METHODOLOGY: A total of 80 adult zebrafish were divided into 4 groups namely control, paraquat-treated, pre-hMT2-treated, and post-hMT2-treated groups. Fish were treated with paraquat intraperitoneally every 3 days for 15 days. hMT2 were injected intracranially on day 0 (pre-treated group) and day 16 (post-treated group). Fish were sacrificed on day 22 and the brains were collected for qPCR, ELISA and immunohistochemistry analysis.
RESULTS: qPCR analysis showed that paraquat treatment down-regulated the expression of genes related to dopamine activity and biosynthesis (dat and th1) and neuroprotective agent (bdnf). Paraquat treatment also up-regulated the expression of the mt2, smtb and proinflammatory genes (il-1α, il-1β, tnf-α and cox-2). hMT2 treatment was able to reverse the effects of paraquat. Lipid peroxidation decreased in the paraquat and pre-hMT2-treated groups. However, lipid peroxidation increased in the post-hMT2-treated group. Paraquat treatment also led to a reduction of dopaminergic neurons while their numbers showed an increase following hMT2 treatment.
CONCLUSION: Paraquat has been identified as one of the pesticides that can cause the death of dopaminergic neurons and affect dopamine biosynthesis. Treatment with exogenous hMT2 could reverse the effects of paraquat in the zebrafish brain.
RESULTS: The PTV, hippocampus and hippocampal avoidance volumes ranges between 1.00 - 39.00 cc., 2.50 - 5.30 cc and 26.47 - 36.30 cc respectively. The mean hippocampus dose for the HSWBRT and HSWBRT and SIB plans was 8.06 Gy and 12.47 respectively. The max dose of optic nerve, optic chiasm and brainstem were kept below acceptable range of 37.5 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this dosimetric study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of treating limited brain metastases with HSWBRT and SIB. It is possible to achieve the best of both worlds by combining HSWBRT and SIB to achieve maximal local intracranial control while maintaining as low a dose as possible to the hippocampus thereby preserving memory and quality of life.
METHODS: Five APT quantification methods, including asymmetry analysis and its variants as well as two Lorentzian model-based methods, were applied to data acquired from six rats that underwent middle cerebral artery occlusion scanned at 9.4T. Diffusion and perfusion-weighted images, and water relaxation time maps were also acquired to study the relationship of these conventional imaging modalities with the different APT quantification methods.
RESULTS: The APT ischemic area estimates had varying sizes (Jaccard index: 0.544 ≤ J ≤ 0.971) and had varying correlations in their distributions (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.104 ≤ r ≤ 0.995), revealing discrepancies in the quantified ischemic areas. The Lorentzian methods produced the highest contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs; 1.427 ≤ CNR ≤ 2.002), but generated APT ischemic areas that were comparable in size to the cerebral blood flow (CBF) deficit areas; asymmetry analysis and its variants produced APT ischemic areas that were smaller than the CBF deficit areas but larger than the apparent diffusion coefficient deficit areas, though having lower CNRs (0.561 ≤ CNR ≤ 1.083).
CONCLUSION: There is a need to further investigate the accuracy and correlation of each quantification method with the pathophysiology using a larger scale multi-imaging modality and multi-time-point clinical study. Future studies should include the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry results alongside the findings of the study to facilitate the comparison of results between different centers and also the published literature.