Secondary carcinogenesis in patients treated with radiation: a review of data on radiation-induced cancers in human, non-human primate, canine and rodent subjects

[Stereotactical radiotherapy in pediatrics indications]

Stereotactical radiotherapy is a very high precision procedure, limited to radiosurgery since a long time. Technologic progress permitted to develop radiotherapy in stereotactical conditions, leading to a lot of innovations. Previously indicated for cerebral pathologies, this procedure is now developed for extracerebral locations. In pediatrics, stereotactical radiotherapy is still limited, delivered precociously, due to the possibility of long-term late effects that needs to be to addressed. This review reports the different useful conditions, technical evolutions, and the current validated pediatric indications, with differences from adults, and future directions. Current state of pediatric stereotactical radiotherapy used in France is presented.

Calculated organ doses from selected prostate treatment plans using Monte Carlo simulations and an anatomically realistic computational phantom

There is growing concern about radiation-induced second cancers associated with radiation treatments. Particular attention has been focused on the risk to patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) due primarily to increased monitor units. To address this concern we have combined a detailed medical linear accelerator model of the Varian Clinac 2100 C with anatomically realistic computational phantoms to calculate organ doses from selected treatment plans. This paper describes the application to calculate organ-averaged equivalent doses using a computational phantom for three different treatments of prostate cancer: a 4-field box treatment, the same box treatment plus a 6-field 3D-CRT boost treatment and a 7-field IMRT treatment. The equivalent doses per MU to those organs that have shown a predilection for second cancers were compared between the different treatment techniques. In addition, the dependence of photon and neutron equivalent doses on gantry angle and energy was investigated. The results indicate that the box treatment plus 6-field boost delivered the highest intermediate- and low-level photon doses per treatment MU to the patient primarily due to the elevated patient scatter contribution as a result of an increase in integral dose delivered by this treatment. In most organs the contribution of neutron dose to the total equivalent dose for the 3D-CRT treatments was less than the contribution of photon dose, except for the lung, esophagus, thyroid and brain. The total equivalent dose per MU to each organ was calculated by summing the photon and neutron dose contributions. For all organs non-adjacent to the primary beam, the equivalent doses per MU from the IMRT treatment were less than the doses from the 3D-CRT treatments. This is due to the increase in the integral dose and the added neutron dose to these organs from the 18 MV treatments. However, depending on the application technique and optimization used, the required MU values for IMRT treatments can be two to three times greater than 3D CRT. Therefore, the total equivalent dose in most organs would be higher from the IMRT treatment compared to the box treatment and comparable to the organ doses from the box treatment plus the 6-field boost. This is the first time when organ dose data for an adult male patient of the ICRP reference anatomy have been calculated and documented. The tools presented in this paper can be used to estimate the second cancer risk to patients undergoing radiation treatment.

N-acetyl cysteine protects against ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage but not against cell killing in yeast and mammals

Ionizing radiation (IR) induces DNA strand breaks leading to cell death or deleterious genome rearrangements. In the present study, we examined the role of N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), a clinically proven safe agent, for it's ability to protect against gamma-ray-induced DNA strand breaks and/or DNA deletions in yeast and mammals. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, DNA deletions were scored by reversion to histidine prototrophy. Human lymphoblastoid cells were examined for the frequency of gamma-H2AX foci formation, indicative of DNA double strand break formation. DNA strand breaks were also measured in mouse peripheral blood by the alkaline comet assay. In yeast, NAC reduced the frequency of IR-induced DNA deletions. However, NAC did not protect against cell death. NAC also reduced gamma-H2AX foci formation in human lymphoblastoid cells but had no protective effect in the colony survival assay. NAC administration via drinking water fully protected against DNA strand breaks in mice whole-body irradiated with 1Gy but not with 4Gy. NAC treatment in the absence of irradiation was not genotoxic. These data suggest that, given the safety and efficacy of NAC in humans, NAC may be useful in radiation therapy to prevent radiation-mediated genotoxicity, but does not interfere with efficient cancer cell killing.

Can we reduce the incidence of second primary malignancies occurring after radiotherapy? A critical review

Second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurring after oncological treatment have become a major concern during the past decade. Their incidence has long been underestimated because most patients had a short life expectancy after treatment or their follow-up was shorter than 15 years. With major improvement of long-term survival, longer follow-up, cancer registries and end-result programs, it was found that the cumulative incidence of SPM could be as high as 20% of patients treated by radiotherapy. This cumulative proportion varies with several factors, which ought to be studied more accurately. The delay between irradiation and solid tumor emergence is seldom shorter than 10 years and can be as long as half a century. Thus, inclusion in a cohort of patients with a short follow-up leads to an underestimation of the proportion of SPM caused by treatment, unless actuarial cumulative incidence is computed. The incidence varies with the tissue and organs, the age of the patient at treatment, hereditary factors, but also, and probably mainly, with dose distribution, size of the irradiated volume, dose, and dose-rate. An effort toward a reduction in their incidence is mandatory. Preliminary data suggest that SPMs are mainly observed in tissues having absorbed doses above 2 Gy (fractionated irradiation) and that their incidence increases with the dose. However, in children thyroid and breast cancers are observed following doses as low as 100 mGy, and in adults lung cancers have been reported for doses of 500 mGy, possibly due to interaction with tobacco. The dose distribution and the dose per fraction have a major impact. However, the preliminary data regarding these factors need confirmation. Dose-rates appear to be another important factor. Some data suggest that certain patients, who could be identified, have a high susceptibility to radiocancer induction. Efforts should be made to base SPM reduction on solid data and not on speculation or models built on debatable hypotheses regarding the dose-carcinogenic effect relationship. In parallel, radiation therapy philosophy must evolve, and the aim of treatment should be to deliver the minimal effective radiation therapy rather than the maximal tolerable dose.

Radiation therapy for children: evolving technologies in the era of ALARA

The evolution of ever more sophisticated oncologic imaging and technologies providing far more precise radiation therapy have combined to increase the utilization of sophisticated radiation therapy in childhood cancer. For a majority of children with common central nervous system, soft tissue, bone, and dysontogenic neoplasms, local irradiation is fundamental to successful multi-disciplinary management. Along with more precise target volume definition and radiation delivery, new technologies provide added certainty of patient positioning (electronic portal imaging, cone beam CT) and conformality of dose delivery (3-D conformal irradiation, intensity modulated radiation therapy, proton beam therapy). Each of the major areas of technology development are able to better confine the high-dose region to the intended target, but they are also associated with the potential for larger volumes of uninvolved tissues being exposed to low radiation doses. The latter issue plays a role in documented levels of secondary carcinogenesis, sometimes with greater anticipated incidence than that seen in conventional radiation therapy. Parameters related to carcinogenesis, such as dose-volume relationships and neutron contamination that accompanies high-energy photon irradiation and proton therapy, can be identified, sometimes modulated, and accepted as part of the clinical decision process in fine tuning radiation therapy in this more vulnerable age group.

Resveratrol reduces radiation-induced chromosome aberration frequencies in mouse bone marrow cells

Resveratrol, a polyphenol compound with reported antioxidant and anticarcinogenic effects, a wide range of molecular targets, and toxicity only at extreme doses, has received considerable attention. We evaluated the radioprotective effect of orally administered resveratrol on the frequencies of chromosome aberrations in irradiated mouse bone marrow cells. CBA/CaJ mice were divided into four groups: (1) no treatment, (2) resveratrol only, (3) radiation only, and (4) resveratrol and radiation. Resveratrol treatment (100 mg/kg daily) was initiated 2 days prior to irradiation. Bone marrow was then harvested at 1 and 30 days after a single dose of 3 Gy whole-body gamma radiation. A statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction in the mean total chromosome aberration frequency per metaphase at both times postirradiation in the resveratrol and radiation group compared to the radiation-only group was observed. This study is the first to demonstrate that resveratrol has radioprotective effects in vivo. These results support the use of resveratrol as a radioprotector with the potential for widespread application.

Equivalent dose and effective dose from stray radiation during passively scattered proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Proton therapy reduces the integral therapeutic dose required for local control in prostate patients compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy. One proposed benefit of this reduction is an associated decrease in the incidence of radiogenic secondary cancers. However, patients are also exposed to stray radiation during the course of treatment. The purpose of this study was to quantify the stray radiation dose received by patients during proton therapy for prostate cancer. Using a Monte Carlo model of a proton therapy nozzle and a computerized anthropomorphic phantom, we determined that the effective dose from stray radiation per therapeutic dose (E/D) for a typical prostate patient was approximately 5.5 mSv Gy(-1). Sensitivity analysis revealed that E/D varied by +/-30% over the interval of treatment parameter values used for proton therapy of the prostate. Equivalent doses per therapeutic dose (HT/D) in specific organs at risk were found to decrease with distance from the isocenter, with a maximum of 12 mSv Gy(-1) in the organ closest to the treatment volume (bladder) and 1.9 mSv Gy(-1) in the furthest (esophagus). Neutrons created in the nozzle predominated effective dose, though neutrons created in the patient contributed substantially to the equivalent dose in organs near the proton field. Photons contributed less than 15% to equivalent doses.

Should positive phase III clinical trial data be required before proton beam therapy is more widely adopted? No

PURPOSE

Evaluate the rationale for the proposals that prior to a wider use of proton radiation therapy there must be supporting data from phase III clinical trials. That is, would less dose to normal tissues be an advantage to the patient?

METHODS

Assess the basis for the assertion that proton dose distributions are superior to those of photons for most situations. Consider the requirements for determining the risks of normal tissue injury, acute and remote, in the examination of the data from a trial. Analyze the probable cost differential between high technology photon and proton therapy. Evaluate the rationale for phase III clinical trials of proton vs photon radiation therapy when the only difference in dose delivered is a difference in distribution of low LET radiation.

RESULTS

The distributions of biological effective dose by protons are superior to those by X-rays for most clinical situations, viz. for a defined dose and dose distribution to the target by protons there is a lower dose to non-target tissues. This superiority is due to these physical properties of protons: (1) protons have a finite range and that range is exclusively dependent on the initial energy and the density distribution along the beam path; (2) the Bragg peak; (3) the proton energy distribution may be designed to provide a spread out Bragg peak that yields a uniform dose across the target volume and virtually zero dose deep to the target. Importantly, proton and photon treatment plans can employ beams in the same number and directions (coplanar, non-co-planar), utilize intensity modulation and employ 4D image guided techniques. Thus, the only difference between protons and photons is the distribution of biologically effective dose and this difference can be readily evaluated and quantified. Additionally, this dose distribution advantage should increase the tolerance of certain chemotherapeutic agents and thus permit higher drug doses. The cost of service (not developmental) proton therapy performed in 3-5 gantry centers operating 14-16 h/day and 6 days/week is likely to be equal to or less than twice that of high technology X-ray therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton therapy provides superior distributions of low LET radiation dose relative to that by photon therapy for treatment of a large proportion of tumor/normal tissue situations. Our assessment is that there is no medical rationale for clinical trials of protons as they deliver lower biologically effective doses to non-target tissue than do photons for a specified dose and dose distribution to the target. Based on present knowledge, there will be some gain for patients treated by proton beam techniques. This is so even though quantitation of the clinical gain is less secure than the quantitation of reduction in physical dose. Were proton therapy less expensive than X-ray therapy, there would be no interest in conducting phase III trails. The talent, effort and funds required to conduct phase III clinical trials of protons vs photons would surely be more productive in the advancement of radiation oncology if employed to investigate real problems, e.g. the most effective total dose, dose fractionation, definition of CTV and GTV, means for reduction of PTV and the gains and risks of combined modality therapy.

Bladder cancer after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: detailed analysis of pathological features and outcome after radical cystectomy

PURPOSE

We reviewed outcomes and features in patients with bladder cancer who underwent cystectomy and had a history of radiation for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the University of Miami cystectomy database and identified 34 patients with a history of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. An age and stage matched control group was used to compare survival. Our entire male cystectomy population was used to compare clinicopathological features.

RESULTS

Mean age in the 34 patients with cystectomy was 75 years with a mean latency of 5 years from prostate cancer radiation. Radiotherapy was the primary treatment modality for prostate cancer in 32 of 34 patients and 2 received adjuvant radiation. Of the patients 86% received external beam radiation. Hematuria was the initial symptom in 86% of the cases. In 53% of the patients the initial diagnosis was muscle invasive bladder cancer. An ileal conduit was the method of urinary diversion in 33 cases. Major perioperative complications developed in 9% of the patients. There was 1 perioperative death, resulting in a mortality rate of 2.9%. Of the patients 54% presented with a locally advanced (pT3-4) tumor. Patients with a history of radiation therapy for prostate cancer had significantly poorer overall and bladder cancer specific survival than the matched control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Most bladder cancers in patients with a history of radiation for prostate cancer present as locally advanced tumors and patients have poorer survival than age and stage matched controls.

Secondary cancer after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: should we be more aware of the risk?

OBJECTIVES

As the number of prostate cancer survivors is increasing, the long-term health of prostate cancer patients has become a significant health issue. Radiation is known to induce malignant transformation, and prostate cancer radiotherapy is suggested to induce secondary malignancies. This report reviews the available data regarding the risk of secondary cancer after radiation for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Epidemiological studies of the secondary cancer risk in patients with a history of prostate cancer radiation and the literature regarding radiation-induced carcinogenesis were reviewed.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer is not associated with an increased number of additional malignancies. The data suggests a modest increase in secondary cancers associated with radiation for prostate cancer, as approximately one in 70 patients undergoing radiation and surviving more than 10 yr will develop secondary cancer. The most common sites for secondary cancers are bladder and rectum. In addition to the cancers adjacent to the radiation field, there is also an increase of cancers in distant sites, such as lung. The increased risk for secondary cancers is reported after external radiation, not after brachytherapy. The available data originated from studies of patients undergoing conventional radiotherapy. New treatment methods, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, may be associated with a higher risk of secondary cancers.

CONCLUSION

Although the incidence of secondary cancers after prostate cancer radiotherapy is not dramatically different from the overall population, patients should be informed about this risk. Other treatment modalities should be considered for patients with long life expectancy and for patients with additional risk factors.