Since humans began to explore the world of radiation, gel dosimeters have played an important role in this process. In particular, the history of the Fricke gel dosimeter is full of stories of scientific change and technological innovation. From earliest research to modern applications, how has the Fricke gel dosimeter impacted the progress of radioactive medicine and treatment?
Gel dosimeters, also called Fricke gel dosimeters, are manufactured from radiation sensitive chemicals that, upon irradiation with ionising radiation, undergo a fundamental change in their properties as a function of the absorbed radiation dose.
As early as 1950, scientists began to use the radiation-induced color change of pigments in colloidal substances to measure radiation doses. By 1957, researchers used spectrophotometry to explore the depth dose of photons and electrons in agar gel. Over time, Gore et al. in 1984 showed how measuring the effects of radiation using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) could become a possible solution, based on the Fricke dosimetry solution developed in the 1940s.
Fricke dosimeters generally consist of two types; Fricke and polymer gel dosimeters and are usually evaluated or 'read-out' using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), optical computer tomography (CT), x-ray CT or ultrasound.
p>
The Fricke Colloidal Dosimeter works by changing the ferrous iron (Fe2+) ions in the chemical dosimetry solution through radiation, converting them into ferric iron (Fe3+) ions, and using the relaxation time of NMR to quantify these change. However, these dosimeters have shortcomings in theory and practical applications. For example, the diffusion of ions after radiation will affect the stability of the dose.
With the exploration of polymeric colloidal dosimeters, the scientific community began to propose this concept in 1954. Early research focused on how polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is affected by radiation, and in 1961 Boni used polyacrylamide to conduct experiments on gamma dosimetry. This standard polymeric amine-based glue was improved by Maryanski in 1992 to form the BANANA formula, which has since been widely used.
This system was given the acronym BANANA due to the use of the chemical components (bis, acrylamide, nitrous oxide and agarose).
But like Fricke glue, polymer glue dosimeters also face challenges. Their sensitivity to atmospheric oxygen requires fabrication in an oxygen-free environment, thus encountering obstacles in clinical application. The GEL nanotechnology proposed in 1996 made scientists pay attention to improving the antioxidant properties of dosimeters, and then developed a new product - MAGIC glue.
A significant development in the field of gel dosimetry occurred when results of using an alternative polymer gel dosimeter formulation were published by Fong et al in 2001.
This new plastic glue dosimeter is able to bind atmospheric oxygen, avoiding previous oxygen suppression issues and allowing for fabrication on a laboratory bench. This discovery marks a major advance toward clinical application and has attracted the attention and follow-up of many researchers.
Since 1999, the international series of conferences involving gel dosimeters - the history of DosGel and IC3DDose, have witnessed the continuous development of this technology. At these meetings, experts from different fields communicate about the application of 3D radiation dosimetry technology in cancer treatment and discuss the latest research results from basic science to clinical applications.
The aim of the first workshop was to bring together individuals, both researchers and users, with an interest in the application of 3-dimensional radiation dosimetry techniques in the treatment of cancer.
As time goes by, the demand for high-precision radiation therapy is increasing, and the development of gel dosimeters can meet this challenge. However, despite much progress, the clinical practicality of theoretical expectations still requires continuous reflection and improvement.
The history of Fricke gel dosimeter is not only the epitome of scientific development, but also the result of the integration of technology and clinical practice. In this process, can we fully realize the important role this technology may play in future cancer treatment?