Biological Response to Radiation Therapy

References

• Rich T. Allen RL. AH W. Defying death alter DNA damage. Nature 2000; 407: 777–783.
   Google Scholar
• Vogelstein B, Lane D. Levine AJ. Surfing the p53 network. Nature 2000; 408: 307–10.
   Google Scholar
• Tanya TT. Rogakou EP. Yamazaki V, et al. A critical role for hislone H2AX in recruitment of repair factors to nuclear foci after DNA damage. Curr Biol 2000; 10: 886–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gent DC. Hoeimakers Jill, Kanaar R. Chromosomal stability and the DNA double-stranded break connection. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2: 196 206.
   Google Scholar
• Brown JM. Woulers BG. Apoptosis, p53, and tumor cell sensitivity to anticancer agents. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 1391–9.
   Google Scholar
• Steel GG The case against apoptosis. Acta Oncol 2001: 40: 968 75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taccioli GE. Gottlieb TM. Blunt T, et al. Ku80: product of the XRCC5 gene and its role in DNA repair and V(D)J recombi-nation. Science 1994: 265: 1442–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone HB. Dewey WC. Wallace SS. et al. Molecular biology to radiation oncology: a model for translational research? Op-portunities in basic and translational research. Radiat Res 1998; 150: 134 47.
   Google Scholar
• Smilenov LB. Brenner DJ. Hall EJ. Modest increased sensitivity to radiation oncogenesis in ATM heterozygous versus wild-type mammalian cells. Cancer Res 2001; 61: 57 10–3.
   Google Scholar
• Andreassen C, Alsner J, Overgaard J. Does variability in normal tissue reactions after radiotherapy have a genetic basis-where and how to look for it? Radiother Oncol 2002: 64: 131.
   Google Scholar
• Reya T, Morrison SJ. Clarke MF. et al. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature 2001; 414: 105–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kummermehr JC. Tumour stem cells -the evidence and the ambiguity. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 9 81–8.
   Google Scholar
• Bach SR Renehan AG. Potten CS. Stem cells: the intestinal stem cell as a paradigm. Carcinogenesis 2000; 21: 469-7 6.
   Google Scholar
• Shackney SE, Shankey TV. Cell cycle models for molecular biology and molecular oncology: exploring new dimensions. Cytometry 1999: 35: 97–116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson GD. A new look at proliferation. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 989 94.
   Google Scholar
• Turesson I, Bernefors R. Book M. et al. Normal tissue response to low doses of radiotherapy assessed by molecular markers. A study of skin in patients treated for prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2001:40: 941–51.
   Google Scholar
• Begg AC. Haustermans K, Hart AA. et al. The value of pretreatment cell kinetic parameters as predictors for radio-therapy outcome in head and neck cancer: a multicenter analysis. Radiother Oncol 1999: 50: 13 23.
   Google Scholar
• Corvo R. Paoli G, Giaretti W. et al. Evidence of cell kinetics as a predictive factor of response to radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47: 57–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haustermans K, Fowler JF. Is there a future for cell kinetic measurements using IdUrd or BdUrd? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49: 505–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson GD. Tpot and head and neck cancer: where are we now? Anticancer Res 1998; 18: 4801 5.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler .1 Biological factors influencing optimum fractionation in radiation therapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 712–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner DJ. Martinez AA, Edmundson GK. et al. Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractio-nation (Low a/p ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002: 52: 6 13.
   Google Scholar
• Joiner MC. Models of radiation cell killing. In: Steel GG, ed. Basic clinical radiobiology. 2nd ed. London; Arnold; 1997. p. 52–7.
   Google Scholar
• Joiner MC. van der Kogel AJ. The linear-quadratic approach to fractionation and calculation of isoeffect relationships. In: Steel GG. ed. Basic clinical radiobiology. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; 1997. p. 106–21.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner DJ. Hlatky LR, Hahnfeldt P.I, et al. The linear-quadratic model and most other common radiobiological models result in similar predictions of time-dose relationships. Radiat Res 1998; 150: 83-9 1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thames Jr HD. Withers HR. Peters LJ, et al. Changes in early and late radiation responses with altered dose fractionation: implications for dose survival relationships. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982: 8: 219–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams MV. Denekamp J. Fowler J F. A review of oi/B ratio for experimental tumors: implications for clinical studies of altered fractionation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11: 87 96.
   Google Scholar
• Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Work-ing Group. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 880–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tubiana M, Eschwege F Conformal radiotherapy and inten-sity-modulated radiotherapy-clinical data. Acta Oncol 2000; 39: 555 67.
   Google Scholar
• Schultheiss TE. The controversies and pitfalls in modeling normal tissue radiation injury/damage. Semin Radial Oncol 2001; 11: 210 4.
   Google Scholar
• Yorke ED. Modeling the effects of inhomogeneous dose distributions in normal tissues. Semin Radiat Oncol 2001: 11: 197 209.
   Google Scholar
• Marples B, Joiner MC. The response of Chinese hamster V79 cells to low radiation doses: evidence of enhanced sensitivity of the whole cell population. Radiat Res 1993; 133: 41–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marples B. Lambin P, Skov KA. et al. Low dose hyper-radiosensitivity and increased radioresistance in mammalian cells, hit J Radiat Biol 1997: 71: 721 35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joiner MC, Marples B. Lambin P, et al. Low-dose hypersensi-tivity: current status and possible mechanisms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49: 379–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wouters BG, Sy AM, Skarsgard LD. Low-dose hypersensitivity and increased radioresistance in a panel of human tumor cell lines with different radiosensitivity. Radiat Res 1996; 146: 399–413.
   Google Scholar
• Short SC, Kelly J. Mayes CR, et al. Low-dose hypersensitivity after fractionated low-dose irradiation in vitro. Int J Radiat Biol 2001; 77: 655–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joiner MC, Denekamp J. Maughan RL. The use of "top-up" experiments to investigate the effect of very small doses per fraction in mouse skin. Int J Radiat Biol 1986: 49: 565 80.
   Google Scholar
• Joiner MC. Johns II. Renal damage in the mouse: the response to very small doses per fraction. Radiat Res 1988; 114: 385 98.
   Google Scholar
• Withers HR. Biological aspects of conformal therapy. Acta Oncol 2000; 39: 569 77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner DJ. Curtis RE. Hall EJ, et al. Second malignancies in prostate carcinoma patients after radiotherapy compared with surgery. Cancer 2000; 88: 398 406.
   Google Scholar
• Travis L. Therapy-associated secondary solid cancer. Acta Oncol 2002: 41: 323–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mothersill C, Seymour C. Radiation-induced bystander effects: past history and future directions. Radiat Res 2001; 155: 759 67.
   Google Scholar
• Wu U. Randers-Pehrson G. Xu A, et al. Targeted cytoplasmic irradiation with alpha particles induces mutations in mamma-lian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 4959–64.
   Google Scholar
• Azzam El. de Toledo SM, Little JB. Direct evidence for the participation of gap junction-mediated intercellular commu-nication in the transmission of damage signals from alpha-particle irradiated to nonirradiated cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 473–8.
   Google Scholar
• Mothersill C. Seymour C. Medium from irradiated human epithelial cells but not human fibroblasts reduces the clono-genic survival of unirradiated cells. Int J Radiat Biol 1997; 71: 42 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Brahme A. Development of radiation therapy optimization. Acta Oncol 2000; 39: 579–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brahme A, Nilsson J. Belkic D. Biologically optimized radia-tion therapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 725–34.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman CN. Radiation oncology-linking technology and biology in the treatment of cancer. Acta Oncol 2002; 41: 6–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall EJ. Do no harm -normal tissue effects. Acta Oncol 2001: 40–913–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lind BK. Persson LM. Edgren MR. et al. Repairable conditionally repairable damage model based on dual Poisson processes. Radiat Res 2003 (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Agren-Cronquist AK. Qualification of the response of hetero-geneous tumours and organized tissues to fractionated radio-therapy. Stockholm University. Thesis; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Turesson I. Joiner MC. Clinical evidence of hypersensitivity to low doses in radiotherapy. Radiothcr Oncol 1996; 40: 1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brahme A, ed. Dosimetric precision requirements and quan-tities for characterizing the response of tumours and normal tissues. In: Radiation dose in radiotherapy from prescription to delivery. Rio de Janeiro: IAEA; 1996. p. 49 65.
   Google Scholar
• Niemierko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys 1997; 24: 103–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordic Association of Clinical Physics (NACP). Specification of dose delivery in radiation therapy. Acta Oncol 1997: 36 (Suppl 10): 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Brahme A. Dosimetric precision requirements in radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Oncol 1984; 23. 379 91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kallman P, Agren A, Brahme A. Tumour and normal tissue responses to fractionated non-uniform dose delivery. Int J Rad Biol 1992:62: 249 62.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler JF. Biological factors influencing optimum fractiona-tion in radiation therapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 712 7.
   Google Scholar
• Agren-Cronquist A-K., Kallman P, Turesson I. et al. Volume and heterogeneity dependence of dose-response relationship for head and neck tumours. Acta Oncol 1995; 34: 851–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emami B, Lyman J. Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21: 109–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin P. A direction for clinical radiation pathology. The tolerance dose. In: Vaeth JM, ed. Front Rad Ther Oncol. Basel; S Karger; 1972. p. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Thames HD, Hendry JH, eds. Fractionation in radiotherapy. London: Taylor & Francis; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Wigg DR. Applied radiobiology and bioeffect planning. Madison Wis: Med Phys Publish; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Gagliardi G. Modeling heart and lung complication data in radiation therapy of the breast: Stockholm University: Thesis; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Gagliardi G, Bjohle J, Lax I. et al. Radiation pneumonitis after breast cancer irradiation: analysis of the complication prob-ability using the relative seriality model, hit J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 3 73–8 1.
   Google Scholar
• Brahme A, Agren A. On the optimal dose distribution for eradication of heterogeneous tumours. Acta Oncol 1988: 26: 377–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones B, Dale RG. Mathematical models of tumour and normal tissue response. Acta Oncol 1999; 38: 883–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olive PL. Banath .IP, Aquino-Parsons C. Measuring hyopoxia in solid tumours. Is there a gold standard? Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 917–23.
   Google Scholar
• Withers HR, Taylor JMG, Maciejewski B. Treatment volume and tissue tolerance, hit J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988, 104: 751–9.
   Google Scholar