Complete Remission of Mouse Melanoma after Temporally Fractionated Microbeam Radiotherapy.

macrophages melanoma melanophages mouse spatial fractionated radiotherapy synchrotron microbeam radiation therapy temporal fractionation

Journal

Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 Sep 2020
Historique:
received: 07 08 2020
revised: 10 09 2020
accepted: 15 09 2020
entrez: 22 9 2020
pubmed: 23 9 2020
medline: 23 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Synchrotron Microbeam Radiotherapy (MRT) significantly improves local tumour control with minimal normal tissue toxicity. MRT delivers orthovoltage X-rays at an ultra-high "FLASH" dose rate in spatially fractionated beams, typically only few tens of micrometres wide. One of the biggest challenges in translating MRT to the clinic is its use of high peak doses, of around 300-600 Gy, which can currently only be delivered by synchrotron facilities. Therefore, in an effort to improve the translation of MRT to the clinic, this work studied whether the temporal fractionation of traditional MRT into several sessions with lower, more clinically feasible, peak doses could still maintain local tumour control. Two groups of twelve C57Bl/6J female mice harbouring B16-F10 melanomas in their ears were treated with microbeams of 50 µm in width spaced by 200 µm from their centres. The treatment modality was either (i) a single MRT session of 401.23 Gy peak dose (7.40 Gy valley dose, i.e., dose between beams), or (ii) three MRT sessions of 133.41 Gy peak dose (2.46 Gy valley dose) delivered over 3 days in different anatomical planes, which intersected at 45 degrees. The mean dose rate was 12,750 Gy/s, with exposure times between 34.2 and 11.4 ms, respectively. Temporally fractionated MRT ablated 50% of B16-F10 mouse melanomas, preventing organ metastases and local tumour recurrence for 18 months. In the rest of the animals, the median survival increased by 2.5-fold in comparison to the single MRT session and by 4.1-fold with respect to untreated mice. Temporally fractionating MRT with lower peak doses not only maintained tumour control, but also increased the efficacy of this technique. These results demonstrate that the solution to making MRT more clinically feasible is to irradiate with several fractions of intersecting arrays with lower peak doses. This provides alternatives to synchrotron sources where future microbeam radiotherapy could be delivered with less intense radiation sources.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Synchrotron Microbeam Radiotherapy (MRT) significantly improves local tumour control with minimal normal tissue toxicity. MRT delivers orthovoltage X-rays at an ultra-high "FLASH" dose rate in spatially fractionated beams, typically only few tens of micrometres wide. One of the biggest challenges in translating MRT to the clinic is its use of high peak doses, of around 300-600 Gy, which can currently only be delivered by synchrotron facilities. Therefore, in an effort to improve the translation of MRT to the clinic, this work studied whether the temporal fractionation of traditional MRT into several sessions with lower, more clinically feasible, peak doses could still maintain local tumour control.
METHODS METHODS
Two groups of twelve C57Bl/6J female mice harbouring B16-F10 melanomas in their ears were treated with microbeams of 50 µm in width spaced by 200 µm from their centres. The treatment modality was either (i) a single MRT session of 401.23 Gy peak dose (7.40 Gy valley dose, i.e., dose between beams), or (ii) three MRT sessions of 133.41 Gy peak dose (2.46 Gy valley dose) delivered over 3 days in different anatomical planes, which intersected at 45 degrees. The mean dose rate was 12,750 Gy/s, with exposure times between 34.2 and 11.4 ms, respectively.
RESULTS RESULTS
Temporally fractionated MRT ablated 50% of B16-F10 mouse melanomas, preventing organ metastases and local tumour recurrence for 18 months. In the rest of the animals, the median survival increased by 2.5-fold in comparison to the single MRT session and by 4.1-fold with respect to untreated mice.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Temporally fractionating MRT with lower peak doses not only maintained tumour control, but also increased the efficacy of this technique. These results demonstrate that the solution to making MRT more clinically feasible is to irradiate with several fractions of intersecting arrays with lower peak doses. This provides alternatives to synchrotron sources where future microbeam radiotherapy could be delivered with less intense radiation sources.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32957691
pii: cancers12092656
doi: 10.3390/cancers12092656
pmc: PMC7563854
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
ID : 31003A_176038
Organisme : Krebsforschung Schweiz
ID : KFS-4281-08-2017
Organisme : Bernische Krebsliga
ID : 190

Références

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Aug 1;95(5):1485-1494
pubmed: 27325483
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jul 21;61(14):N349-61
pubmed: 27366861
Phys Med. 2015 Sep;31(6):584-95
pubmed: 25817634
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1522-32
pubmed: 21740994
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Apr 1;64(5):1519-27
pubmed: 16580502
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 23;10(3):e0119924
pubmed: 25799425
Radiat Res. 2003 May;159(5):632-41
pubmed: 12710874
J Synchrotron Radiat. 2009 Jul;16(Pt 4):587-90
pubmed: 19535875
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Sep;124(3):365-369
pubmed: 28545957
Dose Response. 2013 Aug 27;12(1):72-92
pubmed: 24659934
J Synchrotron Radiat. 2011 Jul;18(Pt 4):671-8
pubmed: 21685685
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Feb 25;12(3):
pubmed: 32106397
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 19;6:33601
pubmed: 27640676
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 5;13(11):e0206693
pubmed: 30395629
Radiology. 1972 Oct;105(1):135-42
pubmed: 4506641
Radiology. 1975 Jan;114(1):199-202
pubmed: 1208860
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Sep 12;92(19):8783-7
pubmed: 7568017
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007 Aug;49(8):577-81
pubmed: 17635201
Health Phys. 2016 Aug;111(2):149-59
pubmed: 27356059
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Dec 1;105(5):1126-1136
pubmed: 31461675
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Sep 1;15(17):5379-88
pubmed: 19706802
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 7;53(5):1153-66
pubmed: 18296755
Br J Radiol. 1973 May;46(545):381-7
pubmed: 4715162
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Aug 1;98(5):1174-1182
pubmed: 28721902
Radiat Res. 2019 Aug;192(2):159-168
pubmed: 31188068
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jul 1;101(3):680-689
pubmed: 29559293

Auteurs

Cristian Fernandez-Palomo (C)

Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Verdiana Trappetti (V)

Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Marine Potez (M)

Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Paolo Pellicioli (P)

Biomedical Beamline ID17, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, 38043 Grenoble, France.

Michael Krisch (M)

Biomedical Beamline ID17, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, 38043 Grenoble, France.

Jean Laissue (J)

Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Valentin Djonov (V)

Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH