No abstract

PurposeSignificant progress has been made in the technological and physical aspects of dose delivery and distribution in proton therapy. However, mode of cell killing induced by protons is less understood in comparison with X-rays. The purpose of this study is to see if there is any difference in the mode of cell-killing, induced by protons and X-rays in an ex vivo human peripheral blood lymphocyte (HPBL) model.Materials and methodsHPBL were irradiated with 60 MeV proton beam or 250-kVp X-rays in the dose range of 0.3–4.0 Gy. Frequency of apoptotic and necrotic cells was determined by the Fluorescein (FITC)-Annexin V labelling procedure, 1 and 4 h after irradiation. Chip-based DNA Ladder Assay was used to confirm radiation-induced apoptosis and necrosis. Chip-based DNA Ladder Assay was used to confirm radiation-induced apoptosis.ResultsEx vivo irradiation of HPBL with proton beams of 60 MeV or 250 kVp X-rays resulted in apoptotic as well as necrotic modes of cell-killing, which were evident at both 1 and 4 h after irradiation in the whole dose and time range. Generally, our results indicated that protons cause relatively higher yields of cell death that appears to be necrosis compared to X-rays. The analysis also demonstrates that radiation type and dose play a critical role in mode of cell-killing.ConclusionObtained results suggest that X-rays and protons induce cell-killing by different modes. Such differences in cell-killing modes may have implications on the potential of a given therapeutic modality to cause immune modulation via programmed cell death (X-rays) or necrotic cell death (proton therapy). These studies point towards exploring for gene expression biomarkers related necrosis or apoptosis to predict immune response after proton therapy.

No abstract

Despite technological advances in radiation therapy (RT) and cancer treatment, patients still experience adverse effects. Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a valuable RT modality that can improve treatment outcomes. Normal tissue injury is an important determinant of the outcome; therefore, for this review, we analyzed 2 databases: (1) clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and (2) the literature on PT in PubMed, which shows a steady increase in the number of publications. Most studies in PT registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with results available are nonrandomized early phase studies with a relatively small number of patients enrolled. From the larger database of nonrandomized trials, we listed adverse events in specific organs/sites among patients with cancer who are treated with photons and protons to identify critical issues. The present data demonstrate dosimetric advantages of PT with favorable toxicity profiles and form the basis for comparative randomized prospective trials. A comparative analysis of 3 recently completed randomized trials for normal tissue toxicities suggests that for early stage non-small cell lung cancer, no meaningful comparison could be made between stereotactic body RT and stereotactic body PT due to low accrual ( NCT01511081 ). In addition, for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, a comparison of intensity modulated RTwith passive scattering PT (now largely replaced by spot-scanned intensity modulated PT), PT did not provide any benefit in normal tissue toxicity or locoregional failure over photon therapy. Finally, for locally advanced esophageal cancer, proton beam therapy provided a lower total toxicity burden but did not improve progression-free survival and quality of life ( NCT01512589 ). The purpose of this review is to inform the limitations of current trials looking at protons and photons, considering that advances in technology, physics, and biology are a continuum, and to advocate for future trials geared toward accurate precision RT that need to be viewed as an iterative process in a defined path toward delivering optimal radiation treatment. A foundational understanding of the radiobiologic differences between protons and photons in tumor and normal tissue responses is fundamental to, and necessary for, determining the suitability of a given type of biologically optimized RT to a patient or cohort.

No abstract