Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Advances in the study of the molecular biological mechanisms of radiation-induced brain injury

Gan C., Li W., Xu J., Pang L., Tang L., Yu S.

Narrative Review on Neuroinflammation, published in Am J Cancer Res (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Am J Cancer Res (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37693137
PMCID
PMC10492106
Citations
23

Abstract (original English)

Radiation therapy is one of the most commonly used treatments for head and neck cancers, but it often leads to radiation-induced brain injury. Patients with radiation-induced brain injury have a poorer quality of life, and no effective treatments are available. The pathogenesis of this condition is unknown. This review summarizes the molecular biological mechanism of radiation-induced brain injury and provides research directions for future studies. The molecular mechanisms of radiation-induced brain injury are diverse and complex. Radiation-induced chronic neuroinflammation, destruction of the blood-brain barrier, oxidative stress, neuronal damage, and physiopathological responses caused by specific exosome secretion lead to radiation-induced brain injury.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research