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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |