• Journal of Ginseng Research
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.111-131
• /
• 2002

Korean ginseng (Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer) received a great deal of attention from the Orient and West as a tonic agent, health food and/or alternative herbal therapeutic agent. However, controversy with respect to scientific evidence on pharmacological effects especially, evaluation of clinical efficacy and the methodological approach still remains to be solved. Author reviewed those articles published since 1980 when pharmacodynamic studies on ginseng have intensively started. Special concern was paid on metabolic disorders including diabetes mellitus, circulatory disorders, malignant tumor, sexual dysfunction, and physical and mental performance to give clear information to those who are interested in pharmacological study of ginseng and to promote its clinical use. With respect to chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, high blood pressure, malignant disorders, and sexual disorders, it seems that ginseng plays preventive and restorative role rather than therapeutics. Particularly, ginseng plays a significant role in ameliorating subjective symptoms and preventing quality of life from deteriorating by long term exposure of chemical therapeutic agents. Also it seems that the potency of ginseng is mild, therefore it could be more effective when used concomitantly with conventional therapy. Clinical studies on the tonic effect of ginseng on work performance demonstrated that physical and mental dysfunction induced by various stresses are improved by increasing adaptability of physical condition. However, the results obtained from clinical studies cannot be mentioned in the indication, which are variable upon the scientist who performed those studies. In this respect, standardized ginseng product and providing planning of the systematic clinical research in double-blind randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the real efficacy for proposing ginseng indication. Pharmacological mode of action of ginseng has not yet been fully elucidated. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic researches reveal that the role of ginseng not seem to be confined to a given single organ. It has been known that ginseng plays a beneficial role in such general organs as central nervous, endocrine, metabolic, immune systems, which means ginseng improves general physical and mental conditons. Such multivalent effect of ginseng can be attributed to the main active component of ginseng,ginsenosides or non-saponin compounds which are also recently suggested to be another active ingredients. As is generally the similar case with other herbal medicines, effects of ginseng cannot be attributed as a given single compound or group of components. Diversified ingredients play synergistic or antagonistic role each other and act in harmonized manner. A few cases of adverse effect in clinical uses are reported, however, it is not observed when standardized ginseng products are used and recommended dose was administered. Unfavorable interaction with other drugs has also been suggested, which the information on the products and administered dosage are not available. However, efficacy, safety, interaction or contraindication with other medicines has to be more intensively investigated in order to promote clinical application of ginseng. For example, daily recommended doses per day are not agreement as 1-2g in the West and 3-6 g in the Orient. Duration of administration also seems variable according to the purpose. Two to three months are generally recommended to feel the benefit but time- and dose-dependent effects of ginseng still need to be solved from now on. Furthermore, the effect of ginsenosides transformed by the intestinal microflora, and differential effect associated with ginsenosides content and its composition also should be clinically evaluated in the future. In conclusion, the more wide-spread use of ginseng as a herbal medicine or nutraceutical supplement warrants the more rigorous investigations to assess its effacy and safety. In addition, a careful quality control of ginseng preparations should be done to ensure an acceptable standardization of commercial products.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.33-41
• /
• 2019

Purpose : To evaluate the effectiveness of Jaw-tracking(JT) technique in Intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) and Volumetric-modulated arc therapy(VMAT) for radiation therapy of esophageal cancer by analyzing volume dose of perimetrical normal organs along with the low-dose volume regions. Materials and Method: A total of 27 patients were selected who received radiation therapy for esophageal cancer with using $VitalBeam^{TM}$(Varian Medical System, U.S.A) in our hospital. Using Eclipse system(Ver. 13.6 Varian, U.S.A), radiation treatment planning was set up with Jaw-tracking technique(JT) and Non-Jaw-tracking technique(NJT), and was conducted for the patients with T-shaped Planning target volume(PTV), including Supraclavicular lymph nodes(SCL). PTV was classified into whether celiac area was included or not to identify the influence on the radiation field. To compare the treatment plans, Organ at risk(OAR) was defined to bilateral lung, heart, and spinal cord and evaluated for Conformity index(CI) and Homogeneity index(HI). Portal dosimetry was performed to verify a clinical application using Electronic portal imaging device(EPID) and Gamma analysis was performed with establishing thresholds of radiation field as a parameter, with various range of 0 %, 5 %, and 10 %. Results: All treatment plans were established on gamma pass rates of 95 % with 3 mm/3 % criteria. For a threshold of 10 %, both JT and NJT passed with rate of more than 95 % and both gamma passing rate decreased more than 1 % in IMRT as the low dose threshold decreased to 5 % and 0 %. For the case of JT in IMRT on PTV without celiac area, $V_5$ and $V_{10}$ of both lung showed a decrease by respectively 8.5 % and 5.3 % in average and up to 14.7 %. A $D_{mean}$ decreased by $72.3{\pm}51cGy$, while there was an increase in radiation dose reduction in PTV including celiac area. A $D_{mean}$ of heart decreased by $68.9{\pm}38.5cGy$ and that of spinal cord decreased by $39.7{\pm}30cGy$. For the case of JT in VMAT, $V_5$ decreased by 2.5 % in average in lungs, and also a little amount in heart and spinal cord. Radiation dose reduction of JT showed an increase when PTV includes celiac area in VMAT. Conclusion: In the radiation treatment planning for esophageal cancer, IMRT showed a significant decrease in $V_5$, and $V_{10}$ of both lungs when applying JT, and dose reduction was greater when the irradiated area in low-dose field is larger. Therefore, IMRT is more advantageous in applying JT than VMAT for radiation therapy of esophageal cancer and can protect the normal organs from MLC leakage and transmitted doses in low-dose field.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.17-29
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy partial arc technique on prostate cancer VMAT. Materials and Methods: This study involved prostate only patients planned with 70Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, Bladder and Rectum were considered as oragan at risk (OARs). For this study, mixed energy partial arcs (MEPA) were generated with gantry angle set to 180°~230°, 310°~50° for 6MV arc and 130°~50°, 310°~230° for 15MV arc. Each arc set the avoidance sector which is gantry angle 230°~310°, 50°~130° at first arc and 50°~310° at second arc. After that, two plans were summed and were analyzed the dosimetry parameter of each structure such as Maximum dose, Mean dose, D2%, Homogeneity index (HI) and Conformity Index (CI) for PTV and Maximum dose, Mean dose, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, and V20Gy for OARs and Monitor Unit (MU) with 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan. Results: In MEPA, the maximum dose, mean dose and D2% were lower than 6MV 1 ARC plan(p<0.0005). However, the average difference of maximum dose was 0.24%, 0.39%, 0.60% (p<0.450, 0.321, 0.139) higher than 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively and D2% was 0.42%, 0.49%, 0.59% (p<0.073, 0.087, 0.033) higher than compared plans. The average difference of mean dose was 0.09% lower than 10MV 2 ARC plan, but it is 0.27%, 0.12% (p<0.184, 0.521) higher than 6MV 2 ARC, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively. HI was 0.064±0.006 which is the lowest value (p<0.005, 0.357, 0.273, 0.801) among the all plans. For CI, there was no significant differences which were 1.12±0.038 in MEPA, 1.12±0.036, 1.11±0.024, 1.11±0.030, 1.12±0.027 in 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC, respectively. MEPA produced significantly lower rectum dose. Especially, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, V20Gy were 3.40, 16.79, 37.86, 48.09 that were lower than other plans. For bladder dose, V30Gy, V20Gy were lower than other plans. However, the mean dose of both femoral head were 9.69±2.93, 9.88±2.5 which were 2.8Gy~3.28Gy higher than other plans. The mean MU of MEPA were 19.53% lower than 6MV 1 ARC, 5.7% lower than 10MV 2 ARC respectively. Conclusion: This study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPA VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve homogeneity to PTV at the expense of a moderate increase in maximum and mean dose to the femoral heads.