Gregory N Gan1,2, Cem Altunbas2, John J Morton3, Justin Eagles3, Jennifer Backus2, Wayne Dzingle2, David Raben2, Antonio Jimeno3,4,5. 1. a Division of Radiation Oncology, Internal Medicine , University of New Mexico School of Medicine , Albuquerque , NM , USA ; 2. b Department of Radiation Oncology , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , CO , USA ; 3. c Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , CO , USA ; 4. d Charles C. Gates Center for Stem Cell Biology, University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , CO , USA ; 5. e Department of Otolaryngology , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , CO , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In animal irradiation models, reported dose can vary significantly from the actual doses delivered. We describe an effective method for in vivo dose verification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mice bearing commercially-available cell line or patient-derived tumor cell orthotopic or flank xenografts were irradiated using a 160 kVp, 25 mA X-ray source. Entrance dose was evaluated using optically-stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) and exit dose was assessed using radiochromic film dosimetry. RESULTS: Tumor position within the irradiation field was validated using external fiducial markers. The average entrance dose in orthotopic tumors from 10 OSLDs placed on two different animal irradiation days was 514 ± 37 cGy (range: 437-545). Exit dose measurements taken from seven radiochromic films on two separate days were 341 ± 21 cGy (a 34% attenuation). Flank tumor irradiation doses measured by OSLD were 368 ± 9 cGy compared to exit doses of 330 cGy measured by radiochromic film. CONCLUSION: Variations related to the irradiation model can lead to significant under or overdosing in vivo which can affect tumor control and/or biologic endpoints that are dose-dependent. We recommend that dose measurements be determined empirically based on the mouse model and irradiator used and dose compensation adjustments performed to ensure correct and appropriate doses.
PURPOSE: In animal irradiation models, reported dose can vary significantly from the actual doses delivered. We describe an effective method for in vivo dose verification. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Mice bearing commercially-available cell line or patient-derived tumor cell orthotopic or flank xenografts were irradiated using a 160 kVp, 25 mA X-ray source. Entrance dose was evaluated using optically-stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) and exit dose was assessed using radiochromic film dosimetry. RESULTS:Tumor position within the irradiation field was validated using external fiducial markers. The average entrance dose in orthotopic tumors from 10 OSLDs placed on two different animal irradiation days was 514 ± 37 cGy (range: 437-545). Exit dose measurements taken from seven radiochromic films on two separate days were 341 ± 21 cGy (a 34% attenuation). Flank tumor irradiation doses measured by OSLD were 368 ± 9 cGy compared to exit doses of 330 cGy measured by radiochromic film. CONCLUSION: Variations related to the irradiation model can lead to significant under or overdosing in vivo which can affect tumor control and/or biologic endpoints that are dose-dependent. We recommend that dose measurements be determined empirically based on the mouse model and irradiator used and dose compensation adjustments performed to ensure correct and appropriate doses.
Authors: Patrick V Granton; Ludwig Dubois; Wouter van Elmpt; Stefan J van Hoof; Natasja G Lieuwes; Dirk De Ruysscher; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Randall J Kimple; Paul M Harari; Alexandra D Torres; Robert Z Yang; Benjamin J Soriano; Menggang Yu; Eric A Armstrong; Grace C Blitzer; Molly A Smith; Laurel D Lorenz; Denis Lee; David T Yang; Timothy M McCulloch; Gregory K Hartig; Paul F Lambert Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stephen B Keysar; David P Astling; Ryan T Anderson; Brian W Vogler; Daniel W Bowles; J Jason Morton; Jeramiah J Paylor; Magdalena J Glogowska; Phuong N Le; Justin R Eagles-Soukup; Severine L Kako; Sarah M Takimoto; Daniel B Sehrt; Adrian Umpierrez; Morgan A Pittman; Sarah M Macfadden; Ryan M Helber; Scott Peterson; Diana F Hausman; Sherif Said; Ted H Leem; Julie A Goddard; John J Arcaroli; Wells A Messersmith; William A Robinson; Fred R Hirsch; Marileila Varella-Garcia; David Raben; Xiao-Jing Wang; John I Song; Aik-Choon Tan; Antonio Jimeno Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: John Wong; Elwood Armour; Peter Kazanzides; Iulian Iordachita; Erik Tryggestad; Hua Deng; Mohammad Matinfar; Christopher Kennedy; Zejian Liu; Timothy Chan; Owen Gray; Frank Verhaegen; Todd McNutt; Eric Ford; Theodore L DeWeese Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen B Keysar; Phuong N Le; Ryan T Anderson; J Jason Morton; Daniel W Bowles; Jeramiah J Paylor; Brian W Vogler; Jackie Thorburn; Pamela Fernandez; Magdalena J Glogowska; Sarah M Takimoto; Daniel B Sehrt; Gregory N Gan; Justin R Eagles-Soukup; Hilary Serracino; Fred R Hirsch; M Scott Lucia; Andrew Thorburn; John I Song; Xiao-Jing Wang; Antonio Jimeno Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 12.701