4.6 Article

Assessing Tumor Oxygenation for Predicting Outcome in Radiation Oncology: A Review of Studies Correlating Tumor Hypoxic Status and Outcome in the Preclinical and Clinical Settings

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00010

关键词

tumor oxygenation; oximetry; tumor hypoxia; hypoxia imaging; radiotherapy outcome

类别

资金

  1. Televie
  2. F.R.S. - FNRS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumor hypoxia is recognized as a limiting factor for the efficacy of radiotherapy, because it enhances tumor radioresistance. It is strongly suggested that assessing tumor oxygenation could help to predict the outcome of cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Strategies have also been developed to alleviate tumor hypoxia in order to radiosensitize tumors. In addition, oxygen mapping is critically needed for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), in which the most hypoxic regions require higher radiation doses and the most oxygenated regions require lower radiation doses. However, the assessment of tumor oxygenation is not yet included in day-to-day clinical practice. This is due to the lack of a method for the quantitative and non-invasive mapping of tumor oxygenation. To fully integrate tumor hypoxia parameters into effective improvements of the individually tailored radiation therapy protocols in cancer patients, methods allowing non-invasively repeated, safe, and robust mapping of changes in tissue oxygenation are required. In this review, non-invasive methods dedicated to assessing tumor oxygenation with the ultimate goal of predicting outcome in radiation oncology are presented, including positron emission tomography used with nitroimidazole tracers, magnetic resonance methods using endogenous contrasts (R1 and R*2-based methods), and electron paramagnetic resonance oximetry; the goal is to highlight results of studies establishing correlations between tumor hypoxic status and patients outcome in the preclinical and clinical settings.

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

4.6
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