| Literature DB >> 31969174 |
Benjamin Stegen1,2,3, Alexander Nieto1, Valerie Albrecht1, Jessica Maas1, Michael Orth1,2,3, Klement Neumaier1, Sabine Reinhardt4, Moritz Weick-Kleemann4, Wilfried Goetz5, Merle Reinhart5, Katia Parodi4, Claus Belka1,2,6, Maximilian Niyazi1,2, Kirsten Lauber7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite aggressive treatment regimens comprising surgery and radiochemotherapy, glioblastoma (GBM) remains a cancer entity with very poor prognosis. The development of novel, combined modality approaches necessitates adequate preclinical model systems and therapy regimens that closely reflect the clinical situation. So far, image-guided, fractionated radiotherapy of orthotopic GBM models represents a major limitation in this regard.Entities:
Keywords: Molecular radiation oncology; Orthotopic glioblastoma; Preclinical radiotherapy; Samll animal radiotherapy; Small animal radiation platforms; Small animal tumor models
Year: 2020 PMID: 31969174 PMCID: PMC6977274 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-1470-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 1Depth dose measurements on the small animal radiotherapy platform. a The used mouse surrogate phantom consisting of a series of 1 mm polystyrene (PS) slices with fitted cavities to carry either rod-like or microcube-type thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), or GAFchromic EBT3 dosimetry films, respectively. b A conebeam CT (CBCT) scan of the phantom shown in (a). c Acquisition of depth dose data in the continuous, vertical film positioning mode. d Acquisition of depth dose data in the horizontal film positioning mode. The asterisk indicates the film from which the penumbra data in (f) were extracted. e Depth dose curves obtained with the phantom shown in (a, b), for 5× 5 mm2 beam collimation, and the indicated dosimetric devices in comparison to commissioning data provided by the manufacturer (as measured by the manufacturer and calculated with the point dose calculator tool PDC 1.2 (X-Strahl) modelling the inhouse phantom used). The lower graph depicts the deviation in dose [%] as determined by the different detection methods in comparison to 1 mm3 microcube TLDs. f The lateral penumbra of the irradiation beam with 5× 5 mm2 collimation in x- and y-direction as extracted from the film marked with an asterisk in (d)
Fig. 2Contrast-enhanced and native CBCT scans for tumor localization, tumor volume follow-up, treatment planning, dose administration, and repositioning of animals. a Positioning and fixation of the mouse inside an anaesthetic mask with an elastic membrane. b Alternating contrast-enhanced (d7) and native CBCT scans (d8 and d9) for tumor localization, tumor volume follow-up, treatment planning, dose administration, and repositioning of animals. The black cross marks the isocenter defined as the center of the contrast-enriching volume on d7 and inferred from its relative position to bony structures in native CT scans on d8/d9. c Tumor volumes of irradiated and non-irradiated animals at the start of treatment (d7) as determined by Lx Hx W calculations shown in (b). p-value as calculated by exact Wilcoxon Rank test. d Tumor measures (L, H, and W) of individual animals at the start of treatment (d7). The red arrowhead indicates the animal shown in (b) and (e). e Treatment plans and dose-volume histograms for irradiation with two transversal, contralateral beams of 5 × 5, 3 × 3, or 3× 9 mm2 collimation, respectively. f Analyses of margins between contrast enriching tumor volumes and beam collimation settings for all irradiated animals in L- and H-axis over time
Fig. 3Measurement of tumor volumes by contrast-enhanced CBCT scans. a Comparison of tumor volume calculation methods using Lx Hx W calculation in MuriSlice software or manual contouring in ImageJ software, respectively. b Pearson correlation analyses of tumor volumes as assessed by Lx Hx W method or contouring for irradiated and non-irradiated animals. c Comparison of tumor volumes as determined by contouring or Lx Hx W method. p-value as calculated by paired Wilcoxon-Rank test. d Differences in tumor volumes as determined by Lx Hx W method or contouring. p-value as calculated by exact Wilcoxon Rank test
Fig. 4Therapeutic efficacy, local control, and overall survival. a GBM tumor growth in control animals and animals irradiated according to the treatment plans shown in Fig. 2e as determined by Lx Hx W volumetric method depicted in Fig. 3a. b Time-to-CT-progression analysis derived from tumor volumes as depicted in (a). Tumor volumes determined on d17 served as reference. p-values were derived from log rank tests and were subjected to Bonferroni-Holm multiple testing correction. c Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of animals in the described treatment groups. p-values were derived from log rank tests and were subjected to Bonferroni-Holm correction. d Pearson correlation analysis of CT progression and overall survival as shown in (b) and (c). e Exemplary contrast-enhanced CBCT scans of a control mouse (upper panel) and a mouse treated with 10 × 2 Gy (5× 5 mm2 collimation, lower panel) when moribund. 40 μm H&E stained tissue sections (left) of brains in intersecting planes similar to the ones shown in the CBCT scans. Arrowheads indicate the tumor. 3D volume renderings (right) display similar tumor size (red), shape, and localization within the brain (blue). f Tumor volumes of moribund control and radiotherapy-treated animals. p-value as calculated by exact Wilcoxon Rank test
Univariate Cox proportional hazard model of overall survival and margins between contrast enriching tumor volumes and beam collimation settings
| Variable (Univariate analyses) | Hazard ratio (95% Confidence interval) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Margin H-axis mean over time (d7, d10, d14, d17) [mm] | 0.53 (0.35–0.81) | 0.0034 | 0.0136 |
| Margin H-axis d7 [mm] | 0.67 (0.50–0.90) | 0.0088 | 0.0264 |
| Margin L-axis mean over time (d7, d10, d14, d17) [mm] | 0.50 (0.26–0.93) | 0.0284 | 0.0568 |
| Margin L-axis d7 [mm] | 0.65 (0.32–1.32) | 0.2318 | 0.2318 |
Margin sizes between contrast enriching tumor volumes and beam collimation settings in H- and L-axis [mm] as means over time (d7, d10, d14, d17) or as single values of d7 and overall survival times [d] were subjected to univariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses and post-hoc Bonferroni-Holm correction
Fig. 5Tolerability of contrast medium application and irradiation. a Premature spot baldness in the irradiation field. b Serum alanine aminotransferase activities in naïve animals, control animals (only contrast-enhanced CT scans), and radiotherapy-treated animals (contrast-enhanced CT scans plus irradiation) after 2 weeks of therapy (d18). p-values were calculated by Student’s t-test with Bonferroni-Holm correction. c Corresponding histological analyses of exemplary 10 μm sections of livers and kidneys (H&E staining, light microscopy at 10x and 40x magnification). Scale bars as indicated