PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose pulsed radiation therapy (PRT) in 2 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) xenografts and to investigate the mechanism of action of PRT compared with standard radiation therapy (SRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Subcutaneous radiosensitive UT-SCC-14 and radioresistant UT-SCC-15 xenografts were established in athymic NIH III HO female mice. Tumors were irradiated with 2 Gy/day by continuous standard delivery (SRT: 2 Gy) or discontinuous low-dose pulsed delivery (PRT: 0.2 Gy × 10 with 3-min pulse interval) to total doses of 20 Gy (UT14) or 40 Gy (UT15) using a clinical 5-day on/2-day off schedule. Treatment response was assessed by changes in tumor volume, (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) (tumor metabolism), and (18)F-fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) (hypoxia) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging before, at midpoint, and after treatment. Tumor hypoxia using pimonidazole staining and vascular density (CD34 staining) were assessed by quantitative histopathology. RESULTS: UT15 and UT14 tumors responded similarly in terms of growth delay to either SRT or PRT. When compared with UT14 tumors, UT15 tumors demonstrated significantly lower uptake of FDG at all time points after irradiation. UT14 tumors demonstrated higher levels of tumor hypoxia after SRT when compared with PRT as measured by (18)F-FMISO PET. By contrast, no differences were seen in (18)F-FMISO PET imaging between SRT and PRT for UT15 tumors. Histologic analysis of pimonidazole staining mimicked the (18)F-FMISO PET imaging data, showing an increase in hypoxia in SRT-treated UT14 tumors but not PRT-treated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in (18)F-FMISO uptake for UT14 tumors after radiation therapy between PRT and SRT were measurable despite the similar tumor growth delay responses. In UT15 tumors, both SRT and PRT were equally effective at reducing tumor hypoxia to a significant level as measured by (18)F-FMISO and pimonidazole.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose pulsed radiation therapy (PRT) in 2 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) xenografts and to investigate the mechanism of action of PRT compared with standard radiation therapy (SRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Subcutaneous radiosensitive UT-SCC-14 and radioresistant UT-SCC-15 xenografts were established in athymic NIH III HO female mice. Tumors were irradiated with 2 Gy/day by continuous standard delivery (SRT: 2 Gy) or discontinuous low-dose pulsed delivery (PRT: 0.2 Gy × 10 with 3-min pulse interval) to total doses of 20 Gy (UT14) or 40 Gy (UT15) using a clinical 5-day on/2-day off schedule. Treatment response was assessed by changes in tumor volume, (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) (tumor metabolism), and (18)F-fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) (hypoxia) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging before, at midpoint, and after treatment. Tumor hypoxia using pimonidazole staining and vascular density (CD34 staining) were assessed by quantitative histopathology. RESULTS: UT15 and UT14 tumors responded similarly in terms of growth delay to either SRT or PRT. When compared with UT14 tumors, UT15 tumors demonstrated significantly lower uptake of FDG at all time points after irradiation. UT14 tumors demonstrated higher levels of tumor hypoxia after SRT when compared with PRT as measured by (18)F-FMISO PET. By contrast, no differences were seen in (18)F-FMISO PET imaging between SRT and PRT for UT15 tumors. Histologic analysis of pimonidazole staining mimicked the (18)F-FMISO PET imaging data, showing an increase in hypoxia in SRT-treated UT14 tumors but not PRT-treated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in (18)F-FMISO uptake for UT14 tumors after radiation therapy between PRT and SRT were measurable despite the similar tumor growth delay responses. In UT15 tumors, both SRT and PRT were equally effective at reducing tumor hypoxia to a significant level as measured by (18)F-FMISO and pimonidazole.
Authors: Tugce Kutuk; Ranjini Tolakanahalli; Nicole C McAllister; Matthew D Hall; Martin C Tom; Muni Rubens; Haley Appel; Alonso N Gutierrez; Yazmin Odia; Alexander Mohler; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Minesh P Mehta; Rupesh Kotecha Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: George D Wilson; Thomas G Wilson; Alaa Hanna; Mohamad Dabjan; Katie Buelow; John Torma; Brian Marples; Sandra Galoforo Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-08
Authors: Nils H Nicolay; Nicole Wiedenmann; Michael Mix; Wolfgang A Weber; Martin Werner; Anca L Grosu; Gian Kayser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sven De Bruycker; Christel Vangestel; Steven Staelens; Tim Van den Wyngaert; Sigrid Stroobants Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Kevin Blas; Thomas G Wilson; Nathan Tonlaar; Sandra Galoforo; Alaa Hana; Brian Marples; George D Wilson Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-04-27