Influence of 6 MV and 20 MV X-radiation dose rate on in vitro survive of the K-562 cell line

AbstractBackgroundAnalysis of the survival rate of cells after irradiation with a specified dose of X-radiation might be one of the basic foundations for assessment of biological implications of ionizing radiation. Investigation of the influence of X-radiation dose rate on cells was carried out in vitro using the SF2 test.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate the influence of X-radiation dose rate on the surviving fraction of the K-562 cell line for two photon energies of 6 MV and 20 MV.Materials/MethodsTo measure the cells' reaction to X-radiation of variable dose rate human leukaemic K-562 cells were used. In order to fulfil the main aim of the study, the cell line was subjected to irradiation at two different dose rates. Total dose applied at once was 2 Gy. A quantitative evaluation of cell survival rate was carried out at every step of the experiment using a clonogenic assay.ResultsHigh dose rate at the energy of 6 MV decreased the percentage of surviving cells to 23%, while lower dose rate decreased it only to 36%. A similar effect is observed at the energy of 20MV-namely at the higher dose rate the percentage of surviving cells is 18%, whereas at the lower one it is only 34%.ConclusionsThe experiment has shown that when using a lower dose rate, the biological effect of ionizing radiation is less pronounced. However, at a higher dose rate higher radiosensitivity of cells is observed

Influence of 6 MV and 20 MV X-radiation dose rate on in vitro survive of the K-562 cell line

BackgroundAnalysis of the survival rate of cells after irradiation with a specified dose of X-radiation might be one of the basic foundations for assessment of biological implications of ionizing radiation. Investigation of the influence of X-radiation dose rate on cells was carried out in vitro using the SF2 test.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate the influence of X-radiation dose rate on the surviving fraction of the K-562 cell line for two photon energies of 6 MV and 20 MV.Materials/MethodsTo measure the cells' reaction to X-radiation of variable dose rate human leukaemic K-562 cells were used. In order to fulfil the main aim of the study, the cell line was subjected to irradiation at two different dose rates. Total dose applied at once was 2 Gy. A quantitative evaluation of cell survival rate was carried out at every step of the experiment using a clonogenic assay.ResultsHigh dose rate at the energy of 6 MV decreased the percentage of surviving cells to 23%, while lower dose rate decreased it only to 36%. A similar effect is observed at the energy of 20MV-namely at the higher dose rate the percentage of surviving cells is 18%, whereas at the lower one it is only 34%.ConclusionsThe experiment has shown that when using a lower dose rate, the biological effect of ionizing radiation is less pronounced. However, at a higher dose rate higher radiosensitivity of cells is observed

Measurements of doses from photon beam irradiation and scattered neutrons in an anthropomorphic phantom model of prostate cancer: A comparison between 3DCRT, IMRT and tomotherapy

Introduction. The rapid development of new radiotherapy technologies, such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or tomotherapy, has resulted in the capacity to deliver a more homogenous dose in the target. However, the higher doses associated with these techniques are a reason for concern because they may increase the dose outside the target. In the present study, we compared 3DCRT, IMRT and tomotherapy to assess the doses to organs at risk (OARs) resulting from photon beam irradiation and scattered neutrons. Material and methods. The doses to OARs outside the target were measured in an anthropomorphic Alderson phantom using thermoluminescence detectors (TLD 100) 6Li (7.5%) and 7Li (92.5%). The neutron fluence rate [cm-2·s-1] at chosen points inside the phantom was measured with gold foils (0.5 cm diameter, mean surface density of 0.108 g/cm3). Results. The doses [Gy] delivered to the OARs for 3DCRT, IMRT and tomotherapy respectively, were as follows: thyroid gland (0.62 ± 0.001 vs. 2.88 ± 0.004 vs. 0.58 ± 0.003); lung (0.99 ± 0.003 vs. 4.78 ± 0.006 vs. 0.67 ± 0.003); bladder (80.61 ± 0.054 vs. 53.75 ± 0.070 vs. 34.71 ± 0.059); and testes (4.38 ± 0.017 vs. 6.48 ± 0.013 vs. 4.39 ± 0.020). The neutron dose from 20 MV X-ray beam accounted for 0.5% of the therapeutic dose prescribed in the PTV. The further from the field edge the higher the contribution of this secondary radiation dose (from 8% to ~45%). Conclusion. For tomotherapy, all OARs outside the therapeutic field are well-spared. In contrast, IMRT achieved better sparing than 3DCRT only in the bladder. The photoneutron dose from the use of high-energy X-ray beam constituted a notable portion (0.5%) of the therapeutic dose prescribed to the PTV

Diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer using nuclear medicine techniques — current state of the art

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Planar radiography and computed tomography are the most common imaging modalities used in diagnosis, staging, and therapy response assessment. However, the role of nuclear methods in assessing the severity of the disease and the effectiveness of treatment has increased in recent years. Introducing these diagnostic modalities into standard practice in lung cancer may contribute to the personalization of treatment. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of nuclear medicine techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer

Results of the IROCA international clinical audit in prostate cancer radiotherapy at six comprehensive cancer centres

To assess adherence to standard clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of patients undergoing prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy in four European countries using clinical audits as part of the international IROCA project. Multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of 240 randomly-selected patients treated for PCa (n = 40/centre) in the year 2015 at six European hospitals. Clinical indicators applicable to general and PCa-specific radiotherapy processes were evaluated. All data were obtained directly from medical records. The audits were performed in the year 2017. Adherence to clinical protocols and practices was satisfactory, but with substantial inter-centre variability in numerous variables, as follows: staging MRI (range 27.5-87.5% of cases); presentation to multidisciplinary tumour board (2.5-100%); time elapsed between initial visit to the radiation oncology department and treatment initiation (42-102.5 days); number of treatment interruptions ≥ 1 day (7.5-97.5%). The most common deviation from standard clinical practice was inconsistent data registration, mainly failure to report data related to diagnosis, treatment, and/or adverse events. This clinical audit detected substantial inter-centre variability in adherence to standard clinical practice, most notably inconsistent record keeping. These findings confirm the value of performing clinical audits to detect deviations from standard clinical practices and procedures

Improving radiation oncology through clinical audits: Introducing the IROCA project

As radiotherapy practice and processes become more complex, the need to assure quality control becomes ever greater. At present, no international consensus exists with regards to the optimal quality control indicators for radiotherapy; moreover, few clinical audits have been conducted in the field of radiotherapy. The present article describes the aims and current status of the international IROCA “Improving Radiation Oncology Through Clinical Audits” project. The project has several important aims, including the selection of key quality indicators, the design and implementation of an international audit, and the harmonization of key aspects of radiotherapy processes among participating institutions. The primary aim is to improve the processes that directly impact clinical outcomes for patients. The experience gained from this initiative may serve as the basis for an internationally accepted clinical audit model for radiotherapy

IROCA-TES: Improving Quality in Radiation Oncology through Clinical Audits — Training and Education for Standardization

Background: Clinical audits are an important tool to objectively assess clinical protocols, procedures, and processes and to detect deviations from good clinical practice. The main aim of this project is to determine adherence to a core set of consensus-based quality indicators and then to compare the institutions in order to identify best practices. Materials and methods: We conduct a multicentre, international clinical audit of six comprehensive cancer centres in Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, and Romania as a part of the project, known as IROCATES (Improving Quality in Radiation Oncology through Clinical Audits — Training and Education for Standardization). Results: Radiotherapy practice varies from country to country, in part due to historical, economic, linguistic, and cultural differences. The institutions developed their own processes to suit their existing clinical practice. Conclusions: We believe that this study will contribute to establishing the value of routinely performing multi-institutional clinical audits and will lead to improvement of radiotherapy practice at the participating centres

Basic tests in mammography as a tool in quality improvement

BackgroundMammography is a radiological diagnostic method which relies on an X-ray examination of breasts and is a process involving the use of low-dose amplitude-X-rays (usually around 0.7[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]mSv). Combining the use of small doses and high quality images requires extensive quality protocols, part of them being included in regulations adopted by the Minister of Health.AimThe aim of this study was to check the usefulness and efficacy of selected quality tests associated with mammography.Material/methodsThe study was performed in the mammography service of the Greater Poland Cancer Centre in Poznan. Following equipment was used: densitometer, sensitometer, mammographic scales, electronic scales, thermometer, hygrometer, PMMA plates, Europhantom, screen film contact phantom, viewing boxes and magnifying glasses. The methods were based on basic mammography tests. Quality control in mammography demands: clean darkroom, marked and clean cassettes, clean viewing boxes with homogenous light.ResultsThe results of the “Development Process” test show that each sensitometer has to be used with an appropriate densitometer. Phantoms with abnormal structures cannot be used to “AEC System – Solidity exposure” test. “Compression – The force of compression” test may only be carried out with suitable scales and compressible material. Analysis of rejected films shows that the main reasons for rejection were wrong collimation and underexposure.ConclusionEvery quality control in mammography provides essential information about the functioning of a laboratory. Apart from recommended standard sterility, it should be remembered that equipment should always be adjusted and repaired

Multicentre clinical radiotherapy audit in rectal cancer: results of the IROCA project

PURPOSE: To perform a clinical audit to assess adherence to standard clinical practice for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients undergoing radiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment in four European countries.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of 221 patients treated for rectal cancer in 2015 at six European cancer centres. Clinical indicators applicable to general radiotherapy processes were evaluated. All data were obtained from electronic medical records.RESULTS: The audits were performed in the year 2017. We found substantial inter-centre variability in adherence to standard clinical practices: 1) presentation of cases at departmental clinical sessions (range, 0-100%) or multidisciplinary tumour board (50-95%); 2) pretreatment MRI (61.5-100%) and thoracoabdominal CT (15.0-100%). Large inter-centre differences were observed in the mean interval between biopsy and first visit to the radiotherapy department (range, 21.6-58.6days) and between the first visit and start of treatment (15.1-38.8days). Treatment interruptions 65 1 day occurred in 43.9% (2.5-90%) of cases overall. Treatment compensation was performed in 2.1% of cases. Treatment was completed in the prescribed time in 55.7% of cases.CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional clinical audit revealed that most centres adhered to standard clinical practices for most of the radiotherapy processes-related variables assessed. However, the audit revealed marked inter-centre variability for certain quality indicators, particularly inconsistent record keeping. Multiple targets for improvement and/or harmonisation were identified, confirming the value of routine clinical audits to detect potential deviations from standard clinical practice