Search

Cocaine addiction is a complex brain disorder involving long-term alterations that lead to loss of control over drug seeking. The transition from recreational use to pathological consumption is different in each individual, depending on the interaction between environmental and genetic factors. Epigenetic mechanisms are ideal candidates to study psychiatric disorders triggered by these interactions, maintaining persistent malfunctions in specific brain regions. Here we aim to study brain-region-specific epigenetic signatures following exposure to cocaine in a mouse model of addiction to this drug. Extreme subpopulations of vulnerable and resilient phenotypes were selected to identify miRNA signatures for differential vulnerability to cocaine addiction. We used an operant model of intravenous cocaine self-administration to evaluate addictive-like behaviour in rodents based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition criteria to diagnose substance use disorders. After cocaine self-administration, we performed miRNA profiling to compare two extreme subpopulations of mice classified as resilient and vulnerable to cocaine addiction. We found that mmu-miR-34b-5p was downregulated in the nucleus accumbens of vulnerable mice with high motivation for cocaine. On the other hand, mmu-miR-1249-3p was downregulated on vulnerable mice with high levels of motor disinhibition. The elucidation of the epigenetic profile related to vulnerability to cocaine addiction is expected to help find novel biomarkers that could facilitate the interventions to battle this devastating disorder.

Purpose Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. Methods and materials Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. Results Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in >= 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). Conclusion Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.