No abstract

To develop approaches to prophylaxis/protection, mitigation and treatment of radiation injuries, appropriate models are needed that integrate the complex events that occur in the radiation-exposed organism. While the spectrum of agents in clinical use or preclinical development is limited, new research findings promise improvements in survival after whole-body irradiation and reductions in the risk of adverse effects of radiotherapy. Approaches include agents that act on the initial radiochemical events, agents that prevent or reduce progression of radiation damage, and agents that facilitate recovery from radiation injuries. While the mechanisms of action for most of the agents with known efficacy are yet to be fully determined, many seem to be operating at the tissue, organ or whole animal level as well as the cellular level. Thus research on prophylaxis/protection, mitigation and treatment of radiation injuries will require studies in whole animal models. Discovery, development and delivery of effective radiation modulators will also require collaboration among researchers in diverse fields such as radiation biology, inflammation, physiology, toxicology, immunology, tissue injury, drug development and radiation oncology. Additional investment in training more scientists in radiation biology and in the research portfolio addressing radiological and nuclear terrorism would benefit the general population in case of a radiological terrorism event or a large-scale accidental event as well as benefit patients treated with radiation.

Radiation dose is central to much of radiobiological research. Precision and accuracy of dose measurements and reporting of the measurement details should be sufficient to allow the work to be interpreted and repeated and to allow valid comparisons to be made, both in the same laboratory and by other laboratories. Despite this, a careful reading of published manuscripts suggests that measurement and reporting of radiation dosimetry and setup for radiobiology research is frequently inadequate, thus undermining the reliability and reproducibility of the findings. To address these problems and propose a course of action, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) brought together representatives of the radiobiology and radiation physics communities in a workshop in September, 2011. The workshop participants arrived at a number of specific recommendations as enumerated in this paper and they expressed the desirability of creating dosimetry standard operating procedures (SOPs) for cell culture and for small and large animal experiments. It was also felt that these SOPs would be most useful if they are made widely available through mechanism(s) such as the web, where they can provide guidance to both radiobiologists and radiation physicists, be cited in publications, and be updated as the field and needs evolve. Other broad areas covered were the need for continuing education through tutorials at national conferences, and for journals to establish standards for reporting dosimetry. This workshop did not address issues of dosimetry for studies involving radiation focused at the sub-cellular level, internally-administered radionuclides, biodosimetry based on biological markers of radiation exposure, or dose reconstruction for epidemiological studies.

Exposures to doses of radiation of 1-10 Gy, defined in this workshop as moderate-dose radiation, may occur during the course of radiation therapy or as the result of radiation accidents or nuclear/radiological terrorism alone or in conjunction with bioterrorism. The resulting radiation injuries would be due to a series of molecular, cellular, tissue and whole-animal processes. To address the status of research on these issues, a broad-based workshop was convened. The specific recommendations were: (1) RESEARCH: Identify the key molecular, cellular and tissue pathways that lead from the initial molecular lesions to immediate and delayed injury. The latter is a chronic progressive process for which postexposure treatment may be possible. (2) Technology: Develop high-throughput technology for studying gene, protein and other biochemical expression after radiation exposure, and cytogenetic markers of radiation exposure employing rapid and accurate techniques for analyzing multiple samples. (3) Treatment strategies: Identify additional biological targets and develop effective treatments for radiation injury. (4) Ensuring sufficient expertise: Recruit and train investigators from such fields as radiation biology, cancer biology, molecular biology, cellular biology and wound healing, and encourage collaboration on interdisciplinary research on the mechanisms and treatment of radiation injury. Communicate knowledge of the effects of radiation exposure to the general public and to investigators, policy makers and agencies involved in response to nuclear accidents/events and protection/treatment of the general public.

No abstract

Knowledge about the oxygenation of human tumors and its importance in the response to radiotherapy is crucial to the effort to develop improved treatment methods for radiotherapy. The measurement of oxygenation of human tumors and correlations with response to radiotherapy were the subjects of a recent workshop sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. The following methods for measuring oxygen or hypoxia, or a parameter related to either, were presented: polarographic oxygen electrodes, the comet and alkaline elution assays for radiation-induced DNA damage, nitroimidazole binding assays, hemoglobin saturation assays, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, electron spin resonance spectroscopy, phosphorescence imaging, and an assay for tumor interstitial pressure. The electron spin resonance, alkaline elution, and phosphorescence imaging methods have not been used in human tumors. The comet assay, nitroimidazole binding assays, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, cryospectroscopy, and near-infrared spectroscopy have been employed in human tumors, but correlations to treatment response have not been made. Polarographic measurements have indicated that the presence of hypoxia correlates with a poor response to radiotherapy in cervical cancers, but additional data are needed on early-stage disease, and with long-term follow-up on local control and survival. If these confirm the correlation between hypoxia and poor response to radiotherapy, additional tumor sites should be studied. Future clinical trials of treatments that sensitize, exploit, or kill hypoxic cells should identify and include the individual patients with hypoxic tumors. Fundamental unanswered questions regarding the assessment of tumor oxygenation concern the need for invasive procedures, the spatial resolution needed for prediction of response to radiotherapy, the importance of reoxygenation, differences between tumors in rates and degrees of reoxygenation, whether measurements made during a course of therapy are of value, and correlations among methods and with other predictive assays such as intrinsic radiosensitivity and potential doubling time.

BACKGROUND: Clinical testing of new therapeutic interventions requires comprehensive, high-quality preclinical data. Concerns regarding quality of preclinical data have been raised in recent reports. This report examines the data on the interaction of 10 drugs with radiation and provides recommendations for improving the quality, reproducibility, and utility of future studies. The drugs were AZD6244, bortezomib, 17-DMAG, erlotinib, gefitinib, lapatinib, oxaliplatin/Lipoxal, sunitinib (Pfizer, Corporate headquarters, New York, NY), thalidomide, and vorinostat. METHODS: In vitro and in vivo data were tabulated from 125 published papers, including methods, radiation and drug doses, schedules of administration, assays, measures of interaction, presentation and interpretation of data, dosimetry, and conclusions. RESULTS: In many instances, the studies contained inadequate or unclear information that would hamper efforts to replicate or intercompare the studies, and that weakened the evidence for designing and conducting clinical trials. The published reports on these drugs showed mixed results on enhancement of radiation response, except for sunitinib, which was ineffective. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improved experimental design, execution, and reporting of preclinical testing of agents that are candidates for clinical use in combination with radiation. A checklist is provided for authors and reviewers to ensure that preclinical studies of drug-radiation combinations meet standards of design, execution, and interpretation, and report necessary information to ensure high quality and reproducibility of studies. Improved design, execution, common measures of enhancement, and consistent interpretation of preclinical studies of drug-radiation interactions will provide rational guidance for prioritizing drugs for clinical radiotherapy trials and for the design of such trials.

No abstract