Gabriel Adrian1, Elise Konradsson2, Michael Lempart3, Sven Bäck3, Crister Ceberg2, Kristoffer Petersson3. 1. Division of Oncology and Pathology, Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 3. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent in vivo results have shown prominent tissue sparing effect of radiotherapy with ultra-high dose rates (FLASH) compared to conventional dose rates (CONV). Oxygen depletion has been proposed as the underlying mechanism, but in vitro data to support this have been lacking. The aim of the current study was to compare FLASH to CONV irradiation under different oxygen concentrations in vitro. METHODS: Prostate cancer cells were irradiated at different oxygen concentrations (relative partial pressure ranging between 1.6 and 20%) with a 10 MeV electron beam at a dose rate of either 600 Gy/s (FLASH) or 14 Gy/min (CONV), using a modified clinical linear accelerator. We evaluated the surviving fraction of cells using clonogenic assays after irradiation with doses ranging from 0 to 25 Gy. RESULTS: Under normoxic conditions, no differences between FLASH and CONV irradiation were found. For hypoxic cells (1.6%), the radiation response was similar up to a dose of about 5-10 Gy, above which increased survival was shown for FLASH compared to CONV irradiation. The increased survival was shown to be significant at 18 Gy, and the effect was shown to depend on oxygen concentration. CONCLUSION: The in vitro FLASH effect depends on oxygen concentration. Further studies to characterize and optimize the use of FLASH in order to widen the therapeutic window are indicated. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper shows in vitro evidence for the role of oxygen concentration underlying the difference between FLASH and CONV irradiation.
OBJECTIVE: Recent in vivo results have shown prominent tissue sparing effect of radiotherapy with ultra-high dose rates (FLASH) compared to conventional dose rates (CONV). Oxygen depletion has been proposed as the underlying mechanism, but in vitro data to support this have been lacking. The aim of the current study was to compare FLASH to CONV irradiation under different oxygen concentrations in vitro. METHODS: Prostate cancer cells were irradiated at different oxygen concentrations (relative partial pressure ranging between 1.6 and 20%) with a 10 MeV electron beam at a dose rate of either 600 Gy/s (FLASH) or 14 Gy/min (CONV), using a modified clinical linear accelerator. We evaluated the surviving fraction of cells using clonogenic assays after irradiation with doses ranging from 0 to 25 Gy. RESULTS: Under normoxic conditions, no differences between FLASH and CONV irradiation were found. For hypoxic cells (1.6%), the radiation response was similar up to a dose of about 5-10 Gy, above which increased survival was shown for FLASH compared to CONV irradiation. The increased survival was shown to be significant at 18 Gy, and the effect was shown to depend on oxygen concentration. CONCLUSION: The in vitro FLASH effect depends on oxygen concentration. Further studies to characterize and optimize the use of FLASH in order to widen the therapeutic window are indicated. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper shows in vitro evidence for the role of oxygen concentration underlying the difference between FLASH and CONV irradiation.
Authors: Michele M Kim; Arash Darafsheh; Jan Schuemann; Ivana Dokic; Olle Lundh; Tianyu Zhao; José Ramos-Méndez; Lei Dong; Kristoffer Petersson Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-06-22
Authors: Xu Cao; Rongxiao Zhang; Tatiana V Esipova; Srinivasa Rao Allu; Ramish Ashraf; Mahbubur Rahman; Jason R Gunn; Petr Bruza; David J Gladstone; Benjamin B Williams; Harold M Swartz; P Jack Hoopes; Sergei A Vinogradov; Brian W Pogue Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Elise Konradsson; Maja L Arendt; Kristine Bastholm Jensen; Betina Børresen; Anders E Hansen; Sven Bäck; Annemarie T Kristensen; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Crister Ceberg; Kristoffer Petersson Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Alexander Berne; Kristoffer Petersson; Iain D C Tullis; Robert G Newman; Borivoj Vojnovic Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Keith A Cengel; Amit Maity; Theresa M Busch; Anastasia Velalopoulou; Ilias V Karagounis; Gwendolyn M Cramer; Michele M Kim; Giorgos Skoufos; Denisa Goia; Sarah Hagan; Ioannis I Verginadis; Khayrullo Shoniyozov; June Chiango; Michelle Cerullo; Kelley Varner; Lutian Yao; Ling Qin; Artemis G Hatzigeorgiou; Andy J Minn; Mary Putt; Matthew Lanza; Charles-Antoine Assenmacher; Enrico Radaelli; Jennifer Huck; Eric Diffenderfer; Lei Dong; James Metz; Constantinos Koumenis Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 13.312