Charged Particle Irradiation for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Wang, Dandan; Liu, Ruifeng; Zhang, Qiuning; Luo, Hui; Chen, Junru; Dong, Meng; Wang, Yuhang; Ou, Yuhong; Liu, Zhiqiang; Sun, Shilong; Yang, Kehu; Tian, Jinhui; Li, Zheng; Wang, Xiaohu

doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.775597

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 69 publications

(172 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Table 4, some potential criteria and questions regarding in vitro studies were analyzed within the five most used pre‐structured tools (SYRCLE, 26 OHAT, 24 GRADE, 28 CONSORT 23 and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials 27 ). In addition, four self‐developed tools (Wang et al, 104 Tong et al, 99 Marques et al, 47 and Cosme et al 61 ) presented in the articles were selected to contribute to the question's analysis. The most common question was related to blinding of investigators and assessors, important to keep them unaware of the assigned intervention, avoiding the influence of any previously expected result.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro cell culture studies: A methodological study

Barbosa

Silveira

Santos

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews (SRs) of preclinical studies are marked with poor methodological quality. In vitro studies lack assessment tools to improve the quality of preclinical research. This methodological study aimed to identify, collect, and analyze SRs based on cell culture studies to highlight the current appraisal tools utilized to support the development of a validated critical appraisal tool for cell culture in vitro research. SRs, scoping reviews, and meta‐analyses that included cell culture studies and used any type of critical appraisal tool were included. Electronic search, study selection, data collection and methodological quality (MQ) assessment tool were realized. Further, statistical analyses regarding possible associations and correlations between MQ and collected data were performed. After the screening process, 82 studies remained for subsequent analysis. A total of 32 different appraisal tools were identified. Approximately 60% of studies adopted pre‐structured tools not designed for cell culture studies. The most frequent instruments were SYRCLE (n = 14), OHAT (n = 9), Cochrane Collaboration's tool (n = 7), GRADE (n = 6), CONSORT (n = 5), and ToxRTool (n = 5). The studies were divided into subgroups to perform statistical analyses. A significant association (OR = 5.00, 95% CI = 1.54–16.20, p = 0.008) was found between low MQ and chronic degenerative disorders as topic of SR. Several challenges in collecting information from the included studies led to some modifications related to the previously registered protocol. These results may serve as a basis for further development of a critical appraisal tool for cell culture studies capable of capturing all the essential factors related to preclinical research, therefore enhancing the practice of evidence‐based.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro cell culture studies: A methodological study

Barbosa

Silveira

Santos

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As of today, there is still no accepted standard risk of bias assessment tool to refer to for in vitro studies. Our team has established these criteria by ourselves after referring to some acknowledged risk-of-bias tools [22][23][24]. In this review, we refined and updated the content over the last version (Additional file 2: Table S1).…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does particle radiation have superior radiobiological advantages for prostate cancer cells? A systematic review of in vitro studies

Liu

Zhang

et al. 2022

Eur J Med Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Charged particle beams from protons to carbon ions provide many significant physical benefits in radiation therapy. However, preclinical studies of charged particle therapy for prostate cancer are extremely limited. The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the biological effects of charged particles on prostate cancer from the perspective of in vitro studies. Methods We conducted a systematic review by searching EMBASE (OVID), Medline (OVID), and Web of Science databases to identify the publications assessing the radiobiological effects of charged particle irradiation on prostate cancer cells. The data of relative biological effectiveness (RBE), surviving fraction (SF), standard enhancement ratio (SER) and oxygen enhancement ratio (OER) were extracted. Results We found 12 studies met the eligible criteria. The relative biological effectiveness values of proton and carbon ion irradiation ranged from 0.94 to 1.52, and 1.67 to 3.7, respectively. Surviving fraction of 2 Gy were 0.17 ± 0.12, 0.55 ± 0.20 and 0.53 ± 0.16 in carbon ion, proton, and photon irradiation, respectively. PNKP inhibitor and gold nanoparticles were favorable sensitizing agents, while it was presented poorer performance in GANT61. The oxygen enhancement ratio values of photon and carbon ion irradiation were 2.32 ± 0.04, and 1.77 ± 0.13, respectively. Charged particle irradiation induced more G0-/G1- or G2-/M-phase arrest, more expression of γ-H2AX, more apoptosis, and lower motility and/or migration ability than photon irradiation. Conclusions Both carbon ion and proton irradiation have advantages over photon irradiation in radiobiological effects on prostate cancer cell lines. Carbon ion irradiation seems to have further advantages over proton irradiation. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

“…In one study, the α/β ratio of locally advanced pancreatic cancer was estimated to be 9.5, indicating relatively low fractionation sensitivity [ 6 ]. A recent systematic review of in vitro studies showed a mean surviving fraction at 2.0 Gy (SF2) of 0.48 ± 0.11 and 0.57 ± 0.13 in case of proton and photon radiation, respectively [ 7 ]. Current research is heading towards predicting the biological effect of radiation by referring to the tumor’s genetic characteristics [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proton Therapy in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Kobeissi

Simone

Lin

et al. 2022

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation therapy plays a central role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. While generally shown to be feasible, proton irradiation, particularly when an ablative dose is planned, remains a challenge, especially due to tumor motion and the proximity to organs at risk, like the stomach, duodenum, and bowel. Clinically, standard doses of proton radiation treatment have not been shown to be statistically different from photon radiation treatment in terms of oncologic outcomes and toxicity rates as per non-randomized comparative studies. Fractionation schedules and concurrent chemotherapy combinations are yet to be optimized for proton therapy and are the subject of ongoing trials.

show abstract

Charged Particle Irradiation for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Cited by 5 publications

References 69 publications

Critical appraisal tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro cell culture studies: A methodological study

Critical appraisal tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro cell culture studies: A methodological study

Does particle radiation have superior radiobiological advantages for prostate cancer cells? A systematic review of in vitro studies

Proton Therapy in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About