In studies of electron and proton radiotherapy, ultrahigh dose rates of FLASH radiation therapy appear to produce fewer toxicities than standard dose rates while maintaining local tumor control. FLASH-proton radiotherapy (F-PRT) brings the spatial advantages of PRT to FLASH dose rates (>40 Gy/sec), making it important to understand if and how F-PRT spares normal tissues while providing anti-tumor efficacy that is equivalent to standard-proton radiotherapy (S-PRT). Here we studied PRT damage to skin and mesenchymal tissues of muscle and bone and found that F-PRT of the C57BL/6 murine hind leg produced fewer severe toxicities leading to death or requiring euthanasia than S-PRT of the same dose. RNAseq analyses of murine skin and bone revealed pathways upregulated by S-PRT yet unaltered by F-PRT, such as apoptosis signaling and keratinocyte differentiation in skin, as well as osteoclast differentiation and chondrocyte development in bone. Corroborating these findings, F-PRT reduced skin injury, stem cell depletion, and inflammation, mitigated late effects including lymphedema, and decreased histopathologically detected myofiber atrophy, bone resorption, hair follicle atrophy, and epidermal hyperplasia. F-PRT was equipotent to S-PRT in control of two murine sarcoma models, including at an orthotopic intramuscular site, thereby establishing its relevance to mesenchymal cancers. Finally, S-PRT produced greater increases in TGF-β1 in murine skin and the skin of canines enrolled in a phase 1 study of F-PRT versus S-PRT. Collectively, these data provide novel insights into F-PRT-mediated tissue sparing and support its ongoing investigation in applications that would benefit from this sparing of skin and mesenchymal tissues. SignificanceThese findings will spur investigation of FLASH radiotherapy in sarcoma and additional cancers where mesenchymal tissues are at risk, including head and neck cancer, breast cancer, and pelvic malignancies.Research.

No abstract

Boosting the activity of the antioxidant enzymes could be a potential adjuvant approach for the treatment of the oxidative stress-related diseases.

PurposeThe current study examines the effect of fever-range hyperthermia and mild hypothermia on human cancer cells focusing on cell viability, proliferation and HSP90 expression.Materials and MethodsA549 and H1299 lung carcinoma, MCF7 breast adenocarcinoma, U87MG and T98G glioblastoma, DU145 and PC3 prostate carcinoma and MRC5 normal fetal lung fibroblasts cell lines were studied. After 3-day exposure to 34°C, 37°C and 40°C, cell viability was determined. Cell proliferation (ki67 index), apoptosis (Caspase 9) and HSP90 expression was studied by confocal microscopy.ResultsViability/proliferation experiments demonstrated that MRC5 fibroblasts were extremely sensitive to hyperthermia, while they were the most resistant to hypothermia. T98G and A549 were thermo-tolerant, the remaining being thermo-sensitive to a varying degree. Nonetheless, as a universal effect, hypothermia reduced viability/proliferation in all cell lines. Hyperthermia sharply induced Caspase 9 in the U87MG most thermo-sensitive cell line. In T98G and A549 thermo-tolerant cell lines, the levels of Caspase 9 declined. Moreover, hyperthermia strongly induced the HSP90 levels in T98G, whilst a sharp decrease was recorded in the thermo-sensitive PC3 and U87MG cell lines. Hyperthermia sensitized thermo-sensitive cancer cell lines to cisplatin and temozolomide, whilst its sensitizing effect was diminished in thermo-tolerant cell lines.ConclusionsThe existence of thermo-tolerant and thermo-sensitive cancer cell lines was confirmed, which further encourages research to classify human tumor thermic predilection for patient stratification in clinical trials. Of interest, mild hypothermia had a universal suppressing effect on cancer cell proliferation, further supporting the radio-sensitization hypothesis through reduction of oxygen and metabolic demands.

Proton arc therapy (PAT) has been proposed as a possible evolution for proton therapy. This commentary uses dosimetric and cancer risk evaluations from earlier studies to compare PAT with intensity modulated proton therapy. It is concluded that, although PAT may not produce better physical dose distributions than intensity modulated proton therapy, the radiobiological considerations associated with particular PAT techniques could offer the possibility of an increased therapeutic index.