Varied Photon Radiation Sources Produce Differences in Cellular Response.

In vitro studies allow evaluation of normal or cancer cell responses to radiation, either alone or in combination with agents used to modify these biological responses. Ionizing radiation can be produced by a variety of particles and sources, with varying energy spectra, interaction probabilities, linear energy transfer, dose uniformity, dose rates, and delivery methods. Multiple radiation sources have been used to irradiate cells in the published literature. However, the equivalence of response in cell culture models across radiation sources has not been rigorously established. Moreover, current reporting of radiation source parameters lacks consistency and rigor which may impact the reproducibility of pre-clinical data between laboratories. Relevant choices of radiation source are also of high importance due to growing interest in comparing photon versus particle radiation effect on biological responses. Therefore, this study robustly evaluates the cellular response (cell survival, apoptosis, and DNA damage) of three distinct cell lines using four unique photon generating radiation sources. We hypothesize there may be subtle differences across the radiation sources, without an appreciable difference in cellular response. The four photon irradiation energies investigated, 662 keV, 100 kVp, 220 kVp, 6 MV, did produce subtle differences in DNA damage and cell survival when treating three distinct tumor cell lines. These variations in cellular response emphasize the need to carefully consider irradiation source, energy, and dose rate depending on study goal and endpoint.

FLASH Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Irradiation Minimizes Radiation-Induced Leg Contracture and Skin Toxicity in Mice.

Ultra-high dose rate radiation has been reported to produce a more favorable toxicity and tumor control profile compared to conventional dose rates that are used for patient treatment. So far, the so-called FLASH effect has been validated for electron, photon and scattered proton beam, but not yet for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS). Because PBS is the state-of-the-art delivery modality for proton therapy and constitutes a wide and growing installation base, we determined the benefit of FLASH PBS on skin and soft tissue toxicity. Using a pencil beam scanning nozzle and the plateau region of a 250 MeV proton beam, a uniform physical dose of 35 Gy (toxicity study) or 15 Gy (tumor control study) was delivered to the right hind leg of mice at various dose rates: Sham, Conventional (Conv, 1 Gy/s), Flash60 (57 Gy/s) and Flash115 (115 Gy/s). Acute radiation effects were quantified by measurements of plasma and skin levels of TGF-ß1 and skin toxicity scoring. Delayed irradiation response was defined by hind leg contracture as a surrogate of irradiation-induced skin and soft tissue toxicity and by plasma levels of 13 different cytokines (CXCL1, CXCL10, Eotaxin, IL1-beta, IL-6, MCP-1, Mip1alpha, TNF-alpha, TNF-beta, VEGF, G-CSF, GM-CSF and TGF- ß1). Plasma and skin levels of TGF-ß1, skin toxicity and leg contracture were all significantly decreased in FLASH compared to Conv groups of mice. FLASH and Conv PBS had similar efficacy with regards to growth control of MOC1 and MOC2 head and neck cancer cells transplanted into syngeneic, immunocompetent mice. These results demonstrate consistent delivery of FLASH PBS radiation from 1 to 115 Gy/s in a clinical gantry. Radiation response following delivery of 35 Gy indicates potential benefits of FLASH versus conventional PBS that are related to skin and soft tissue toxicity.

Differential transcriptome response to proton versus X-ray radiation reveals novel candidate targets for combinatorial PT therapy in lymphoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Knowledge of biological responses to proton therapy (PT) in comparison to X-ray remains in its infancy. Identification of PT specific molecular signals is an important opportunity for the discovery of biomarkers and synergistic drugs to advance clinical application. Since PT is used for the treatment of lymphoma, we report here transcriptomic responses of lymphoma cell lines to PT vs X-ray and identify potential therapeutic targets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two lymphoma cell lines of human (BL41) and murine (J3D) origin were irradiated by X-ray and PT. Differential transcriptome regulation was quantified by RNA sequencing for each radiation type at 12 hours post irradiation. Gene-set enrichment analysis revealed deregulated molecular pathways and putative targets for lymphoma cell sensitization to PT. RESULTS: Transcriptomic gene set enrichment analyses uncovered pathways that contribute to the unfolded protein response (UPR) and mitochondrial transport. Functional validation at multiple time points demonstrated increased UPR activation and decreased protein translation, perhaps due to increased oxidative stress and oxidative protein damage after PT. PPARgamma was identified as a potential regulator of the PT transcriptomic response. Inhibition of PPARgamma by two compounds, T0070907 and SR2595, sensitized lymphoma cells to PT. CONCLUSIONS: Proton vs X-ray radiation leads to the transcriptional regulation of a specific subset of genes in line with diminished protein translation and UPR activation that may be due to oxidative stress. This study demonstrates that different radiation qualities trigger distinct cellular responses in lymphoma cells, and identifies PPARgamma inhibition as a potential strategy for the sensitization of lymphoma to PT.