Recent Advances in Brachytherapy Using Radioactive Nanoparticles: An Alternative to Seed-Based Brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial brachytherapy (BT) is generally used for the treatment of well-confined solid tumors. One example of this is in the treatment of prostate tumors by permanent placement of radioactive seeds within the prostate gland, where low doses of radiation are delivered for several months. However, successful implementation of this technique is hampered due to several posttreatment adverse effects or symptoms and operational and logistical complications associated with it. Recently, with the advancements in nanotechnology, radioactive nanoparticles (radio-NPs) functionalized with tumor-specific biomolecules, injected intratumorally, have been reported as an alternative to seed-based BT. Successful treatment of solid tumors using radio-NPs has been reported in several preclinical studies, on both mice and canine models. In this article, we review the recent advancements in the synthesis and use of radio-NPs as a substitute to seed-based BT. Here, we discuss the limitations of current seed-based BT and advantages of radio-NPs for BT applications. Recent progress on the types of radio-NPs, their features, synthesis methods, and delivery techniques are discussed. The last part of the review focuses on the currently used dosimetry protocols and studies on the dosimetry of nanobrachytherapy applications using radio-NPs. The current challenges and future research directions on the role of radio-NPs in BT treatments are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".