| Literature DB >> 28800740 |
Soha Bazyar1, Christina R Inscoe2,3, Thad Benefield4, Lei Zhang2, Jianping Lu2,4, Otto Zhou2,4,5, Yueh Z Lee6,7,8,9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Normal tissue toxicity is the dose-limiting side effect of radiotherapy. Spatial fractionation irradiation techniques, like microbeam radiotherapy (MRT), have shown promising results in sparing the normal brain tissue. Most MRT studies have been conducted at synchrotron facilities. With the aim to make this promising treatment more available, we have built the first desktop image-guided MRT device based on carbon nanotube x-ray technology. In the current study, our purpose was to evaluate the effects of MRT on the rodent normal brain tissue using our device and compare it with the effect of the integrated equivalent homogenous dose.Entities:
Keywords: Brain radiotherapy; Carbon nanotube x-ray; Microbeam radiation therapy; Radiation-induced cognitive Impairment; Spatially fractionated radiotherapy
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28800740 PMCID: PMC5554005 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0864-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 1Image-guided Microbeam Radiotherapy Method Abstract. a: Lateral radiograph of mouse head was taken to locate the bregma. The head was stabilized using two ear-bars and teeth wire. Embed steel bead served as the fiducial marker. b: The skull outlines were sketched over the same radiograph. The anatomical place of hippocampus is shown regarding the bregma. d: Schematic lateral view of mouse skull with a cut along the corpus callosum at midline. The gray line demonstrates the microbeam. In our device, the microbeam planes intersect with the vertical plane at a slight angle of 8 degrees. The center of the treatment was placed 2 mm posterior to the bregma (c) and 2.5 mm inferior to the top of the skull [50]. e: The side (top) and top view (bottom) of mouse under irradiation. The head was fixed by ear bars and tooth wire. Gafromic EBT-3 film was placed on top of the mouse head (entrance plan) to record the beams and generate the dose profile (f)
Fig. 2Broad-beam (BB) Irradiation Method Abstract. a: The schematic picture demonstrates the steps to collimate down the beam to 2.5 mm (d). b: The fabricated collimator was placed in close contact with mouse head. c: The Gafchromic™ EBT-3 film attached to fabricated collimator to record the entrance dose (d) and generate the beam profile (e)
Fig. 3Comparison of Normal Mouse (top row) vs. Impaired One (bottom row). The white dots are the position of mouse neck (junction of head and body) at each second during first 10 mins of open-field activity test (superimposed scatter plots are generated using idTracker [62]). The impaired mouse spends more time at periphery (a vs. b) and did less rearing (c vs. d) and buried fewer marbles after 30 min test (e top vs. bottom)
Fig. 4Method Abstract. The mice were pre-evaluated using rotarod, open-field activity and marble burying tests were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: broad beam (BB), microbeam radiotherapy (MRT) and controls. All mice were maintained under gaseous anesthesia for the equal duration of time. The post-irradiation evaluations were performed each month by rotarod, open-field activity and marble burying and 8-month after exposure Barnes maze test was used to evaluate the mice. All mice brains were sent for histological assessments 9-month post-irradiation
Pre-irradiation Evaluation of the Mice in Three Groups
| Measurement |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | 0.576 | |
| Rotarod | 0.365 | |
| Marble Burying | 0.216 | |
| Open-field Activity | Rearing | 0.332 |
| Center | 0.506 | |
| Locomotion | 0.241 | |
Fig. 5Predicted Mean of Mice Weight. The mice were weighed at their arrival to the facility and each week after irradiation. The error bars are SD
Post-irradiation Longitudinal Neurocognitive Evaluation
| Behavioral Tests | Group Difference a |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rotarod | MRT vs. Control vs. BB | 0.520 | |
| Marble Burying | MRT-Control = 0.0572 | 0.910 | |
| MRT-BB = 1.410 | 0.011+ | ||
| Control-BB = 1.353 | 0.009+ | ||
| Open-field Activity | Rearing | MRT vs. Control vs. BB | 0.180 |
| Center | MRT vs. Control vs. BB | 0.510 | |
| Locomotion | MRT-Control = 35.211 | 0.235 | |
| MRT-BB = 120.50 | 0.0005+ | ||
| Control-BB = 85.291 | 0.005+ | ||
| Barnes Maze | MRT-Control = 3.549 | 0.861 | |
| MRT-BB = −36.298 | 0.085 | ||
| Control-BB = −39.847 | 0.044+ | ||
+ P-Value < 0.05
a The difference between predicted means are reported when there was statistically significant difference among groups