Samana Shrestha, Leon N Cooper, Oleg A Andreev, Yana K Reshetnyak, Michael P Antosh
Enhancing the effect of radiation on tumors would be a significant improvement in radiation therapy. With radiation enhancement, less radiation could be used to achieve the same goals, lessening damage to healthy tissue and lessening side effects. Gold nanoparticles are a promising method for achieving this enhancement, particularly when the gold nanoparticles are targeted to cancer. This literature review discusses the properties of gold nanoparticles as well as existing in vivo radiation enhancement results using both targeted and non-targeted gold nanoparticles.
{"title":"Gold Nanoparticles for Radiation Enhancement <i>in Vivo</i>.","authors":"Samana Shrestha, Leon N Cooper, Oleg A Andreev, Yana K Reshetnyak, Michael P Antosh","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Enhancing the effect of radiation on tumors would be a significant improvement in radiation therapy. With radiation enhancement, less radiation could be used to achieve the same goals, lessening damage to healthy tissue and lessening side effects. Gold nanoparticles are a promising method for achieving this enhancement, particularly when the gold nanoparticles are targeted to cancer. This literature review discusses the properties of gold nanoparticles as well as existing <i>in vivo</i> radiation enhancement results using both targeted and non-targeted gold nanoparticles.</p>","PeriodicalId":90567,"journal":{"name":"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513501/pdf/nihms838256.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35184450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Carryn M Anderson, Wenqing Sun, John M Buatti, Joan E Maley, Bruno Policeni, Sarah L Mott, John E Bayouth
Purpose: To compare the interobserver and intermodality differences in image-based identification of head and neck primary site gross tumor volumes (GTV). Modalities compared include: contrast-enhanced CT, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced MRI.
Methods and materials: Fourteen patients were simulated after immobilization for all 3 imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI). Three radiation oncologists (RO) contoured GTVs as seen on each modality. The GTV was contoured first on the contrast-enhanced CT (considered the standard), then on PET/CT, and finally on post-contrast T1 MRI. Interobserver and intermodality variability were analyzed by volume, intersection, union, and volume overlap ratio (VOR).
Results: Analysis of RO contours revealed the average volume for CT-, PET/CT-, and MRI-derived GTVs were 45cc, 35cc and 49cc, respectively. In 93% of cases PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volume and in 57% of cases MRI-derived GTVs had the largest volume. CT showed the largest variation in target definition (standard deviation amongst observers 35%) compared to PET/CT (28%) and MRI (27%). The VOR was largest (indicating greatest interobserver agreement) in PET/CT (46%), followed by MRI (36%), followed by CT (34%). For each observer, the least agreement in GTV definition occurred between MRI & PET/CT (average VOR = 41%), compared to CT & PET/CT (48%) and CT & MRI (47%).
Conclusions: A nonsignificant interobserver difference in GTVs for each modality was seen. Among three modalities, CT was least consistent, while PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volumes and were most consistent. MRI combined with PET/CT provided the least agreement in GTVs generated. The significance of these differences for head & neck cancer is important to explore as we move to volume-based treatment planning based on multi-modality imaging as a standard method for treatment delivery.
{"title":"Interobserver and intermodality variability in GTV delineation on simulation CT, FDG-PET, and MR Images of Head and Neck Cancer.","authors":"Carryn M Anderson, Wenqing Sun, John M Buatti, Joan E Maley, Bruno Policeni, Sarah L Mott, John E Bayouth","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the interobserver and intermodality differences in image-based identification of head and neck primary site gross tumor volumes (GTV). Modalities compared include: contrast-enhanced CT, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced MRI.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Fourteen patients were simulated after immobilization for all 3 imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI). Three radiation oncologists (RO) contoured GTVs as seen on each modality. The GTV was contoured first on the contrast-enhanced CT (considered the standard), then on PET/CT, and finally on post-contrast T1 MRI. Interobserver and intermodality variability were analyzed by volume, intersection, union, and volume overlap ratio (VOR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of RO contours revealed the average volume for CT-, PET/CT-, and MRI-derived GTVs were 45cc, 35cc and 49cc, respectively. In 93% of cases PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volume and in 57% of cases MRI-derived GTVs had the largest volume. CT showed the largest variation in target definition (standard deviation amongst observers 35%) compared to PET/CT (28%) and MRI (27%). The VOR was largest (indicating greatest interobserver agreement) in PET/CT (46%), followed by MRI (36%), followed by CT (34%). For each observer, the least agreement in GTV definition occurred between MRI & PET/CT (average VOR = 41%), compared to CT & PET/CT (48%) and CT & MRI (47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A nonsignificant interobserver difference in GTVs for each modality was seen. Among three modalities, CT was least consistent, while PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volumes and were most consistent. MRI combined with PET/CT provided the least agreement in GTVs generated. The significance of these differences for head & neck cancer is important to explore as we move to volume-based treatment planning based on multi-modality imaging as a standard method for treatment delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":90567,"journal":{"name":"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283948/pdf/nihms647804.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32960096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Haibo Wang, Sanjay Adhikari, Brian E Butler, Tej K Pandita, Sankar Mitra, Muralidhar L Hegde
{"title":"A Perspective on Chromosomal Double Strand Break Markers in Mammalian Cells.","authors":"Haibo Wang, Sanjay Adhikari, Brian E Butler, Tej K Pandita, Sankar Mitra, Muralidhar L Hegde","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":90567,"journal":{"name":"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299656/pdf/nihms645301.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32997463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号