Predicting the risk of second malignant neoplasms is complicated by uncertainties regarding the shape of the dose–response relationship at high doses. Limited understanding of the competitive relationship between cell killing and the accumulation of DNA lesions at high doses, as well as the effects of other modulatory factors unique to radiation exposure during radiotherapy, such as dose heterogeneity across normal tissue and dose fractionation, contribute to these uncertainties. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of fractionated irradiations on two cell systems, focusing on the endpoints relevant for cancer induction. To simulate the heterogeneous dose distribution across normal tissue during radiotherapy, exponentially growing VH10 fibroblasts and AHH-1 lymphoblasts were irradiated with 9 and 12 fractions (VH10) and 10 fractions (AHH-1) at 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 Gy per fraction. The effects on cell growth, cell survival, radiosensitivity and the accumulation of residual DNA damage lesions were analyzed as functions of dose per fraction and the total absorbed dose. Residual γH2AX foci and other DNA damage markers (micronuclei, nuclear buds, and giant nuclei) were accumulated at high doses in both cell types, but in a cell type-dependent manner. The competitive relationship between cell killing and the accumulation of carcinogenic DNA damage following multifractional radiation exposure is cell type-specific.
Many experimental studies are carried out to compare biological effectiveness of high dose rate (HDR) with that of low dose rate (LDR). The rational for this is the uncertainty regarding the value of the dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF) used in radiological protection. While a LDR is defined as 0.1 mGy/min or lower, anything above that is seen as HDR. In cell and animal experiments, a dose rate around 1 Gy/min is usually used as representative for HDR. However, atomic bomb survivors, the reference cohort for radiological protection, were exposed to tens of Gy/min. The important question is whether gamma radiation delivered at very high dose rate (VHDR-several Gy/min) is more effective in inducing DNA damage than that delivered at HDR. The aim of this investigation was to compare the biological effectiveness of gamma radiation delivered at VHDR (8.25 Gy/min) with that of HDR (0.38 Gy/min or 0.79 Gy/min). Experiments were carried out with human peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMC) and the human osteosarcoma cell line U2OS. Endpoints related to DNA damage response were analysed. The results show that in PBMC, VHDR is more effective than HDR in inducing gene expression and micronuclei. In U2OS cells, the repair of 53BP1 foci was delayed after VHDR indicating a higher level of damage complexity, but no VHDR effect was observed at the level of micronuclei and clonogenic cell survival. We suggest that the DREF value may be underestimated when the biological effectiveness of HDR and LDR is compared.
Gynaecologic cancers are common among women and treatment includes surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, where the last two methods induce DNA damage in non-targeted cells like peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL). Damaged normal cells can transform leading to second malignant neoplasms (SMN) but the level of risk and impact of risk modifiers is not well defined. We investigated how radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy induce DNA damage in PBL of cervix and endometrial cancer patients during therapy. Blood samples were collected from nine endometrial cancer patients (treatment with radiotherapy + chemotherapy—RC) and nine cervical cancer patients (treatment with radiotherapy alone—R) before radiotherapy, 3 weeks after onset of radiotherapy and at the end of radiotherapy. Half of each blood sample was irradiated ex vivo with 2 Gy of gamma radiation in order to check how therapy influenced the sensitivity of PBL to radiation. Analysed endpoints were micronucleus (MN) frequencies, apoptosis frequencies and cell proliferation index. The results were characterised by strong individual variation, especially the MN frequencies and proliferation index. On average, despite higher total dose and larger fields, therapy alone induced the same level of MN in PBL of RC patients as compared to R. This result was accompanied by a higher level of apoptosis and stronger inhibition of cell proliferation in RC patients. The ex vivo dose induced fewer MN, more apoptosis and more strongly inhibited proliferation of PBL of RC as compared to R patients. These results are interpreted as evidence for a sensitizing effect of chemotherapy on radiation cytotoxicity. The possible implications for the risk of second malignant neoplasms are discussed.
Evidence on the impact of chemotherapy on radiotherapy-induced second malignant neoplasms is controversial. We estimated how cisplatin modulates the in vitro response of two normal cell types to fractionated radiation. AHH-1 lymphoblasts and VH10 fibroblasts were irradiated at 1 Gy/fraction 5 and 3 times per week during 2 and 3 weeks, respectively, and simultaneously treated with 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.7 and 3.3 µM of cisplatin twice a week. Cell growth during treatment was monitored. Cell growth/cell death and endpoints related to accumulation of DNA damage and, thus, carcinogenesis, were studied up to 21 days post treatment in cells exposed to radiation and the lowest cisplatin doses. Radiation alone significantly reduced cell growth. The impact of cisplatin alone below 3.3 µM was minimal. Except the lowest dose of cisplatin in VH10 cells, cisplatin reduced the inhibitory effect of radiation on cell growth. Delayed cell death was highest in the combination groups while the accumulation of DNA damage did not reveal a clear pattern. In conclusion, fractionated, concomitant exposure to radiation and cisplatin reduces the inhibitory effect of radiation on cell proliferation of normal cells and does not potentiate delayed effects resulting from accumulation of DNA damage.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.