Cargando…

Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model

A long-standing hypothesis in radiotherapy is that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) increases the risk of second cancer due to low-dose exposure of large volumes of normal tissue. Therefore, young patients are still treated with conventional techniques rather than with modern IMRT. We challen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gomarteli, Kaga, Fleckenstein, Jens, Kirschner, Stefanie, Bobu, Vladimir, Brockmann, Marc A., Henzler, Thomas, Meyer, Mathias, Riffel, Philipp, Schönberg, Stefan O., Veldwijk, Marlon R., Kränzlin, Bettina, Hoerner, Christian, Glatting, Gerhard, Wenz, Frederik, Herskind, Carsten, Giordano, Frank A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31664066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51735-3
_version_ 1783464034155102208
author Gomarteli, Kaga
Fleckenstein, Jens
Kirschner, Stefanie
Bobu, Vladimir
Brockmann, Marc A.
Henzler, Thomas
Meyer, Mathias
Riffel, Philipp
Schönberg, Stefan O.
Veldwijk, Marlon R.
Kränzlin, Bettina
Hoerner, Christian
Glatting, Gerhard
Wenz, Frederik
Herskind, Carsten
Giordano, Frank A.
author_facet Gomarteli, Kaga
Fleckenstein, Jens
Kirschner, Stefanie
Bobu, Vladimir
Brockmann, Marc A.
Henzler, Thomas
Meyer, Mathias
Riffel, Philipp
Schönberg, Stefan O.
Veldwijk, Marlon R.
Kränzlin, Bettina
Hoerner, Christian
Glatting, Gerhard
Wenz, Frederik
Herskind, Carsten
Giordano, Frank A.
author_sort Gomarteli, Kaga
collection PubMed
description A long-standing hypothesis in radiotherapy is that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) increases the risk of second cancer due to low-dose exposure of large volumes of normal tissue. Therefore, young patients are still treated with conventional techniques rather than with modern IMRT. We challenged this hypothesis in first-of-its-kind experiments using an animal model. Cancer-prone Tp53(+/C273X) knockout rats received mediastinal irradiation with 3 × 5 or 3 × 8 Gy using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT, an advanced IMRT) or conventional anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) beams using non-irradiated rats as controls (n = 15/group, n(total) = 90). Tumors were assigned to volumes receiving 90–107%, 50–90%, 5–50%, and <5% of the target dose and characterized by histology and loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH). Irradiated rats predominantly developed lymphomas and sarcomas in areas receiving 50–107% (n = 26) rather than 5–50% (n = 7) of the target dose. Latency was significantly shortened only after 3 × 8 Gy vs. controls (p < 0.0001). The frequency (14/28 vs. 19/29; p = 0.29) and latency (218 vs. 189 days; p = 0.17) of radiation-associated tumors were similar after VMAT vs. AP/PA. LOH was strongly associated with sarcoma but not with treatment. The results do not support the hypothesis that IMRT increases the risk of second cancer. Thus the current practice of withholding dose-sparing IMRT from young patients may need to be re-evaluated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6820874
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68208742019-11-04 Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model Gomarteli, Kaga Fleckenstein, Jens Kirschner, Stefanie Bobu, Vladimir Brockmann, Marc A. Henzler, Thomas Meyer, Mathias Riffel, Philipp Schönberg, Stefan O. Veldwijk, Marlon R. Kränzlin, Bettina Hoerner, Christian Glatting, Gerhard Wenz, Frederik Herskind, Carsten Giordano, Frank A. Sci Rep Article A long-standing hypothesis in radiotherapy is that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) increases the risk of second cancer due to low-dose exposure of large volumes of normal tissue. Therefore, young patients are still treated with conventional techniques rather than with modern IMRT. We challenged this hypothesis in first-of-its-kind experiments using an animal model. Cancer-prone Tp53(+/C273X) knockout rats received mediastinal irradiation with 3 × 5 or 3 × 8 Gy using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT, an advanced IMRT) or conventional anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) beams using non-irradiated rats as controls (n = 15/group, n(total) = 90). Tumors were assigned to volumes receiving 90–107%, 50–90%, 5–50%, and <5% of the target dose and characterized by histology and loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH). Irradiated rats predominantly developed lymphomas and sarcomas in areas receiving 50–107% (n = 26) rather than 5–50% (n = 7) of the target dose. Latency was significantly shortened only after 3 × 8 Gy vs. controls (p < 0.0001). The frequency (14/28 vs. 19/29; p = 0.29) and latency (218 vs. 189 days; p = 0.17) of radiation-associated tumors were similar after VMAT vs. AP/PA. LOH was strongly associated with sarcoma but not with treatment. The results do not support the hypothesis that IMRT increases the risk of second cancer. Thus the current practice of withholding dose-sparing IMRT from young patients may need to be re-evaluated. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6820874/ /pubmed/31664066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51735-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Gomarteli, Kaga
Fleckenstein, Jens
Kirschner, Stefanie
Bobu, Vladimir
Brockmann, Marc A.
Henzler, Thomas
Meyer, Mathias
Riffel, Philipp
Schönberg, Stefan O.
Veldwijk, Marlon R.
Kränzlin, Bettina
Hoerner, Christian
Glatting, Gerhard
Wenz, Frederik
Herskind, Carsten
Giordano, Frank A.
Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
title Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
title_full Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
title_fullStr Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
title_full_unstemmed Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
title_short Radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
title_sort radiation-induced malignancies after intensity-modulated versus conventional mediastinal radiotherapy in a small animal model
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31664066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51735-3
work_keys_str_mv AT gomartelikaga radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT fleckensteinjens radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT kirschnerstefanie radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT bobuvladimir radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT brockmannmarca radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT henzlerthomas radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT meyermathias radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT riffelphilipp radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT schonbergstefano radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT veldwijkmarlonr radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT kranzlinbettina radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT hoernerchristian radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT glattinggerhard radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT wenzfrederik radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT herskindcarsten radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel
AT giordanofranka radiationinducedmalignanciesafterintensitymodulatedversusconventionalmediastinalradiotherapyinasmallanimalmodel