1
|
Patysheva M, Frolova A, Larionova I, Afanas'ev S, Tarasova A, Cherdyntseva N, Kzhyshkowska J. Monocyte programming by cancer therapy. Front Immunol 2022; 13:994319. [PMID: 36341366 PMCID: PMC9631446 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.994319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/27/2022] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Monocytes in peripheral blood circulation are the precursor of essential cells that control tumor progression, that include tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), dendritic cells (DCs) and myeloid-derive suppressor cells (MDSC). Monocytes-derived cells orchestrate immune reactions in tumor microenvironment that control disease outcome and efficiency of cancer therapy. Four major types of anti-cancer therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and most recent immunotherapy, affect tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) polarization and functions. TAMs can also decrease the efficiency of therapy in a tumor-specific way. Monocytes is a major source of TAMs, and are recruited to tumor mass from the blood circulation. However, the mechanisms of monocyte programming in circulation by different therapeutic onsets are only emerging. In our review, we present the state-of-the art about the effects of anti-cancer therapy on monocyte progenitors and their dedifferentiation, on the content of monocyte subpopulations and their transcriptional programs in the circulation, on their recruitment into tumor mass and their potential to give origin for TAMs in tumor-specific microenvironment. We have also summarized very limited available knowledge about genetics that can affect monocyte interaction with cancer therapy, and highlighted the perspectives for the therapeutic targeting of circulating monocytes in cancer patients. We summarized the knowledge about the mediators that affect monocytes fate in all four types of therapies, and we highlighted the perspectives for targeting monocytes to develop combined and minimally invasive anti-cancer therapeutic approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marina Patysheva
- Laboratory of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Tumor Progression Biology, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
| | - Anastasia Frolova
- Laboratory of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
| | - Irina Larionova
- Laboratory of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Tumor Progression Biology, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Genetic Technologies, Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, Russia
| | - Sergey Afanas'ev
- Laboratory of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
| | - Anna Tarasova
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
| | - Nadezhda Cherdyntseva
- Laboratory of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Genetic Technologies, Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, Russia
| | - Julia Kzhyshkowska
- Laboratory of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
- Laboratory of Genetic Technologies, Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, Russia
- Institute of Transfusion Medicine and Immunology, Institute for Innate Immunoscience (MI3), Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
- German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg – Hessen, Mannheim, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dejanovic D, Specht L, Czyzewska D, Kiil Berthelsen A, Loft A. Response Evaluation Following Radiation Therapy With 18F-FDG PET/CT: Common Variants of Radiation-Induced Changes and Potential Pitfalls. Semin Nucl Med 2022; 52:681-706. [PMID: 35835618 DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) is one of the cornerstones in cancer treatment and approximately half of all patients will receive some form of RT during the course of their cancer management. Response evaluation after RT and follow-up imaging with 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can be complicated by RT-induced acute, chronic or consequential effects. There is a general consensus that 18F-FDG PET/CT for response evaluation should be delayed for 12 weeks after completing RT to minimize the risk of false-positive findings. Radiation-induced late side effects in normal tissue can take years to develop and eventually cause symptoms that on imaging can potentially mimic recurrent disease. Imaging findings in radiation induced injuries depend on the normal tissue included in the irradiated volume and the radiation therapy regime including the total dose delivered, dose per fraction and treatment schedule. The intent for radiation therapy should be taken in consideration when evaluating the response on imaging, that is palliative vs curative or neoadjuvant vs adjuvant RT. Imaging findings can further be distorted by altered anatomy and sequelae following surgery within the radiation field. An awareness of common PET/CT-induced changes/injuries is essential when interpreting 18F-FDG PET/CT as well as obtaining a complete medical history, as patients are occasionally scanned for an unrelated cause to previously RT treated malignancy. In addition, secondary malignancies due to carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure in long-term cancer survivors should not be overlooked. 18F-FDG PET/CT can be very useful in response evaluation and follow-up in patients treated with RT, however, variants and pitfalls are common and it is important to remember that radiation-induced injury is often a diagnosis of exclusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danijela Dejanovic
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Lena Specht
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Dorota Czyzewska
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Anne Kiil Berthelsen
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Annika Loft
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Reinartz G, Baehr A, Kittel C, Oertel M, Haverkamp U, Eich HT. Biophysical Analysis of Acute and Late Toxicity of Radiotherapy in Gastric Marginal Zone Lymphoma-Impact of Radiation Dose and Planning Target Volume. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13061390. [PMID: 33808548 PMCID: PMC8003236 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2020] [Revised: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Prospective evaluation of impact of dose and target volume in radiation planning of gastric lymphoma on organs at risk. New model parameters for calculation of normal tissue complication probabilities were developed from quality-assured cohort data. The study provides practicable data to calculate risks for neighbored organs at risk in modern radiation planning with currently lower radiation doses, representing a basis for future adaptation of previous model parameters. Abstract Successful studies on radiation therapy for gastric lymphoma led to a decrease in planning target volume (PTV) and radiation dose with low toxicities, maintaining excellent survival rates. It remains unclear as to which effects are to be expected concerning dose burden on organs at risk (OAR) by decrease in PTV vs. dose and whether a direct impact on toxicity might be expected. We evaluated 72 radiation plans, generated prospectively for a cohort of 18 patients who were treated for indolent gastric lymphoma in our department. As a prospective work, four radiation plans with different radiation doses and target volumes (40 Gy-involved field, 40 Gy-involved site, 30 Gy-involved field, 30 Gy-involved site) were generated for each patient. Mean dose burden on adjacent organs was compared between the planning groups. Cohort toxicity data served to estimate parameters for the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman (LKB) model for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). These were used to anticipate adverse events for OAR. Literature parameters were used to estimate high-grade toxicities of OAR. Decrease of dose and/or PTV led to median dose reductions between 0.13 and 5.2 Gy, with a significant dose reduction on neighboring organs. Estimated model parameters for liver, spleen, and bowel toxicity were feasible to predict cohort toxicities. NTCP for the endpoints elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count, and diarrhea ranged between 15.9 and 22.8%, 27.6 and 32.4%, and 21.8 and 26.4% for the respective four plan variations. Field and dose reduction highly impact dose burden and NTCP for OAR during stomach radiation. Our estimated LKB model parameters offer a good approximation for low-grade toxicities in abdominal organs with modern radiation techniques.
Collapse
|