In studies of electron and proton radiotherapy, ultrahigh dose rates of FLASH radiation therapy appear to produce fewer toxicities than standard dose rates while maintaining local tumor control. FLASH-proton radiotherapy (F-PRT) brings the spatial advantages of PRT to FLASH dose rates (>40 Gy/sec), making it important to understand if and how F-PRT spares normal tissues while providing anti-tumor efficacy that is equivalent to standard-proton radiotherapy (S-PRT). Here we studied PRT damage to skin and mesenchymal tissues of muscle and bone and found that F-PRT of the C57BL/6 murine hind leg produced fewer severe toxicities leading to death or requiring euthanasia than S-PRT of the same dose. RNAseq analyses of murine skin and bone revealed pathways upregulated by S-PRT yet unaltered by F-PRT, such as apoptosis signaling and keratinocyte differentiation in skin, as well as osteoclast differentiation and chondrocyte development in bone. Corroborating these findings, F-PRT reduced skin injury, stem cell depletion, and inflammation, mitigated late effects including lymphedema, and decreased histopathologically detected myofiber atrophy, bone resorption, hair follicle atrophy, and epidermal hyperplasia. F-PRT was equipotent to S-PRT in control of two murine sarcoma models, including at an orthotopic intramuscular site, thereby establishing its relevance to mesenchymal cancers. Finally, S-PRT produced greater increases in TGF-β1 in murine skin and the skin of canines enrolled in a phase 1 study of F-PRT versus S-PRT. Collectively, these data provide novel insights into F-PRT-mediated tissue sparing and support its ongoing investigation in applications that would benefit from this sparing of skin and mesenchymal tissues. SignificanceThese findings will spur investigation of FLASH radiotherapy in sarcoma and additional cancers where mesenchymal tissues are at risk, including head and neck cancer, breast cancer, and pelvic malignancies.Research.
There is limited, useful, scientific information on detomidine in donkeys. This study compared the effects of intravenous saline, detomidine (10, 13.5, 17 and 20 μg/kg) and acepromazine (50 μg/kg) in donkeys by computing areas under the curve for 0-30, 30-60 and 60-120 minutes (AUC0-30, AUC30-60 and AUC60-120) for sedation scores, head heights and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (MNTs). For sedation scores, all detomidine treatments, except 10 μg/kg, increased AUC0-30 values compared with saline, and AUC0-30 values were larger for 17 μg/kg detomidine than for acepromazine. All head height AUC values were lower for detomidine than for saline (except AUC60-120 for 10 μg/kg detomidine) and acepromazine (except AUC0-30 for 10 and 20 μg/kg detomidine, and AUC60-120 for 10 μg/kg detomidine). For MNTs, all detomidine treatments increased AUC0-30 and AUC30-60 values compared with saline and acepromazine; AUC30-60 values were smaller for 10 μg/kg than for 17 and 20 μg/kg detomidine. MNT AUC60-120 values were larger for 20 μg/kg detomidine than for saline, 10 μg/kg detomidine and acepromazine. Detomidine induced sedation and antinociception, but only antinociception was dosage dependent. Selection of detomidine dosage for donkeys may depend on the required duration of sedation and/or degree of analgesia.
OBJECTIVE To compare sedative and mechanical hypoalgesic effects of sublingual administration of 2 doses of detomidine gel to donkeys. DESIGN Randomized blinded controlled trial. ANIMALS 6 healthy castrated male donkeys. PROCEDURES In a crossover study design, donkeys received each of the following sublingual treatments 1 week apart in a randomly assigned order: 1 mL of molasses (D0) or detomidine hydrochloride gel at 20 μg/kg (9 μg/lb; D20) or 40 μg/kg (18 μg/lb; D40). Sedation score (SS), head height above the ground (HHAG), and mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) were assessed before and for 180 minutes after treatment. Areas under the effect change-versus-time curves (AUCs) from 0 to 30, 30 to 60, 60 to 120, and 120 to 180 minutes after administration were computed for SS, HHAG, and MNT and compared among treatments. RESULTS D20 and D40 resulted in greater SS AUCs from 60 to 120 minutes and smaller HHAG AUCs from 30 through 180 minutes than did D0. The D40 resulted in smaller HHAG AUCs from 60 to 120 minutes than did D20. Compared with D0 values, MNT AUCs from 60 to 120 minutes were higher for D20, whereas MNT AUCs from 30 through 180 minutes were higher for D40. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE D20 and D40 induced sedation and mechanical hypoalgesia in donkeys by > 30 minutes after administration, but only sedation was dose dependent. Sublingual administration of detomidine gel at 40 μg/kg may be useful for sedation of standing donkeys prior to potentially painful minor procedures.
Objective: To evaluate the effects of intra-articular (IA) mepivacaine administration prior to carpal arthroscopy on anesthetic drug requirements, blood pressure support, hemodynamic variables, and quality of recovery in horses. Study design: Experimental, analytical, cohort study. Sample population: Twenty-two horses (n = 11 horses/group). Methods: Horses were anesthetized by using the same protocol, but an IA injection of mepivacaine or saline was performed before carpal arthroscopy. End-tidal isoflurane concentration, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure were recorded at specific time points. Quality of recovery was scored by the anesthetist, who was unaware of group assignment. Data were analyzed by using two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: Mean arterial pressure was higher during joint distension in the control group compared with baseline (7% higher, P = .02) and with the treatment group (10% higher, P = .04). Heart rate was higher in the control group compared with the treatment group during joint distension (8% higher, P = .04) and chip removal (11% higher, P = .03). Heart rate was higher in the control group compared with baseline during chip removal (5.5% higher, P = .04). Two horses in the control group required additional ketamine vs none in the treatment group. Quality of recovery was not different between groups. Conclusion: Intra-articular mepivacaine resulted in fewer detectable reactions to surgical stimulation, with similar recovery scores and blood pressure support requirements. Clinical significance: Intra-articular anesthesia prior to arthroscopy can be used safely in the horse and should be considered as a part of balanced anesthetic protocols.
OBJECTIVE To assess effects of nitrogen and helium on efficacy of an alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) for improving pulmonary mechanics and oxygen exchange in anesthetized horses. ANIMALS 6 healthy adult horses. PROCEDURES Horses were anesthetized twice in a randomized crossover study. Isoflurane-anesthetized horses in dorsal recumbency were ventilated with 30% oxygen and 70% nitrogen (treatment N) or heliox (30% oxygen and 70% helium; treatment H) as carrier gas. After 60 minutes, an ARM was performed. Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure was identified and maintained for 120 minutes. Throughout the experiment, arterial blood pressures, heart rate, peak inspiratory pressure, dynamic compliance (Cdyn), and Pao2 were measured. Variables were compared with baseline values and between treatments by use of an ANOVA. RESULTS The ARM resulted in significant increases in Pao2 and Cdyn and decreases in the alveolar-arterial gradient in the partial pressure of oxygen in all horses. After the ARM and during the subsequent 120-minute phase, mean values were significantly lower for treatment N than treatment H for Pao2 and Cdyn. Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure was consistently 15 cm H2O for treatment N, but it was 10 cm H2O (4 horses) and 15 cm H2O (2 horses) for treatment H. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE An ARM in anesthetized horses might be more efficacious in improving Pao2 and Cdyn when animals breathe helium instead of nitrogen as the inert gas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.