4.4 Article

Response of rat skin to high-dose unidirectional X-ray microbearns: A histological study

期刊

RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 160, 期 2, 页码 133-142

出版社

RADIATION RESEARCH SOC
DOI: 10.1667/3033

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing interest in evaluating microbeam radiation therapy as a potential clinical modality. Microbeam radiation therapy uses arrays of parallel, microscopically thin (<100 μm) planes of synchrotron-generated X rays (microplanar beams, or microbeams). Due to the relatively low beam energies involved in microbeam radiation therapy (a median beam energy of 120 keV was used in the present study), the dose penetration of microbeams in tissue is lower than that used in conventional radiotherapy. This lower energy necessitates using a significantly elevated dose to the skin's surface during clinical microbeam therapy to ensure an adequate dose distribution in the target tumor. The findings of the present study, using a rat skin model, indicated that the skin had an extremely high tolerance to microbeam radiation at doses considerably in excess of those that were therapeutically effective in preclinical studies. A histological study was undertaken to evaluate the biological mechanisms underlying this high tolerance. The irradiation configuration employed single-exposure, unidirectional microbeams 90 μm wide, with 300 μm beam spacing on-center. The in-beam skin-surface absorbed doses were in the range 835-1335 Gy. Monte Carlo simulations of the dose distribution indicated that the valley dose, i.e. the radiation leakage between adjacent microbeams, was about 2.5% of the in-beam dose. The high tolerance of the rats' skin to microbeams and the rapid regeneration of the damaged segments of skin were attributed to the surviving clonogenic cells situated between the adjacent microplanar beams. In the epidermis, clonogenic cells in the hair follicular epithelium appeared to play a key role in the regeneration process. (C) 2003 by Radiation Research Society.

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

4.4
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