Re: Alternative to radiation in preventing restenosis

["Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

> I find it interesting that the assumption is that the risks of the

radiation exceed that of the chemical alternative.



Yes, good point, Chris. I don't know what the chemical risks might be

(either direct, e.g. toxicity, or indirect, e.g. poor long term efficacy -

I'm not suggesting that the long term efficacy of the chemical agents is

poor, just that if it is, that is a risk of the treatment to be considered).

I know that the radiation doses are high enough that some direct risks are

possible, as discussed earlier by others. Eric Hall has pointed out that we

are not *preventing* restenosis with radiation, just setting back cell

division so that the onset is later, probably requiring retreatment at some

point. This is still preferable to no treatment at all; the risks are high

of a new cardiac event and sudden death. If anyone has heard any discussion

of the chemical treatment risks, I would be interested to hear them. I think

the discussion would be relevant for this list, in comparison to the risks

of the radiation treatments.



Mike



Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Vanderbilt University

1161 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37232-2675

Phone (615) 343-0068

Fax   (615) 322-3764

e-mail  michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/