1
|
Kunz-Schughart LA, Dubrovska A, Peitzsch C, Ewe A, Aigner A, Schellenburg S, Muders MH, Hampel S, Cirillo G, Iemma F, Tietze R, Alexiou C, Stephan H, Zarschler K, Vittorio O, Kavallaris M, Parak WJ, Mädler L, Pokhrel S. Nanoparticles for radiooncology: Mission, vision, challenges. Biomaterials 2016; 120:155-184. [PMID: 28063356 DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.12.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2016] [Revised: 12/08/2016] [Accepted: 12/09/2016] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Cancer is one of the leading non-communicable diseases with highest mortality rates worldwide. About half of all cancer patients receive radiation treatment in the course of their disease. However, treatment outcome and curative potential of radiotherapy is often impeded by genetically and/or environmentally driven mechanisms of tumor radioresistance and normal tissue radiotoxicity. While nanomedicine-based tools for imaging, dosimetry and treatment are potential keys to the improvement of therapeutic efficacy and reducing side effects, radiotherapy is an established technique to eradicate the tumor cells. In order to progress the introduction of nanoparticles in radiooncology, due to the highly interdisciplinary nature, expertise in chemistry, radiobiology and translational research is needed. In this report recent insights and promising policies to design nanotechnology-based therapeutics for tumor radiosensitization will be discussed. An attempt is made to cover the entire field from preclinical development to clinical studies. Hence, this report illustrates (1) the radio- and tumor-biological rationales for combining nanostructures with radiotherapy, (2) tumor-site targeting strategies and mechanisms of cellular uptake, (3) biological response hypotheses for new nanomaterials of interest, and (4) challenges to translate the research findings into clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leoni A Kunz-Schughart
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Anna Dubrovska
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Claudia Peitzsch
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Alexander Ewe
- Rudolf-Boehm-Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology, Clinical Pharmacology, University of Leipzig, Germany
| | - Achim Aigner
- Rudolf-Boehm-Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology, Clinical Pharmacology, University of Leipzig, Germany
| | - Samuel Schellenburg
- Institute of Pathology, University Hospital, Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Germany
| | - Michael H Muders
- Institute of Pathology, University Hospital, Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Germany
| | - Silke Hampel
- Leibniz Institute of Solid State and Material Research Dresden, 01171 Dresden, Germany
| | - Giuseppe Cirillo
- Department of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, CS, Italy
| | - Francesca Iemma
- Department of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, CS, Italy
| | - Rainer Tietze
- ENT-Department, Section for Experimental Oncology and Nanomedicine (SEON), Else Kröner-Fresenius Professorship, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Christoph Alexiou
- ENT-Department, Section for Experimental Oncology and Nanomedicine (SEON), Else Kröner-Fresenius Professorship, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Holger Stephan
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, 01314 Dresden, Germany
| | - Kristof Zarschler
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, 01314 Dresden, Germany
| | - Orazio Vittorio
- Children's Cancer Institute Australia, ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology and Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, Sydney, UNSW, Australia
| | - Maria Kavallaris
- Children's Cancer Institute Australia, ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology and Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, Sydney, UNSW, Australia
| | - Wolfgang J Parak
- Fachbereich Physik, Philipps Universität Marburg, 35037 Marburg, Germany; CIC Biomagune, 20009 San Sebastian, Spain
| | - Lutz Mädler
- Foundation Institute of Materials Science (IWT), Department of Production Engineering, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
| | - Suman Pokhrel
- Foundation Institute of Materials Science (IWT), Department of Production Engineering, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gridley DS, Grover RS, Loredo LN, Wroe AJ, Slater JD. Proton-beam therapy for tumors of the CNS. Expert Rev Neurother 2010; 10:319-30. [PMID: 20136386 DOI: 10.1586/ern.09.150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The focus of this review is proton radiotherapy for primary neoplasms of the brain. Although glial cells are among the most radioresistant in the body, the presence of sensitive critical structures and the high doses needed to control CNS tumors present a formidable challenge to the treating radiation oncologist. Treatment with conventional photon radiation at doses required to control disease progression all too often results in unacceptable toxicity. Protons have intrinsic properties that often allow radiation oncologists to deliver a higher dose to the tumor compared with photons, while at the same time offering better sparing of normal tissues. Recognition of these advantages has resulted in development of many new proton treatment facilities worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daila S Gridley
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Chan Shun Pavilion, 11175 Campus Street, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Johnson WD, Loredo LN, Slater JD. Surgery and radiotherapy: complementary tools in the management of benign intracranial tumors. Neurosurg Focus 2008; 24:E2. [PMID: 18447741 DOI: 10.3171/foc/2008/24/5/e2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Historically, radiation therapy has been used extensively in the treatment of malignant and aggressive intracranial tumors, and the importance of its role has been repeatedly verified by prolonged patient survival rates and increased tumor control. As more modern capabilities are employed in surgery and radiotherapy, attention is being directed to the utility of radiation as either primary or secondary treatment of benign tumors. Specifically, primary treatment encompasses irradiation of small benign tumors without biopsy confirmation of tumor type; secondary treatment involves postoperative radiation therapy, with the possibility that less-aggressive tumor resection may be performed in areas that have a higher probability of resultant neurological deficit. Current literature suggests that this is not only a possible treatment strategy, but that it may be superior to more radical resection in some cases, for example, in vestibular schwannomas and meningiomas. This article provides an overview of factors to consider in the use of radiation therapy and reviews the relationships between radiation and surgery, notably the unique complementary role each plays in the treatment of benign intracranial tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Walter D Johnson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92354, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Anderson P, Salazar-Abshire M. Improving outcomes in difficult bone cancers using multimodality therapy, including radiation: Physician and nursing perspectives. Curr Oncol Rep 2006; 8:415-22. [PMID: 17040619 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-006-0069-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Principles of therapy are similar for Ewing's sarcoma and osteosarcoma. Chemotherapy or surgery alone cures few patients. Multimodality measures are needed for durable response. Quality of life and function are very important short- and long-term considerations. The spine, sacrum, pelvis, ankle, hand, mediastinum, pulmonary hilum, and chest wall are examples of bone cancer locations for which surgery is difficult. Patients with positive margins may need radiation and may experience systemic therapy delay, recurrence, loss of function, or any combination of these. When radiation is used as a means of local control, concomitant chemotherapy can increase its effectiveness. Options for difficult Ewing's sarcoma and osteosarcoma situations and multimodality solutions, including 1 mCi/kg of samarium and proton therapy, are discussed. Combination radiation and chemotherapy regimens are summarized, and organization of patients, caregivers, and medical teams for multimodality therapy is described, along with tools used in our institution that aid in this process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pete Anderson
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Holzscheiter MH, Bassler N, Agazaryan N, Beyer G, Blackmore E, DeMarco JJ, Doser M, Durand RE, Hartley O, Iwamoto KS, Knudsen HV, Landua R, Maggiore C, McBride WH, Møller SP, Petersen J, Skarsgard LD, Smathers JB, Solberg TD, Uggerhøj UI, Vranjes S, Withers HR, Wong M, Wouters BG. The biological effectiveness of antiproton irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2006; 81:233-42. [PMID: 17069916 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.09.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2006] [Revised: 09/06/2006] [Accepted: 09/13/2006] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Antiprotons travel through tissue in a manner similar to that for protons until they reach the end of their range where they annihilate and deposit additional energy. This makes them potentially interesting for radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to conduct the first ever measurements of the biological effectiveness of antiprotons. MATERIALS AND METHODS V79 cells were suspended in a semi-solid matrix and irradiated with 46.7MeV antiprotons, 48MeV protons, or (60)Co gamma-rays. Clonogenic survival was determined as a function of depth along the particle beams. Dose and particle fluence response relationships were constructed from data in the plateau and Bragg peak regions of the beams and used to assess the biological effectiveness. RESULTS Due to uncertainties in antiproton dosimetry we defined a new term, called the biologically effective dose ratio (BEDR), which compares the response in a minimally spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) to that in the plateau as a function of particle fluence. This value was approximately 3.75 times larger for antiprotons than for protons. This increase arises due to the increased dose deposited in the Bragg peak by annihilation and because this dose has a higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE). CONCLUSION We have produced the first measurements of the biological consequences of antiproton irradiation. These data substantiate theoretical predictions of the biological effects of antiproton annihilation within the Bragg peak, and suggest antiprotons warrant further investigation.
Collapse
|