• Users Online: 607
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 1

Transition: Translation and a view of the future of radiation biology


Advanced Centre for Radiation Oncology, Dr Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400 056, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication29-Feb-2016

Correspondence Address:
Nagraj G Huilgol
Advanced Centre for Radiation Oncology, Dr Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400 056, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Huilgol NG. Transition: Translation and a view of the future of radiation biology. J Radiat Cancer Res 2016;7, Suppl S1:1

How to cite this URL:
Huilgol NG. Transition: Translation and a view of the future of radiation biology. J Radiat Cancer Res [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Nov 19];7, Suppl S1:1. Available from: http://www.journalrcr.org/text.asp?2016/7/5/1/177648

This is an inaugural edition of the Journal of Radiation and Cancer Research (JRCR), an official publication of the Society for Radiation Research. The nascent science of radiation biology quickly followed the discovery of ubiquitous cosmic radiation, nuclear holocaust, and clinical application of ionizing and nonionizing radiation. "Present," is the period of transition: a harbinger of renaissance in radiation biology. Developments in technology of radiation therapy progressed independently of studies in radiation biology. The seminal work by Puck, Elkind, Coutard, and others took time to influence clinical radiation oncology. The innovations in fractionations, which were mainly due to restrictions imposed by limitations of technology, yielded to those based on biological basis of radiation biology. Mathematical models, such as nominal standard dose (NSD), cumulative radiation effect, time-dose factor, and later linear quadratic model added excitement to the field of clinical radiation oncology. Clinical disaster following fractionation schedules based on NSD demonstrated the limitations of modeling, and abundant caution became the order of the day. Clinical radiation biology has evolved by empirical experimentation and based on sound biological principles. Rapid strides were made in understanding radiation induced injury, death, repair, and restitution. Publication in radiation biology peaked between 60's and 70's, only to decline rapidly. An upward trend has been seen over the last few years. The resurgence of nuclear energy, space travel, and advances in clinical radiation therapy has refocused attention on radiation biology. Advances in molecular biology have yield newer insights into the consequences of ionizing and nonionizing radiation. The epidemiological data from high background radiation zone, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl have matured naturally on the basis of which, there is a rethink of linear no threshold model based on available information. Further studies should help revise our outlook toward hormesis. Hormesis perhaps will gain respectability and very soon!

Contemporary insights into the molecular mechanisms of injury and repair have come up with newer targets for manipulation of intrinsic sensitivity of radiation. Hypoxic sensitizers of radiation did not succeed in the clinic despite effectiveness. Perhaps, cytotoxic drugs such as platinum and taxerns overshadowed the modest efforts of hypoxic cell sensitizers such as senazole and nimarazole. Enhanced toxicity of chemoradiation beckons a better approach to radiation sensitization. Nano carriers, liposomal encapsulation, antibody-bound drugs, and other such innovations in drug delivery should help reduce unacceptable toxicities due to radiation. Hyperthermia with radiation needs a relook following many randomized studies attesting to the benefits of the combined treatment. Cytoprotectors at large and radiation protectors in particular have not succeeded. Amifostine was a modest success in the clinical setting. No significant radiation protectors have emerged ever since then. The harnessing of bystander effect in the clinic has not received the attention it deserves. The basic research in radiation biology in all its dimensions will continue to influence clinical radiation. There seems to be an upswing in the publications of papers related to radiation biology, an indicator of renaissance of sorts. JRCR is an effort to reflect and represent the renaissance in Radiation Biology. JRCR will include research papers from bench to bed side, environmental, cosmic radiation besides nuclear energy, and space travel. Ionizing radiation impacts life at large, JRCR will reflect that reality.




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1162    
    Printed148    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1921    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]