Literature DB >> 17013569

Amelioration of early radiation effects in oral mucosa (mouse) by intravenous or subcutaneous administration of amifostine.

Gabriele Fleischer1, Wolfgang Dörr.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify the reduction of radiation-induced oral mucositis by amifostine as a function of administration route.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mucosal ulceration of lower mouse tongue epithelium was analyzed. Amifostine was injected at 1.8 mg/injection subcutaneously (s.c.) or intravenously (i.v.), 45 min or 10 min prior to irradiation. With single-dose irradiation, a single amifostine injection was given. During daily fractionated irradiation (5 x 3 Gy) for 1 week, amifostine was administered s.c. or i.v. twice (days 0, 3), or s.c. on all irradiation days (days 0-4). With ten fractions over 2 weeks, five s.c. injections were given in week 1 (days 0-4) or week 2 (days 7-11), or both. Two i.v. injections were given either in week 1 (days 0, 3) or week 2 (days 7, 10). All fractionation protocols were terminated by graded test doses to generate full dose-effect curves.
RESULTS: In a single-dose control experiment, the ED(50) (dose after which ulcer induction is expected in 50% of the mice) was 11.7 +/- 1.4 Gy. Intravenous application of amifostine increased the ED(50) to 14.0 +/- 1.4 Gy (p = 0.024), while s.c. administration had no significant effect. The ED(50) for test irradiation after 5 x 3 Gy was 5.8 +/- 1.4 Gy. Two s.c. or i.v. amifostine injections yielded ED(50) values of 7.2 +/- 1.1 Gy (p = 0.0984) or 7.6 +/- 1.2 Gy (p = 0.0334); five s.c. injections increased the ED(50) to 8.2 +/- 0.9 Gy (p = 0.0039). The ED(50) after 10 x 3 Gy/2 weeks was 6.6 +/- 1.8 Gy. Subcutaneous or intravenous administration of amifostine in week 1 yielded a significant increase in ED(50) to 9.4 +/- 2.5 Gy (p = 0.0099) and 10.0 +/- 2.2 Gy (p = 0.0014). By contrast, amifostine administration in week 2 had no significant effect. Administration in weeks 1 and 2 resulted in an ED(50) of 10.8 +/- 3.6 Gy (p = 0.0053).
CONCLUSION: Amifostine during daily fractionated irradiation is effective only if administered in the initial treatment phase, i.e., week 1 in the mouse. The differences in the effect in weeks 1 and 2 suggest mechanisms of action other than radical scavenging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17013569     DOI: 10.1007/s00066-006-1587-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol        ISSN: 0179-7158            Impact factor:   3.621


  5 in total

Review 1.  [Radiation biology of normal tissues. Scientific progress and perspectives].

Authors:  W Dörr; C Herskind
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 2.  Expanding the therapeutic index of radiation therapy by normal tissue protection.

Authors:  Pierre Montay-Gruel; Lydia Meziani; Chakradhar Yakkala; Marie-Catherine Vozenin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Altering the response to radiation: sensitizers and protectors.

Authors:  Deborah E Citrin; James B Mitchell
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 4.929

4.  Effect of tumour-cell-derived or recombinant keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) on proliferation and radioresponse of human epithelial tumour cells (HNSCC) and normal keratinocytes in vitro.

Authors:  Andrea Hille; Susanne Grüger; Hans Christiansen; Hendrik A Wolff; Beate Volkmer; Jörg Lehmann; Wolfgang Dörr; Margret Rave-Fränk
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2010-03-07       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Amphotericin B lozengers: prophylaxis for esophagitis in thoracic radiotherapy: a prospective study.

Authors:  Karl Wurstbauer; Florian Merz; Felix Sedlmayer
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 3.621

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.