No abstract

The instability of few-layer black phosphorus (FL-BP) hampers its further applications. Here, it can be demonstrated that the instability of FL-BP can also be the advantage for application in biosensor. First, gold nanoparticle/FL-BP (BP-Au) hybrid is facilely synthesized by mixing Au precursor with FL-BP. BP-Au shows outstanding catalytic activity (K = 1120 s g ) and low activation energy (17.53 kJ mol ) for reducing 4-nitrophenol, which is attributed to the electron-reservoir and electron-donor properties of FL-BP, and synergistic interaction of Au nanoparticles and FL-BP. Oxidation of FL-BP after catalytic reaction is further confirmed by transmission electron microscope, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and zeta potentials. Second, the catalytic activity of BP-Au can be reversibly switched from "inactive" to "active" upon treatment with antibody and antigen in solution, thus providing a versatile platform for label-free colorimetric detection of biomarkers. The sensor shows a wide detection range (1 pg mL to -10 µg mL ), high sensitivity (0.20 pg mL ), and selectivity for detecting carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Finally, the biosensor has been used to detect CEA in colon and breast cancer clinical samples with satisfactory results. Therefore, the instability of BP can also be the advantage for application in detecting cancer biomarker in clinic.

No abstract

Conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT) for breast cancer after radical mastectomy had its limitation that resulted in larger volumes of normal tissue receiving low doses. We explored whether there was a way to deal with this disadvantage and determined the potential benefit of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams.Twenty patients with breast cancer after radical mastectomy were subjected to 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and VMAT treatment planning. For VMAT plans, 3 different designs were employed with RapidArc form: conventional-VMAT plan (C-VMAT), modified-VMAT plan (M-VMAT), and modified-VMAT plan using FFF beams (M-VMAT-F). Plan quality and efficiency were assessed for all plans.For each technique in homogeneity, there were no statistically significant differences. VMAT plans showed superiority compared with 3DCRT in conformity. C-VMAT plans were obviously not only superior to 3DCRT in the medium to high-dose regions (about 15–50 Gy) but also resulted in larger volumes in low-dose regions (about 0–10 Gy). M-VMAT plans were similar to M-VMAT-F. Both of them might significantly reduce the regions of low dose compared with C-VMAT (V5lung: ∼ 11.5%; V5heart: ∼ 23.8%, P < 0.05), even less than 3DCRT in heart irradiation (V2.5heart, 9.4%, P < 0.05). For liver, contralateral breast, and lung irradiation, M-VMAT-F plans were slightly superior to M-VMAT with a reduction of ∼0.08, 0.2, and 0.24 Gy in the respective mean doses (P < 0.05).C-VMAT plans showed superiority compared with 3DCRT, while also resulted in larger volumes of normal tissue receiving low doses. M-VMAT and M-VMAT-F plans might not only reduce the region in the medium to high doses but also have lower volumes in low-dose regions. M-VMAT-F plans were slightly superior compared with M-VMAT due to further contralateral organs sparing.

ObjectivesTo compare the target volume coverage and doses to organs at risks (OARs) using three techniques that simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in whole-breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), IMRT plus an electron boost (IMRT-EB), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).MethodsA total of 10 patients with early-stage left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery were included in this study. IMRT, IMRT-EB and VMAT plans were generated for each patient.ResultsThe conformity index (CI) of the planning target volumes evaluation (PTV-Eval) of VMAT was significantly superior to those of IMRT and IMRT-EB (P < 0.05). The CI of the PTV Eval-boost of VMAT was better than that of IMRT (P = 0.018) and IMRT-EB (P < 0.001), while the CI of the PTV Eval-boost of IMRT was better than that of IMRT-EB (P = 0.002). The V5, V10 and Dmean in ipsilateral lung with VMAT were significantly higher than IMRT (P < 0.05) and IMRT-EB (P < 0.05). The Dmean, V5 and V10 in heart with VMAT were significantly greater than those of IMRT and IMRT-EB (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the OARs between IMRT and IMRT-EB (P > 0.05).ConclusionsConsidered the target volume coverage and radiation dose delivered to the OARs (especially the heart and lung), IMRT may be more suitable for the SIB in WBI than IMRT-EB and VMAT. Additional clinical studies with a larger sample size will be needed to assess the long-term feasibility and efficacy of SIB using different radiotherapy techniques.

No abstract

No abstract

For single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using linac in brain metastases, more accurate treatment delivery with higher tumor absorbed doses and lower absorbed doses to normal tissues remains an enormous challenge. The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric superiority in flattening filter free beams (FFF) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in single brain metastasis. 68 patients with single brain metastasis were included in this study. Every patient was subjected to VMAT treatment plans using 6 MV standard flattened (FF) beams (VMAT_FF) and 6 MV FFF beams (VMAT_FFF) with single fraction doses of 20 Gy. Dosimetric evaluation was performed by analysis of target coverage, dose gradients, beam-on time (BOT), gantry speed and number of monitor units (MU). There were no differences between VMAT_FF and VMAT_FFF plans in conformity and MU. VMAT_FFF plans showed obvious superiority in homogeneity, dose gradients and efficiency. For the mean BOT, VMAT_FFF plans provided a significant decrease by 42.8% compared with VMAT_FF. By the use of FFF beams, brain irradiation was minimized with about 2% reductions in low-dose regions (about 5-10 Gy). FFF beams not only resulted in more efficiency by reducing treatment time, but also provided further brain sparing compared to traditional techniques for SRS in single brain metastasis.