| Literature DB >> 32442228 |
Pietro Pisciotta1,2,3, Angelita Costantino4, Francesco Paolo Cammarata2,3, Filippo Torrisi3,4, Giovanna Calabrese4, Valentina Marchese4,5, Giuseppe Antonio Pablo Cirrone3, Giada Petringa3, Giusi Irma Forte2, Luigi Minafra2, Valentina Bravatà2, Massimo Gulisano6,7, Fabrizio Scopelliti8, Francesco Tommasino9,10, Emanuele Scifoni10, Giacomo Cuttone3, Massimo Ippolito11, Rosalba Parenti4,5,7, Giorgio Russo2,3.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to characterize the skin deterministic damage due to the effect of proton beam irradiation in mice occurred during a long-term observational experiment. This study was initially defined to evaluate the insurgence of myelopathy irradiating spinal cords with the distal part of a Spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP). To the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted highlighting high grades of skin injury at the dose used in this paper. Nevertheless these effects occurred. In this regard, the experimental evidence of significant insurgence of skin injury induced by protons using a SOBP configuration will be shown. Skin damages were classified into six scores (from 0 to 5) according to the severity of the injuries and correlated to ED50 (i.e. the radiation dose at which 50% of animals show a specific score) at 40 days post-irradiation (d.p.i.). The effects of radiation on the overall animal wellbeing have been also monitored and the severity of radiation-induced skin injuries was observed and quantified up to 40 d.p.i.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32442228 PMCID: PMC7244158 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Experimental proton beam configuration: Dose and LETd distribution.
The A indicates the skin position along SOBP.
Fig 2Brass collimator used for irradiation.
Fig 3Dose distribution obtained using GEANT4-based application.
A) coronal dose distribution; B) axial dose distribution.
Fig 4Proton beam-induced skin injury.
A) Qualitative “heat map” for single irradiated groups at 7, 14, 21, 28, 30 and 40 d.p.i.. B) Box plot: skin injury score as a function of dose at 40 d.p.i.. The mean score is represented by the plus sign (+). C) Skin injury score progress analysis at 7, 14, 21, 28, 30 and 40 d.p.i for single dose (12, 15, 17 and 19 Gy).
Skin injury score values per dose.
| SCORE | 12 Gy | 15 Gy | 17 Gy | 19 Gy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
| 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | |
| 1.5 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
Statistical analysis between lower (12–15 Gy) and higher (17–19 Gy) doses.
| Dose (Gy) | p-value | T-value | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| p>0.05 p = 0.3478593 | 2.0112 | 0.51639 | |
| **p<0.01 p = 0.0003867 | 5.0280 | 0.51639 | |
| **p<0.01 p = 9.5629e-06 | 6.7040 | 0.5164 | |
| *p<0.05 p = 0.040872 | 3.0168 | 0.8164 | |
| **p<0.01 p = 0.0008384 | 4.6928 | 0.8164 | |
| p>0.05 p = 0.6558068 | 1.6760 | 1.3291 |
Fig 5Acute skin damage score results and sigmoidal fit.
ED50 evaluated at different skin injury score.
| SCORE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | NC | 13.6 Gy | 17 Gy | 19 Gy |
Fig 6Photographic time-lapse of skin injury progress at 12 and 15 Gy.
Panels with lettering “no significant difference” indicated that no significant variations between the previous photo are observed.
Fig 7Photographic time-lapse of skin injury progress at 17 and 19 Gy.
Panels with lettering “no significant difference” indicated that no significant variations between the previous photo are observed.
Fig 8Vitality impairment induced by proton high dose.
A) Sham-CTRL group and treated group body weight at 7, 14, 21, 30 and 40 d.p.i; B) Body weight of mice irradiated at 17 and 19 Gy compared to sham-CTRL group at 7 d.p.i. and 40 d.p.i.. C) Survival proportions plot of low and high proton beam doses compared to sham-CTRL.
ANOVA test results of 17 and 19 Gy compared to sham-CTRL group.
| 7 | **p<0.01 p = 0.024757 | 4.0800 | 0.9710 | |
| 14 | **p<0.01 p = 3.7860e-06 | 6.5916 | 1.1463 | |
| 21 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0007880 | 4.7110 | 1.1176 | |
| 30 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0001608 | 5.3258 | 1,9568 | |
| 40 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0005106 | 4.8784 | 1.3889 | |
| 7 | **p<0.01 p = 0.002019 | 4.1528 | 1.3680 | |
| 14 | *p<0.05 p = 0.0110938 | 3.6344 | 1.4142 | |
| 21 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0031802 | 4.1722 | 1.4142 | |
| 30 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0009967 | 4.6204 | 0.7778 | |
| 40 | *p<0.05 p = 0.036357 | 3.2089 | 1.6263 | |
ANOVA test results of 12 and 15 Gy compared to sham-CTRL group.
| 7 | p>0.05 p = 0.3151779 | 2.2403 | 1.7054 | |
| 14 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0005691 | 4.7370 | 1.2873 | |
| 21 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0017150 | 4.4110 | 1.4961 | |
| 30 | **p<0.01 p = 0.006810 | 3.8764 | 1.3918 | |
| 40 | **p<0.01 p = 0.0004174 | 4.9562 | 1.2325 | |
| 7 | p>0.05 p = 0.2072 | 2.4225 | 1.4918 | |
| 14 | **p<0.01 p = 1.8353e-05 | 5.9989 | 1.4257 | |
| 21 | **p<0.01 p = 0017150 | 4.4110 | 1.4961 | |
| **p<0.01 p = 1.3639e-05 | 6.2991 | 1.4159 | ||
| **p<0.01 p = 1.2712e-05 | 6.3274 | 1.3659 | ||