4.2 Article

A proof of principle experiment for microbeam radiation therapy at the Munich compact light source

期刊

RADIATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL BIOPHYSICS
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 111-120

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00411-019-00816-y

关键词

MRT; Microbeam; Inverse Compton X-ray sources; Tumor; X-rays; Growth delay

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [MAP C.3.4]
  2. Munich School of BioEngineering of the Technical University of Munich
  3. Centre of Advanced Laser Applications
  4. Cluster of Excellence: Munich-Centre for Advanced Photonics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbeam radiation therapy (MRT), a preclinical form of spatially fractionated radiotherapy, uses an array of microbeams of hard synchrotron X-ray radiation. Recently, compact synchrotron X-ray sources got more attention as they provide essential prerequisites for the translation of MRT into clinics while overcoming the limited access to synchrotron facilities. At the Munich compact light source (MuCLS), one of these novel compact X-ray facilities, a proof of principle experiment was conducted applying MRT to a xenograft tumor mouse model. First, subcutaneous tumors derived from the established squamous carcinoma cell line FaDu were irradiated at a conventional X-ray tube using broadbeam geometry to determine a suitable dose range for the tumor growth delay. For irradiations at the MuCLS, FaDu tumors were irradiated with broadbeam and microbeam irradiation at integral doses of either 3 Gy or 5 Gy and tumor growth delay was measured. Microbeams had a width of 50 mu m and a center-to-center distance of 350 mu m with peak doses of either 21 Gy or 35 Gy. A dose rate of up to 5 Gy/min was delivered to the tumor. Both doses and modalities delayed the tumor growth compared to a sham-irradiated tumor. The irradiated area and microbeam pattern were verified by staining of the DNA double-strand break marker gamma H2AX. This study demonstrates for the first time that MRT can be successfully performed in vivo at compact inverse Compton sources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据