Vol 26, No 6 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-12-10

open access

Page views 5909
Article views/downloads 259
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Currently used in clinical practice beam rate changes have no significant effect on the reduction of clonogenic capacity of PNT1A cells in vitro

Marika Musielak12, Kinga Graczyk3, Hubert Szweda3, Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska3, Wiktoria Maria Suchorska12
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(6):1051-1056.

Abstract

Background: Due to the lack of selectivity of ionizing radiation between normal and cancer cells, it is important to improve the existing radiation patterns. Lowering the risk of cancer recurrence and comfort during treatment are priorities in radiotherapy.

Materials and methods: In the experiment we used dose verification to determine the irradiation time calculated by a treatment planning system for 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams. Cells cultured under standard conditions were irradiated with a dose of 2 Gy at different beam rates 400 MU/min, 600 MU/min, 800 MU/min, 1000 MU/min, 1400 MU/min,  1600 MU/min and 2400 MU/min using 6XFFF, 10XFFF and 6XFF beams.

Results: The experiment was aimed at comparing the biological response of normal prostate cells after clinically applied radiation patterns. No statistically significant differences in the cellular response were observed. The wide range of beam rates as well as the beam profiles did not significantly affect cell proliferation.

Conclusions: High beam rates, without significantly affecting the clonogenic capacity of cells, have an impact on the quality of patient's treatment. With the increasing beam rate the irradiation time is shortened, which has an important impact on patients’ health. This experiment can have a practical significance.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69(1): 7–34.
  2. Roukos DH, Kappas AM. Perspectives in the treatment of gastric cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005; 2(2): 98–107.
  3. Crawford ED, Bennett C, Stone N, et al. Comparison of perspectives on prostate cancer: analyses of survey data. Urology. 1997; 50(3): 366–372.
  4. Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R, et al. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions. Int J Med Sci. 2012; 9(3): 193–199.
  5. Malicki J, Ślosarek K. Planowanie leczenia i dozymetria w radioterapii. T. 1 . Via Medica, Gdańsk 2016.
  6. Begg AC, Stewart FA, Vens C. Strategies to improve radiotherapy with targeted drugs. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011; 11(4): 239–253.
  7. Van De, Jioner M. EBSCO Publishing. Basic clinical radiobiology. Hodder, London 2009.
  8. Hopewell J, Trott KR. Volume effects in radiobiology as applied to radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2000; 56(3): 283–288.
  9. Barnett GC, West CML, Dunning AM, et al. Normal tissue reactions to radiotherapy: towards tailoring treatment dose by genotype. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009; 9(2): 134–142.
  10. Cashmore J. The characterization of unflattened photon beams from a 6 MV linear accelerator. Phys Med Biol. 2008; 53(7): 1933–1946.
  11. Kragl G, af Wetterstedt S, Knäusl B, et al. Dosimetric characteristics of 6 and 10MV unflattened photon beams. Radiother Oncol. 2009; 93(1): 141–146.
  12. Georg D, Knöös T, McClean B. Current status and future perspective of flattening filter free photon beams. Med Phys. 2011; 38(3): 1280–1293.
  13. Kry SF, Titt U, Pönisch F, et al. Reduced neutron production through use of a flattening-filter-free accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 68(4): 1260–1264.
  14. Kragl G, Baier F, Lutz S, et al. Flattening filter free beams in SBRT and IMRT: dosimetric assessment of peripheral doses. Z Med Phys. 2011; 21(2): 91–101.
  15. Hall EJ. Radiation dose-rate: a factor of importance in radiobiology and radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 1972; 45(530): 81–97.
  16. Mladenov E, Magin S, Soni A, et al. DNA double-strand-break repair in higher eukaryotes and its role in genomic instability and cancer: Cell cycle and proliferation-dependent regulation. Semin Cancer Biol. 2016; 37-38: 51–64.
  17. Wan XS, Bloch P, Ware JH, et al. Detection of oxidative stress induced by low- and high-linear energy transfer radiation in cultured human epithelial cells. Radiat Res. 2005; 163(4): 364–368.
  18. Tucker SL, Geara FB, Peters LJ, et al. How much could the radiotherapy dose be altered for individual patients based on a predictive assay of normal-tissue radiosensitivity? Radiother Oncol. 1996; 38(2): 103–113.
  19. Oktaria S, Lerch MLF, Rosenfeld AB, et al. In vitro investigation of the dose-rate effect on the biological effectiveness of megavoltage X-ray radiation doses. Appl Radiat Isot. 2017; 128: 114–119.
  20. Sørensen BS, Vestergaard A, Overgaard J, et al. Dependence of cell survival on instantaneous dose rate of a linear accelerator. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 101(1): 223–225.
  21. Ling CC, Gerweck LE, Zaider M, et al. Dose-rate effects in external beam radiotherapy redux. Radiother Oncol. 2010; 95(3): 261–268.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy