Proton-FLASH: effects of ultra-high dose rate irradiation on an in-vivo mouse ear model.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2024
16 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
23
06
2023
accepted:
11
01
2024
medline:
17
1
2024
pubmed:
17
1
2024
entrez:
16
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
FLASH-radiotherapy may provide significant sparing of healthy tissue through ultra-high dose rates in protons, electrons, and x-rays while maintaining the tumor control. Key factors for the FLASH effect might be oxygen depletion, the immune system, and the irradiated blood volume, but none could be fully confirmed yet. Therefore, further investigations are necessary. We investigated the protective (tissue sparing) effect of FLASH in proton treatment using an in-vivo mouse ear model. The right ears of Balb/c mice were irradiated with 20 MeV protons at the ion microprobe SNAKE in Garching near Munich by using three dose rates (Conv = 0.06 Gy/s, Flash9 = 9.3 Gy/s and Flash930 = 930 Gy/s) at a total dose of 23 Gy or 33 Gy. The ear thickness, desquamation, and erythema combined in an inflammation score were measured for 180 days. The cytokines TGF-β1, TNF-α, IL1α, and IL1β were analyzed in the blood sampled in the first 4 weeks and at termination day. No differences in inflammation reactions were visible in the 23 Gy group for the different dose rates. In the 33 Gy group, the ear swelling and the inflammation score for Flash9 was reduced by (57 ± 12) % and (67 ± 17) % and for Flash930 by (40 ± 13) % and (50 ± 17) % compared to the Conv dose rate. No changes in the cytokines in the blood could be measured. However, an estimation of the irradiated blood volume demonstrates, that 100-times more blood is irradiated when using Conv compared to using Flash9 or Flash930. This indicates that blood might play a role in the underlying mechanisms in the protective effect of FLASH.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38228747
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51951-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-51951-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1418Subventions
Organisme : European Union's Horizon 2020 RADIATE
ID : 824096
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Delaney, G. P. & Barton, M. B. Evidence-based estimates of the demand for radiotherapy. Clin. Oncol. 27, 70–76 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.10.005
Garibaldi, C. et al. Recent advances in radiation oncology. Ecancermedicalscience 11, 785 (2017).
doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.785
pubmed: 29225692
pmcid: 5718253
Miller, K. D. et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J. Clin. 69, 363–385 (2019).
doi: 10.3322/caac.21565
pubmed: 31184787
DeCesaris, C. M. et al. Quantification of acute skin toxicities in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant proton versus photon radiation therapy: A single institutional experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 104, 1084–1090 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.04.015
pubmed: 31028831
Majeed, H. & Gupta, V. StatPearls. Adverse Effects Of Radiation Therapy (2021).
Favaudon, V. et al. Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 245ra93 (2014).
doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973
pubmed: 25031268
Alaghband, Y. et al. Neuroprotection of radiosensitive juvenile mice by ultra-high dose rate FLASH irradiation. Cancers 12, 1671 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/cancers12061671
pubmed: 32599789
pmcid: 7352849
Fouillade, C. et al. FLASH irradiation spares lung progenitor cells and limits the incidence of radio-induced senescence. Clin. Cancer Res. 26, 1497–1506 (2020).
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1440
pubmed: 31796518
Levy, K. et al. Abdominal FLASH irradiation reduces radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity for the treatment of ovarian cancer in mice. Sci. Rep. 10, 21600 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78017-7
pubmed: 33303827
pmcid: 7728763
Simmons, D. A. et al. Reduced cognitive deficits after FLASH irradiation of whole mouse brain are associated with less hippocampal dendritic spine loss and neuroinflammation. Radiother. Oncol. 139, 4–10 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.006
pubmed: 31253467
Soto, L. A. et al. FLASH irradiation results in reduced severe skin toxicity compared to conventional-dose-rate irradiation. Radiat. Res. 194, 618–624 (2020).
doi: 10.1667/RADE-20-00090
pubmed: 32853385
pmcid: 7855987
Velalopoulou, A. et al. FLASH proton radiotherapy spares normal epithelial and mesenchymal tissues while preserving sarcoma response. Cancer Res. 81, 4808–4821 (2021).
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-1500
pubmed: 34321243
pmcid: 8715480
Vozenin, M.-C. et al. The advantage of FLASH radiotherapy confirmed in mini-pig and cat-cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 25, 35–42 (2019).
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3375
pubmed: 29875213
Cunningham, S. et al. FLASH proton pencil beam scanning irradiation minimizes radiation-induced leg contracture and skin toxicity in mice. Cancers 13, 1012 (2021).
doi: 10.3390/cancers13051012
pubmed: 33804336
pmcid: 7957631
Spitz, D. R. et al. An integrated physico-chemical approach for explaining the differential impact of FLASH versus conventional dose rate irradiation on cancer and normal tissue responses. Radiother. Oncol. 139, 23–27 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.03.028
pubmed: 31010709
pmcid: 6761031
Abolfath, R., Grosshans, D. & Mohan, R. Oxygen depletion in FLASH ultra-high-dose-rate radiotherapy: A molecular dynamics simulation. Med. Phys. 47, 6551–6561 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/mp.14548
pubmed: 33089504
Jansen, J. et al. Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions. Med. Phys. 48, 3982–3990 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/mp.14917
pubmed: 33948958
Cao, X. et al. Quantification of oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 111, 240–248 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.056
pubmed: 33845146
pmcid: 8338745
Tinganelli, W. et al. Ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) carbon ion irradiation: Dosimetry and first cell experiments. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 112, 1012–1022 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.11.020
pubmed: 34813912
Durante, M. et al. Measurements of the equivalent whole-body dose during radiation therapy by cytogenetic methods. Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 1289–1298 (1999).
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/5/314
pubmed: 10368019
Rama, N. et al. Improved tumor control through T-cell infiltration modulated by ultra-high dose rate proton FLASH using a clinical pencil beam scanning proton system. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 105, S164–S165 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.187
Sammer, M. et al. Normal tissue response of combined temporal and spatial fractionation in proton minibeam radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 109, 76–83 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.027
pubmed: 32805301
Dombrowsky, A. C. et al. Acute skin damage and late radiation-induced fibrosis and inflammation in murine ears after high-dose irradiation. Cancers 11, 727 (2019).
doi: 10.3390/cancers11050727
pubmed: 31130616
pmcid: 6562452
Sammer, M. et al. Beam size limit for pencil minibeam radiotherapy determined from side effects in an in-vivo mouse ear model. PLoS ONE 14, e0221454 (2019).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221454
pubmed: 31483811
pmcid: 6726230
Sammer, M. et al. Proton pencil minibeam irradiation of an in-vivo mouse ear model spares healthy tissue dependent on beam size. PLoS ONE 14, e0224873 (2019).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224873
pubmed: 31765436
pmcid: 6876838
Girst, S. et al. Proton minibeam radiation therapy reduces side effects in an in vivo mouse ear model. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 95, 234–241 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.10.020
pubmed: 26692028
Hable, V. et al. The live cell irradiation and observation setup at SNAKE. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms 267, 2090–2097 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2009.03.071
Scherthan, H. et al. Planar proton minibeam irradiation elicits spatially confined DNA damage in a human epidermis model. Cancers 14, 1545 (2022).
doi: 10.3390/cancers14061545
pubmed: 35326696
pmcid: 8946044
Reinhardt, S. et al. Investigation of EBT2 and EBT3 films for proton dosimetry in the 4–20 MeV energy range. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 54, 71–79 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s00411-014-0581-2
pubmed: 25572031
Livak, K. J. & Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods 25, 402–408 (2001).
doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262
pubmed: 11846609
Vallentin, T. et al. A microbeam slit system for high beam currents. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms 348, 43–47 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2014.12.015
Moylan, R., Aland, T. & Kairn, T. Dosimetric accuracy of Gafchromic EBT2 and EBT3 film for in vivo dosimetry. Austral. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 36, 331–337 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s13246-013-0206-0
Bergmaier, A., Dollinger, G. & Frey, C. M. A compact ΔE-Eres detector for elastic recoil detection with high sensitivity. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms 136–138, 638–643 (1998).
doi: 10.1016/S0168-583X(97)00877-X
Liu, C., Liang, Y. & Wang, L. Single-shot photoacoustic microscopy of hemoglobin concentration, oxygen saturation, and blood flow in sub-microseconds. Photoacoustics 17, 100156 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.pacs.2019.100156
pubmed: 31956486
Vácha, J. Blood volume in inbred strain BALB/c, CBA/J and C57BL/10 mice determined by means of 59Fe-labelled red cells and 59Fe bound to transferrin. Physiologia Bohemoslovaca 24, 413–419 (1975).
pubmed: 127187
Masterson, M. E. & Febo, R. Pretransfusion blood irradiation: clinical rationale and dosimetric considerations. Med. Phys. 19, 649–657 (1992).
doi: 10.1118/1.596809
pubmed: 1508104
Fenech, M. F., Dunaiski, V., Osborne, Y. & Morley, A. A. The cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay as a biological dosimeter in spleen and peripheral blood lymphocytes of the mouse following acute whole-body irradiation. Mutat. Res. 263, 119–126 (1991).
doi: 10.1016/0165-7992(91)90069-G
pubmed: 2046704