ArticlePloS one2013
Pencilbeam irradiation technique for whole brain radiotherapy: technical and biological challenges in a small animal model.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Good Timing Matters: The Spatially Fractionated High Dose Rate Boost Should Come First.Cancers · 2022Article
- Microbeam Irradiation as a Simultaneously Integrated Boost in a Conventional Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Protocol.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Comparative toxicity of synchrotron and conventional radiation therapy based on total and partial body irradiation in a murine model.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Hybrid dose calculation: a dose calculation algorithm for microbeam radiation therapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2018Article
- Microbeam radiation therapy - grid therapy and beyond: a clinical perspective.The British journal of radiology · 2017Review
- Neurocognitive sparing of desktop microbeam irradiation.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have conducted the first in-vivo experiments in pencilbeam irradiation, a new synchrotron radiation technique based on the principle of microbeam irradiation, a concept of spatially fractionated high-dose irradiation. In an animal model of adult C57 BL/6J mice we have determined technical and physiological limitations with the present technical setup of the technique. Fifty-eight animals were distributed in eleven experimental groups, ten groups receiving whole brain radiotherapy with arrays of 50 µm wide beams. We have tested peak doses ranging between 172 Gy and 2,298 Gy at 3 mm depth. Animals in five groups received whole brain radiotherapy with a center-to-center (ctc) distance of 200 µm and a peak-to-valley ratio (PVDR) of ∼ 100, in the other five groups the ctc was 400 µm (PVDR ∼ 400). Motor and memory abilities were assessed during a six months observation period following irradiation. The lower dose limit, determined by the technical equipment, was at 172 Gy. The LD50 was about 1,164 Gy for a ctc of 200 µm and higher than 2,298 Gy for a ctc of 400 µm. Age-dependent loss in motor and memory performance was seen in all groups. Better overall performance (close to that of healthy controls) was seen in the groups irradiated with a ctc of 400 µm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.