ArticleMedical physics2025
Radiation induced vaporization of exoskeletal droplets as potential x-ray acoustic contrast agents.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thermally Activated Vaporization of Fluorocarbon-In-Hydrocarbon Exoskeletal Droplets.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Radiation induced vaporization of exoskeletal droplets as potential x-ray acoustic contrast agents.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn vivo dosimetry is a crucial component of ensuring accurate and safe radiation therapy (RT) delivery, but many existing techniques face challenges such as low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which can limit their clinical applicability. PURPOSE: In this study, we investigate a novel contrast agent sensitive to megavoltage (MV) radiation in vitro, ultimately aiming for in vivo dosimetry.
methodsVaporizable exoskeletal droplets were engineered to phase-change into ultrasound-responsive microbubbles upon exposure to MV photon radiation. These droplets comprised a hydrocarbon (HC) exoskeleton doped with gold nanoparticles (GNPs) surrounding a liquid fluorocarbon (FC) core. Radiation absorbed by the GNPs induced localized heating, leading to vaporization of the FC phase. Droplet vaporization in response to clinical MV radiation was observed under a microscope at varying temperatures. Individual droplet samples were heated to temperatures ranging from 31 to 34°C, incubated for 8 min, then irradiated with a 5 × 5-cm
resultsGNP-doped exoskeletal droplets exhibited enhanced vaporization in response to MV radiation compared to heating alone. Vaporization increased with radiation dose, and the dose threshold required for vaporization decreased with rising temperature. Specifically, at 31 and 34°C, the dose required to vaporize 10% of bubbles (D10%) decreased from 22 to 4 Gy, and that required to vaporize 50% of bubbles (D50%) decreased from 67.5 to 36 Gy, respectively. The activation threshold at body temperature (37°C) was extrapolated to be clinically relevant, with D10% activation estimated to be 0.41 Gy. At T = 32 to 34°C, we showed statistically significant radiation-induced vaporization of droplets with GNPs compared to non-irradiated droplets with GNPs (p-values from 0.0003 to 0.0232). Irradiation of droplets lacking GNPs did not induce notable vaporization.
conclusionsGNP-doped exoskeletal droplets were demonstrated to exhibit enhanced vaporization upon exposure to clinically relevant MV x-ray radiation doses compared to thermal activation alone in the absence of radiation. This is the first step in the development of an x-ray acoustic contrast agent for dosimetry of RT in vivo.
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.