WOS

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/932

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.radiation therapy

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The Impact of Everolimus and Radiation Therapy on Pulmonary Fibrosis
    (MDPI, 2020-01-01) Eren, Mehmet Fuat; Eren, Ayfer Ay; Sayan, Mutlay; Yucel, Birsen; Elagoz, Sahende; Ozguven, Yildiray; Vergalasova, Irina; Altun, Ahmet; Kilickap, Saadettin; Daliparty, Vasudev Malik; Bese, Nuran
    Background and objectives:Everolimus (EVE) is a mammalian target of the rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor that is widely used in cancer patients. Pulmonary toxicity, usually manifesting as interstitial pneumonitis, is a serious adverse effect of this drug. Radiation therapy, which is often administered in conjunction with chemotherapy for synergistic effects, also causes pulmonary fibrosis. In view of pulmonary damage development in these two forms of cancer treatment, we have examined the effect of EVE administration individually, in combination with radiation given in varying sequences, and its relation to the extent of pulmonary damage.Materials and Methods:We performed an experimental study in albino rats, which were randomized into five groups: (1) control group, (2) EVE alone, (3) EVE 22 h after radiation, (4) EVE 2 h after irradiation, and (5) only radiation. Sixteen weeks after thoracic irradiation, rat lung tissue samples were examined under light microscopy, and the extent of pulmonary damage was estimated. After this, we calculated median fibrosis scores in each group.Results:The highest fibrosis score was noted in Group 4. Among the five groups, the control group had a significantly lower median fibrosis score compared to the others. When the median fibrosis score of the group that received concurrent EVE with radiation therapy (RT) (Group 4) was compared with that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant (p= 0.0022). However, no significant differences were achieved among the study groups that received EVE only or RT only, whether concurrently or sequentially (p> 0.05).Conclusion:EVE is an effective treatment option for the management of several malignancies and is often combined with other therapies, such as radiation, for a more efficient response. However, an increased risk of pulmonary fibrosis should also be anticipated when these two modalities are combined, as they both can cause pulmonary damage, especially when administered concurrently.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Computed tomography based evaluation of prostatic fiducial marker migration between the periods of insertion and simulation
    (AVES, 2017-01-01) Arpaci, Taner; Ugurluer, Gamze; Ispir, Emine Burcin; Eken, Alper; Akbas, Tugana; Serin, Meltem
    Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether significant fiducial marker migration occurs between the periods of prostatic marker insertion and computed tomography (CT) performed for radiotherapy planning and if a waiting period is necessary. Material and methods: Thirty-nine patients with prostate adenocarcinoma underwent fiducial marker insertion before radiotherapy between June 2013 and December 2015. Three markers were inserted by one radiologist under the guidance of transrectal ultrasonography. All patients underwent CT three hours after insertion to confirm the number and position of fiducial markers. Radiotherapy planning CT was performed on an average of 11 days (range 7-20) after insertion. CT images were imported into treatment planning system to analyze the position of fiducial markers. Point-based marker match algorithm was used to find the distance of marker migration. The mean and maximum distances between each fiducial markers were calculated. Results: The mean distance of migration was 1.029+/-0.42 mm (range 0.23-1.93 mm) and the maximum distance was 1.361+/-0.59 mm (range 0.25-2.74 mm). The distance of marker migration was not statistically significant for the groups organized according to the timing of marker insertion, prostate volume, patient age, prostate specific antigen level and Gleason score. Conclusion: According to our results significant fiducial marker migration did not occur during the interval between insertion and treatment planning CT. It should be taken into consideration that performing simulation on the same day as marker insertion might prevent increased cost and delayed radiation therapy by saving the patients from extra visits to the clinic.