Neil C. Estabrook

Inhibition of NF-κB and DNA double-strand break repair by DMAPT sensitizes non-small-cell lung cancers to X-rays.

We investigated the efficacy and mechanism of dimethylaminoparthenolide (DMAPT), an NF-κB inhibitor, to sensitize human lung cancer cells to X-ray killing in vitro and in vivo. We tested whether DMAPT increased the effectiveness of single and fractionated X-ray treatment through inhibition of NF-κB and/or DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair. Treatment with DMAPT decreased plating efficiency, inhibited constitutive and radiation-induced NF-κB binding activity, and enhanced radiation-induced cell killing by dose modification factors of 1.8 and 1.4 in vitro. X-ray fractionation demonstrated that DMAPT inhibited split-dose recovery/repair, and neutral DNA comet assays confirmed that DMAPT altered the fast and slow components of X-ray-induced DNA DSB repair. Knockdown of the NF-κB family member p65 by siRNA increased radiation sensitivity and completely inhibited split-dose recovery in a manner very similar to DMAPT treatment. The data suggest a link between inhibition of NF-κB and inhibition of DSB repair by DMAPT that leads to enhancement of X-ray-induced cell killing in vitro in non-small-cell lung cancer cells. Studies of A549 tumor xenografts in nude mice demonstrated that DMAPT enhanced X-ray-induced tumor growth delay in vivo.

Proton Radiotherapy for Midline Central Nervous System Lesions: A Class Solution

Objective: Midline and central lesions of the brain requiring conventional radiotherapy (RT) present complex difficulties in dose avoidance to organs at risk (OAR). In either definitive or adjuvant settings, proper RT coverage of these lesions involves unnecessary treatment of large volumes of normal brain. We propose a class solution for these lesions using proton radiotherapy (PrT). Materials and Methods: The records of the Indiana University Health Proton Therapy Center were reviewed for patients presenting between January 1, 2005 and October 1, 2013 with midline central nervous system (CNS) lesions. Twenty-four patients were identified. After Institutional Review Board approval was granted, their dosimetry was reviewed for target volume doses and OAR dose avoidance. Results: For these cases, meningiomas were the most common histology (8 cases), and next most prevalent were craniopharyngiomas (6 cases). The others were various different deep midline brain tumors (10 cases). In all cases, fields formed by vertex and/or anterior/posterior superior oblique PrT beams along the midsagittal plane were used to provide coverage with minimal dose to the brain stem or to the cerebral hemispheres. The median prescribed dose to the planning target volume for treating these patients was 54.0 Gy RBE (range 48.6-62.5) with a mean dose of 53.5 Gy RBE. The average of the mean doses to the brain stems using these fields in the 24 plans was 18.4 Gy RBE (range 0.0-44.7). Similarly, the average of the mean doses to the hippocampi was 15.8 Gy RBE (range 0.0-52.6). Conclusions: We consider these patients to be optimally treated with PrT. The use of modified midsagittal PrT schemas allows for the treatment of midline CNS lesions with sparing of most of the uninvolved brain.

Effect of Scanning Beam for Superficial Dose in Proton Therapy.

Proton beam delivery technology is under development to minimize the scanning spot size for uniform dose to target, but it is also known that the superficial dose could be as high as the dose at Bragg peak for narrow and small proton beams. The objective of this study is to explore the characteristics of dose distribution at shallow depths using Monte Carlo simulation with the FLUKA code for uniform scanning (US) and discrete spot scanning (DSS) proton beams. The results show that the superficial dose for DSS is relatively high compared to US. Additionally, DSS delivers a highly heterogeneous dose to the irradiated surface for comparable doses at Bragg peak. Our simulation shows that the superficial dose can become as high as the Bragg peak when the diameter of the proton beam is reduced. This may compromise the advantage of proton beam therapy for sparing normal tissue, making skin dose a limiting factor for the clinical use of DSS. Finally, the clinical advantage of DSS may not be essential for treating uniform dose across a large target, as in craniospinal irradiation (CSI).

Histology, Tumor Volume, and Radiation Dose Predict Outcomes in NSCLC Patients After Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy

Introduction: It remains unclear if histology should be independently considered when choosing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy dose prescriptions for NSCLC. Methods: The study population included 508 patients with 561 lesions between 2000 and 2016, of which 442 patients with 482 lesions had complete dosimetric information. Eligible patients had histologically or clinically diagnosed early‐stage NSCLC and were treated with 3 to 5 fractions. The primary endpoint was in‐field tumor control censored by either death or progression. Involved lobe control was also assessed. Results: At 6.7 years median follow‐up, 3‐year in‐field control, involved lobe control, overall survival, and progression‐free survival rates were 88.1%, 80.0%, 49.4%, and 37.2%, respectively. Gross tumor volume (GTV) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01 per mL, p = 0.0044) and histology (p = 0.0225) were independently associated with involved lobe failure. GTV (HR = 1.013, p = 0.001) and GTV dose (cutoff of 110 Gy, biologically effective dose with &agr;/&bgr; = 10 [BED10], HR = 2.380, p = 0.0084) were independently associated with in‐field failure. For squamous cell carcinomas, lower prescription doses were associated with worse in‐field control (12 Gy × 4 or 10 Gy × 5 versus 18 Gy or 20 Gy × 3: HR = 3.530, p = 0.0447, confirmed by propensity score matching) and was independent of GTV (HR = 1.014 per mL, 95% confidence interval: 1.005–1.022, p = 0.0012). For adenocarcinomas, there were no differences in in‐field control observed using the above dose groupings (p = 0.12 and p = 0.31, respectively). Conclusions: In the absence of level I data, GTV and histology should be considered to personalize radiation dose for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy. We suggest lower prescription doses (i.e., 12 Gy × 4 or 10 G × 5) should be avoided for squamous cell carcinomas if normal tissue tolerances are met.

Role of belly board device in the age of intensity modulated radiotherapy for pelvic irradiation

Small bowel dose often represents a limiting factor for radiation treatment of pelvic malignancies. To reduce small bowel toxicity, a belly board device (BBD) with a prone position is often recommended. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) could reduce dose to small bowel based on the desired dose-volume constraints. We investigated the efficacy of BBD in conjunction with IMRT. A total of 11 consecutive patients with the diagnosis of rectal cancer, who were candidates for definitive therapy, were selected. Patients were immobilized with BBD in prone position for simulation and treatment. Supine position computed tomography (CT) data were either acquired at the same time or during a diagnostic scan, and if existed was used. Target volumes (TV) as well as organs at risk (OAR) were delineated in both studies. Three-dimensional conformal treatment (3DCRT) and IMRT plans were made for both scans. Thus for each patient, 4 plans were generated. Statistical analysis was conducted for maximum, minimum, and mean dose to each structure. When comparing the normalized mean Gross TV dose for the different plans, there was no statistical difference found between the planning types. There was a significant difference in small bowel sparing when using prone position on BBD comparing 3DCRT and IMRT plans, favoring IMRT with a 29.6% reduction in dose (p = 0.007). There was also a statistically significant difference in small bowel sparing when comparing supine position IMRT to prone-BBD IMRT favoring prone-BBD IMRT with a reduction of 30.3% (p = 0.002). For rectal cancer when small bowel could be a limiting factor, prone position using BBD along with IMRT provides the best sparing. We conclude that whenever a dose escalation in rectal cancer is desired where small bowel could be limiting factor, IMRT in conjunction with BBD should be selected.