Increased radioresistance at clinical doses:Investigations from the survival perspective

Combined gamma‐irradiation and subsequent cisplatin treatment in human squamous carcinoma cell lines sensitive and resistant to cisplatin

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of combined radiation and subsequent cisplatin treatment on the human squamous carcinoma cell line SCC-25 and its cisplatin-resistant derivative SCC-25/CP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SCC-25 and SCC-25/CP cells were treated with various gamma-ray doses (5 cGy-7 Gy) followed 60 min later by cisplatin treatment and subsequently assayed for survival using a conventional colony assay. For SCC-25, the subsequent cisplatin treatment was 0.1, 1, 10 and 20 microM for 1 h. For the more cisplatin-resistant SCC-25/CP cells, the subsequent cisplatin treatment was 10 and 50 microM for 1 h.

RESULTS

The cisplatin-resistant SCC-25/CP cells were not cross-resistant to gamma-irradiation. Subsequent treatment with an LD50 concentration of cisplatin (10 and 50 microM for SCC-25 and SCC-25/CP, respectively) resulted in radiosensitization for SCC-25/CP but not for SCC-25 cells. Gamma-irradiation of SCC-25/CP cells followed by treatment with 10 and 50 microM cisplatin for 1 h resulted in radiation survival curves displaying a significant low-dose hypersensitive region followed by increased radioresistance at higher doses. A total of 10 microM cisplatin resulted in radiosensitization confined to the low-dose region (0.05 and 0.25 Gy), whereas the higher cisplatin treatment of 50 microM resulted in the appearance of a hypersensitive region together with a reduction of the increased radioresistance region. In contrast, cisplatin treatment (0.1, 1, 10 and 20 microM for 1 h) of SCC-25 cells had no significant effect on survival following 2.5 or 7.0 Gy and actually resulted in an increased low-dose radiation survival (0.05, 0.25 and 1 Gy) when survival was corrected for cisplatin treatment (p<0.01 for all cisplatin concentrations tested).

CONCLUSIONS

The significant radiosensitization for SCC-25/CP given subsequent treatment with 50 microM cisplatin indicates cisplatin can inhibit the increased radioresistance response in SCC-25/CP cells. In contrast, the subsequent cisplatin treatment of SCC-25 cells can enhance their survival following low radiation doses.

The effect of high-dose-rate brachytherapy dwell sequence on cell survival

PURPOSE

During a high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment, as the source steps through different dwell positions, the dose rate at any fixed point within the implant varies, because the distance between the point and the source continually changes. The instantaneous dose rate may vary by a factor of 100 or more, in a complex dwell position sequence. Two different points which receive the same total dose may have received that dose with a very different sequence of dose rates. Any effects due to the complex changes in dose rate, including the sequence of dose delivery, are ignored. We investigated the possible effects of the sequence in which dose is delivered at two different dose rates, representative of dose rates that occur during an HDR treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The target consisted of a tube containing a 1.0 cm(3) suspension of V-79 Chinese hamster cells. Two fixed source dwell positions near and far from the target, representing high and intermediate dose rates, were considered. The experiments compared the survival of V-79 cells exposed to an irradiation sequence consisting of either an HDR component followed by an intermediate-dose-rate component (H-I arm), or the reverse (I-H arm). In either case, the total dose and the dose ratio were the same, only the order in which the high- or intermediate-dose-rate components of the dose were delivered was changed.

RESULTS

When the intermediate-dose-rate component was given before the HDR component, there was increased survival. All data pairs from three experiments showed greater survival for the I-H arm than the H-I arm by amounts ranging from 4% to 24%. Simple linear-quadratic models such as the Lea-Catchside model, which is invariant to time reversal of irradiation sequence, do not predict these results.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that targets receiving the same total dose of radiation during an HDR implant may not experience the same biological effect. This may be related to induced radioresistance or sublethal damage repair.

Radioresponsiveness at low doses: hyper-radiosensitivity and increased radioresistance in mammalian cells

The rationale for and importance of research on effects after radiation at "low doses" are outlined. Such basic radiobiological studies on induction of repair enzymes, protective mechanisms, priming, and hypersensitivity are certainly all relevant to treatment of cancer (see Section 1, Studies at low doses - relevance to cancer treatment). Included are examples from many groups, using various endpoints to address the possibility of an induced resistance, which has been compared to the adaptive response [M.C. Joiner, P. Lambin, E.P. Malaise, T. Robson, J.E. Arrand, K.A. Skov, B. Marples, Hypersensitivity to very low single radiation doses: its relationship to the adaptive response and induced radioresistance, Mutat. Res. 358 (1996) 171-183.]. This is not intended to be an exhaustive review--rather a re-introduction of concepts such as priming and a short survey of molecular approaches to understanding induced resistance. New data on the response of HT29 cells after treatment (priming) with co-cultured activated neutrophils are included, with protection against X-rays (S1). Analysis of previously published results in various cells lines in terms of increased radioresistance (IRR)/intrinsic sensitivity are presented which complement a study on human tumour lines [P. Lambin, E.P. Malaise, M.C. Joiner, Might intrinsic radioresistance of human tumour cells be induced by radiation?, Int. Radiat. Biol. 69 (1996) 279-290].It is not feasible to extrapolate to low doses from studies at high doses. The biological responses probably vary with dose, LET, and have variable time frames. The above approaches may lead to new types of treatment, or additional means to assess radioresponsiveness of tumours. Studies in many areas of biology would benefit from considerations of different dose regions, as the biological responses vary with dose. There may also be some implications in the fields of radiation protection and carcinogenesis, and the extensions of concepts of hyper-radiosensitivity (HRS)/IRR extended to radiation exposure are considered in Section 2, Possible relevance of IRR concepts to radiation exposure (space). More knowledge on inducible responses could open new approaches for protection and means to assess genetic predisposition. Many endpoints are used currently--clonogenic survival, mutagenesis, chromosome aberrations and more direct--proteins/genes/functions/repair/signals, as well as different biological systems. Because of scant knowledge of the relevant aspects at low doses, such as inducible/protective mechanisms, threshold, priming, dose-rate effects, LET within one system, it is still too early to draw conclusions in the area of radiation exposure. Technological advances may permit much needed studies at low doses in the areas of both treatment and protection.