 6 Fletcher GH. Textbook of Radiotherapy. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1973.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Extreme Anti-Oxidant Protection Against Ionizing Radiation in Bdelloid Rotifers
    Extreme anti-oxidant protection against ionizing radiation in bdelloid rotifers Anita Kriskoa,b, Magali Leroya, Miroslav Radmana,b, and Matthew Meselsonc,1 aInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale Unit 1001, Faculté de Médecine Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 75751 Paris Cedex 15, France; bMediterranean Institute for Life Sciences, 21000 Split, Croatia; and cDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 Contributed by Matthew Meselson, December 6, 2011 (sent for review November 10, 2011) Bdelloid rotifers, a class of freshwater invertebrates, are extraor- in A. vaga as in other eukaryotes, and its genome is not smaller dinarily resistant to ionizing radiation (IR). Their radioresistance is than that of C. elegans (1). Instead, it has been proposed that a not caused by reduced susceptibility to DNA double-strand break- major contributor to bdelloid radiation resistance is an enhanced age for IR makes double-strand breaks (DSBs) in bdelloids with capacity for scavenging reactive molecular species generated by IR essentially the same efficiency as in other species, regardless of and that the proteins and other cellular components thereby radiosensitivity. Instead, we find that the bdelloid Adineta vaga is protected include those essential for the repair of DSBs but not far more resistant to IR-induced protein carbonylation than is the DNA itself (1). In agreement with this explanation, we find that much more radiosensitive nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.In A. vaga is far more resistant than C. elegans to IR-induced protein both species, the dose–response for protein carbonylation parallels carbonylation, a reaction of hydroxyl radicals with accessible side that for fecundity reduction, manifested as embryonic death.
    [Show full text]
  • Exemplifying an Archetypal Thorium-EPS Complexation by Novel Thoriotolerant Providencia Thoriotolerans
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Exemplifying an archetypal thorium‑EPS complexation by novel thoriotolerant Providencia thoriotolerans AM3 Arpit Shukla 1,2, Paritosh Parmar 1, Dweipayan Goswami 1, Baldev Patel1 & Meenu Saraf 1* It is the acquisition of unique traits that adds to the enigma of microbial capabilities to carry out extraordinary processes. One such ecosystem is the soil exposed to radionuclides, in the vicinity of atomic power stations. With the aim to study thorium (Th) tolerance in the indigenous bacteria of such soil, the bacteria were isolated and screened for maximum thorium tolerance. Out of all, only one strain AM3, found to tolerate extraordinary levels of Th (1500 mg L−1), was identifed to be belonging to genus Providencia and showed maximum genetic similarity with the type strain P. vermicola OP1T. This is the frst report suggesting any bacteria to tolerate such high Th and we propose to term such microbes as ‘thoriotolerant’. The medium composition for cultivating AM3 was optimized using response surface methodology (RSM) which also led to an improvement in its Th‑tolerance capabilities by 23%. AM3 was found to be a good producer of EPS and hence one component study was also employed for its optimization. Moreover, the EPS produced by the strain showed interaction with Th, which was deduced by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. Te afermaths of atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), more than 2000 nuclear tests (1945–2017), the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster (1986) and more recently, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), highlight the release of considerable radioactive waste (radwaste) to the environment use of various radionuclides has led to the creation of considerable radioactive waste (radwaste).
    [Show full text]
  • Reduced Fractionation in Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Curative-Intent Radiotherapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    This document was published on 2 April 2020. Please check www.rcr.ac.uk/cancer-treatment-documents to ensure you have the latest version. This document is the collaborative work of oncologists and their teams, and is not a formal RCR guideline or consensus statement. Reduced fractionation in lung cancer patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic Corinne Faivre-Finn1,2, John D Fenwick3,4, Kevin N Franks5,6, Stephen Harrow7,8, Matthew QF Hatton9, Crispin Hiley10,11, Jonathan J McAleese12, Fiona McDonald13, Jolyne O’Hare12, Clive Peedell14, Ceri Powell15,16, Tony Pope17, Robert Rulach7,8, Elizabeth Toy18 1The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester 2The University of Manchester 3Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool 4Department of Physics, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool 5Leeds Cancer Centre 6University of Leeds 7Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow 8University of Glasgow 9Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield 10CRUK Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, University College London 11Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London 12Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast 13The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London 14James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough 15South West Wales Cancer Centre 16Velindre Cancer Centre 17Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool 18Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust 1 This document was published on 2 April 2020. Please check www.rcr.ac.uk/cancer-treatment-documents to ensure you have the latest version. This document is the collaborative work of oncologists and their teams, and is not a formal RCR guideline or consensus statement. Introduction The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19, the disease caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypo-Fractionated FLASH-RT As an Effective Treatment Against Glioblastoma That Reduces Neurocognitive Side Effects in Mice
    Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on October 15, 2020; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0894 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Hypo-fractionated FLASH-RT as an effective treatment against glioblastoma that reduces neurocognitive side effects in mice Pierre Montay-Gruel1*, Munjal M. Acharya2*, Patrik Gonçalves Jorge1, 3, Benoit Petit1, Ioannis G. Petridis1, Philippe Fuchs1, Ron Leavitt1, Kristoffer Petersson1, 3, Maude Gondre1, 3, Jonathan Ollivier1, Raphael Moeckli3, François Bochud3, Claude Bailat3, Jean Bourhis1, Jean-François Germond3°, Charles L. Limoli2° and Marie-Catherine Vozenin1° 1 Department of Radiation Oncology/DO/Radio-Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA. 3 Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. *, ° contributed equally to the work Running title Sparing the cognition, not the tumor with FLASH-RT Key words FLASH radiation therapy, glioblastoma, neurocognition Financial support The study was supported by a Synergia grant from the FNS CRS II5_186369 (M-C.V. and F.B.), a grant from lead agency grant FNS/ANR CR32I3L_156924 (M-C.V. and C.B.), ISREC Foundation thank to Biltema donation (JB and MCV) and by NIH program project grant PO1CA244091 (M-C.V. and C.L.L.), NINDS grant NS089575 (C.L.L.), KL2 award KL2TR001416 (M.M.A.). P.M.-G. was supported by Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan fellowship (MESR), FNS N°31003A_156892 and ISREC Foundation thank to Biltema donation, K.P. by FNS/ANR CR32I3L_156924 and ISREC Foundation thank to Biltema donation; P.J.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Time, Dose and Fractionation: Accounting for Hypoxia in the Search for Optimal Radiotherapy Treatment Parameters
    !"#$ #"%"" &&' ( )(' * % ( + % , , %- .( (, , , % , . . % . %* . , . ( . %- ( . (, , , . . % / , 012( , . % 3 , % / , ( , , ( ( % . % , . ( . % , . + ( . , %%1 % - ( . , . 4 #)-*56 . ( . %1 , . ( + , , . % . , % !"#$ 788 %% 8 9 : 77 7 7 #6);"# <1=>$)>#$$>$";#? <1=>$)>#$$>$";!; ! (#"?># TIME, DOSE AND FRACTIONATION: ACCOUNTING FOR HYPOXIA IN THE SEARCH FOR OPTIMAL RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PARAMETERS Emely Kjellsson Lindblom Time, dose and fractionation: accounting for hypoxia in the search for optimal radiotherapy treatment parameters Emely Kjellsson Lindblom ©Emely Kjellsson Lindblom, Stockholm University 2017 ISBN print 978-91-7797-031-6
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded at Google Indexer on July 22, 2021
    Downloaded by guest on September 29, 2021 Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, pp. 10652-10656, December 1991 Genetics Role of transfection and clonal selection in mediating radioresistance (gene transfer/radiosensitivity/neomycin/oncogenes) FRANCISCO S. PARDO*t, ROBERT G. BRISTOWt, ALPHONSE TAGHIAN*, AUGUSTINUS ONG§, AND CARMIA BOREK§ *Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114; SPrincess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON Canada; and §Division of Radiation and Cancer Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine/New England Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111 Communicated by Harry Rubin, August 12, 1991 ABSTRACT Transfected oncogenes have been reported to is a radiobiologically well-characterized early-passage glio- increase the radioresistance of rodent cells. Whether trans- blastoma cell line, established from human operative material, fected nononcogenic DNA sequences and subsequent clonal at Massachusetts General Hospital. Immunoperoxidase data selection can result in radioresistant cell populations is un- for glial fibrillary acidic protein substantiates its glial origin known. The present set of experiments describe the in vitro (F.S.P., unpublished data). Subclones ofthe parental glioblas- radiosensitivity and tumorigenicity of selected clones of pri- toma cells were established from the initial tumor biopsy. All mary rat embryo cells and human glioblastoma cells, after cultures were passaged and maintained in Dulbecco's modi- transfection with a neomycin-resistance marker (pSV2neo or fied Eagle's medium (DMEM, Sigma) fortified with 10o pCMVneo) and clonal selection. Radiobiological data compar- (vol/vol) fetal calf serum (Rehatuin, St. Louis). Cells were ing the surviving fraction at 2 Gy (SF2) and the mean inacti- incubated in a humidified atmosphere of 5% C02/95% air at vation dose show the induction of radioresistance in two rat 37°C.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Dose Versus Fractionated Radioimmunotherapy of Human Colon Carcinoma Xenografts Using 131I-Labeled Multivalent CC49 Single-Chain Fvs1
    Vol. 7, 175–184, January 2001 Clinical Cancer Research 175 Single-Dose versus Fractionated Radioimmunotherapy of Human Colon Carcinoma Xenografts Using 131I-labeled Multivalent CC49 Single-chain Fvs1 Apollina Goel, Sam Augustine, labeled systemic toxicity was observed in any treatment Janina Baranowska-Kortylewicz, David Colcher, groups. The results show that radioimmunotherapy delivery for sc(Fv) and [sc(Fv) ] in a fractionated schedule clearly Barbara J. M. Booth, Gabriela Pavlinkova, 2 2 2 2 presented a therapeutic advantage over single administration. Margaret Tempero, and Surinder K. Batra The treatment group receiving tetravalent scFv showed a sta- Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology [A. G., tistically significant prolonged survival with both single and S. K. B.], Pathology and Microbiology [S. A., B. J. M. B., G. P., fractionated administrations suggesting a promising prospect S. K. B.], and Radiation Oncology [J. B-K.], College of Pharmacy [S. A.], Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and Allied Diseases of this reagent for cancer therapy and diagnosis in MAb-based [S. K. B.], University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska radiopharmaceuticals. 68198; Coulter Pharmaceutical Incorporated, San Francisco, California 94080 [D. C.]; and University of California San Francisco Cancer Center, San Francisco, California 94115 [M. T.] INTRODUCTION RIT3 is a rapidly developing therapeutic modality for the treatment of a wide variety of carcinomas (1). Numerous anti- ABSTRACT body-radionuclide combinations have been evaluated in clinical The prospects of radiolabeled antibodies in cancer detec- studies (2–9). RIT has yielded complete responses in hemato- tion and therapy remain promising. However, efforts to logical diseases like Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (10, achieve cures, especially of solid tumors, with the systemic 11); however, for solid tumors only a partial clinical response administration of radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) has been observed (12–14).
    [Show full text]
  • Radioresistance of Brain Tumors
    cancers Review Radioresistance of Brain Tumors Kevin Kelley 1, Jonathan Knisely 1, Marc Symons 2,* and Rosamaria Ruggieri 1,2,* 1 Radiation Medicine Department, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA; [email protected] (K.K.); [email protected] (J.K.) 2 The Feinstein Institute for Molecular Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (R.R.); Tel.: +1-516-562-1193 (M.S.); +1-516-562-3410 (R.R.) Academic Editor: Zhe-Sheng (Jason) Chen Received: 17 January 2016; Accepted: 24 March 2016; Published: 30 March 2016 Abstract: Radiation therapy (RT) is frequently used as part of the standard of care treatment of the majority of brain tumors. The efficacy of RT is limited by radioresistance and by normal tissue radiation tolerance. This is highlighted in pediatric brain tumors where the use of radiation is limited by the excessive toxicity to the developing brain. For these reasons, radiosensitization of tumor cells would be beneficial. In this review, we focus on radioresistance mechanisms intrinsic to tumor cells. We also evaluate existing approaches to induce radiosensitization and explore future avenues of investigation. Keywords: radiation therapy; radioresistance; brain tumors 1. Introduction 1.1. Radiotherapy and Radioresistance of Brain Tumors Radiation therapy is a mainstay in the treatment of the majority of primary tumors of the central nervous system (CNS). However, the efficacy of this therapeutic approach is significantly limited by resistance to tumor cell killing after exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon, termed radioresistance, can be mediated by factors intrinsic to the cell or by the microenvironment.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection of Recorded Radiotherapy Seminars
    IAEA Human Health Campus Collection of Recorded Radiotherapy Seminars http://humanhealth.iaea.org WHOLE BODY IRRADIATION Dr. Fuad Ismail Dept. of Radiotherapy & Oncology Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre WHOLE BODY IRRADIATION (WBI) • WBI may be : – Accidental – Deliberate • Medical – Bone marrow transplant • Non-medical ACCIDENTAL WBI • Usually as a result of radiation disaster or accident – May also be due to medical accidents • Dislodged or stuck sources • Results in WBI by photon and particles eg neutron, heavy ions. Chernobyl ACCIDENTAL WBI • Radiation disasters – Chenobyl – Long Island New York • Radiation accidents – “Stolen” radioactive sources – Malfunction industrial sources ACCIDENTAL WBI • Compared to medical irradiation – Dose is non-uniform – Dose level is not known – Dose may be due to mixed particle and non- particle radiation – Exposure time is not known Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) • Acute illness with course over hours to weeks. • Stages – Prodromal symptoms – Latent period – Symptomatic illness – Recovery / sequelae DOSE RANGES FOR ARS • Sequelae of ARS is dependant on dose – < 100 cGy - asymptomatic – 100 - 200 cGy - minor symptoms – 250 – 500 cGy - haematopoietic syndrome – 800 – 3000 cGy - gastro-intestinal syndrome – > 2000 cGy - cerebro-vascular syndrome Prodromal radiation syndrome • Initial reaction to irradiation – – immediate response • Characterized by – Nausea – Vomiting – Diarrhea • Lasts from a few minutes to few days • Happens at low doses but increases with dose Prodromal radiation syndrome
    [Show full text]
  • Across the Tree of Life, Radiation Resistance Is Governed By
    Across the tree of life, radiation resistance is PNAS PLUS + governed by antioxidant Mn2 , gauged by paramagnetic resonance Ajay Sharmaa,1, Elena K. Gaidamakovab,c,1, Olga Grichenkob,c, Vera Y. Matrosovab,c, Veronika Hoekea, Polina Klimenkovab,c, Isabel H. Conzeb,d, Robert P. Volpeb,c, Rok Tkavcb,c, Cene Gostincarˇ e, Nina Gunde-Cimermane, Jocelyne DiRuggierof, Igor Shuryakg, Andrew Ozarowskih, Brian M. Hoffmana,i,2, and Michael J. Dalyb,2 aDepartment of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208; bDepartment of Pathology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814; cHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD 20817; dDepartment of Biology, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, 33615, Germany; eDepartment of Biology, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SI-1000, Slovenia; fDepartment of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218; gCenter for Radiological Research, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032; hNational High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306; and iDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 Contributed by Brian M. Hoffman, September 15, 2017 (sent for review August 1, 2017; reviewed by Valeria Cizewski Culotta and Stefan Stoll) Despite concerted functional genomic efforts to understand the agents of cellular damage. In particular, irradiated cells rapidly form •− complex phenotype of ionizing radiation (IR) resistance, a genome superoxide (O2 ) ions by radiolytic reduction of both atmospheric sequence cannot predict whether a cell is IR-resistant or not. Instead, O2 and O2 released through the intracellular decomposition of IR- we report that absorption-display electron paramagnetic resonance generated H2O2 ascatalyzedbybothenzymaticandnonenzymatic (EPR) spectroscopy of nonirradiated cells is highly diagnostic of IR •− metal ions.
    [Show full text]
  • Pathophysiological Responses in Rat and Mouse Models of Radiation-Induced Brain Injury
    Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:1022–1032 DOI 10.1007/s12035-015-9628-x Pathophysiological Responses in Rat and Mouse Models of Radiation-Induced Brain Injury Lianhong Yang1,2 & Jianhua Yang1,2 & Guoqian Li3 & Yi Li 1,2 & Rong Wu1,2 & Jinping Cheng1,2 & Yamei Tang1,2,4 Received: 26 October 2015 /Accepted: 8 December 2015 /Published online: 22 January 2016 # The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The brain is the major dose-limiting organ in pa- brain injury, especially rat and mouse, as well as radiation tients undergoing radiotherapy for assorted conditions. dosages, dose fractionation, and secondary pathophysiologi- Radiation-induced brain injury is common and mainly occurs cal responses. in patients receiving radiotherapy for malignant head and neck tumors, arteriovenous malformations, or lung cancer-derived Keywords Radiation . Brain injury . Pathogenic mechanism . brain metastases. Nevertheless, the underlying mechanisms of Animal model radiation-induced brain injury are largely unknown. Although many treatment strategies are employed for affected individ- uals, the effects remain suboptimal. Accordingly, animal Introduction models are extremely important for elucidating pathogenic radiation-associated mechanisms and for developing more ef- Radiation-induced brain injury is a continuous and dynamic ficacious therapies. So far, models employing various animal process. Based on the time course of clinical expression, species with different radiation dosages and fractions have radiation-induced brain injury can be classified into the fol- been introduced to investigate the prevention, mechanisms, lowing three phases [1]. (1) Acute reactions, which occur early detection, and management of radiation-induced brain within 2 weeks after the beginning of radiotherapy and some- injury.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiosensitization by Targeting Radioresistance-Related Genes with Protein Kinase a Inhibitor in Radioresistant Cancer Cells
    EXPERIMENTAL and MOLECULAR MEDICINE, Vol. 37, No. 6, 608-618, December 2005 Radiosensitization by targeting radioresistance-related genes with protein kinase A inhibitor in radioresistant cancer cells Chur Chin1, Jae Ho Bae1,4, Mi Ju Kim1,4, damage repair, and Bcl-2 and NF-κB genes that Jee Young Hwang2,8, Su Jin Kim1, related to antiapoptosis, were up-regulated, but the Man Soo Yoon2, Min Ki Lee3, expression of proapototic Bax gene was down- Dong Wan Kim7, Byung Seon Chung1, regulated in the radioresistant cells as compared to 1,5 1,4,5,6,9 each parental counterpart. We also revealed that the Chi Dug Kang and Sun Hee Kim combined treatment of radiation and the inhibitor of protein kinase A (PKA) to these radioresistant cells 1Department of Biochemistry 2 resulted in synergistic inhibition of DNA-PK, Rad51 Obstetrics and Gynecology and Bcl-2 expressions of the cells, and conse- 3Internal Medicine 4 quently restored radiosensitivity of the cells. Our Research Center for Ischemic Tissue Regeneration results propose that combined treatment with College of Medicine radiotherapy and PKA inhibitor can be a novel Pusan National University therapeutic strategy to radioresistant cancers. 5Medical Research Institutes 6 Cancer Research Center Keywords: cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinases; Pusan National University Hospital gene expression profiling; gene expression regulation, Busan 602-739, Korea neoplastic; radiation 7Department of Microbiology, College of Natural Sciences Chang Won National University Chang Won 641-773, Korea Introduction 8Present Address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Dongguk University College of Medicine Radiation therapy is an effective modality for the Kyung-ju 780-714, Korea treatment of many tumors (Rosen et al., 1999).
    [Show full text]