The intrinsic radiosensitivity and sublethal damage repair capacity of five cervical carcinoma cell lines tested with the 96-well-plate assay

  • Virpi Rantanen
  • Seija Grénman
  • Jarmo Kulmala
  • Reidar Grénman
Original Article Experimental Oncology

Abstract

We have tested the intrinsic radiosensitivity and capacity for sublethal damage repair (SLDR) in split-dose experiments with the 96-well plate clonogenic assay. Four out of five cell lines were squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) lines (CaSki, ME-180, HX151c, HX156c) and one cell line was established from glassy-cell carcinoma (UM-GCC-1). Comparison of radiosensitivities was by withD value, the mean inactivation dose.D for these cell lines varied from 1.7 Gy to 2.5 Gy. As a group, cervical carcinoma cell lines were more radioresistant than endometrial adenocarcinoma cell lines tested with the same assay, but more radiosenstive than vulvar SCC lines. Three cell lines showed clear SLDR, but two cell lines were unable to carry out this function. Furthermore, cell lines capable of SLDR also showed significant increase in survival whenD values were compared after the radiation dose was split into three instead of two fractions. These results indicate the importance of adding another radiobiological parameter to the intrinsic radiosensitivity when predictive tests are planned.

Key words

Radiosensitivity Fractionation Clonogenic assay Squamous-cell carcinoma line Cervical carcinoma 

Abbreviations

SLDR

sublethal damage repair

SCC

squamous cell carcinoma

SF2

fraction surviving after 2 Gy of radiation

AUC

area under the radiation survival curve

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allalunis-Turner MJ, Pearcey RG, Barron GM, Buryn DA, Babiak JC, Honoré LH (1991) Inherent radiosensitivity testing of tumor biopsies obtained from patients with carcinoma of the cervix or endometrium. Radiother Oncol 22:201–205Google Scholar
  2. Begg AC, McNally NJ, Shrieve DC, Kärcher H (1985) A method to measure the duration of DNA synthesis and the potential doubling time from a single sample. Cytometry 6:620–626Google Scholar
  3. Bristow RG, Hill RP (1990) Comparison between in vitro radiosensitivity and in vivo radioresponse in murine tumor cell lines. II. In vivo radioresponse following fractionated treatment and in vitro/in vivo correlations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:331–345Google Scholar
  4. Brock WA, Baker FL, Wike JL, Sivon SL, Peters LJ (1990) Cellular radiosensitivity of primary head and neck squamous cell carcinomas and local tumor control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:1283–1286Google Scholar
  5. Carey TE, Grénman SE, Grénman RE, Worsham MJ, Van Dyke DL, Hayashida DJS, McClatchey KD, Bradford CR, Roberts JA, Somers KD, Anderson S (1993) UM-GCC-1, a new HPV 16-positive cell line from a cervical glassy cell carcinoma. In: 12th International Papillomavirus Conference, Baltimore, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Corvò R, Giaretti W, Sanguineti G, Geido E, Orecchia R, Barra S, Margarino G, Bacigalupo A, Vitale V (1993) Potential doubling time in head and neck tumors treated by primary radiotherapy: preliminary evidence for a prognostic significance in local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27:1165–1172Google Scholar
  7. Davidson SE, West CML, Roberts SA, Hendry JH, Hunter RD (1990) Radiosensitivity testing of primary cervical carcinoma: evaluation of intra-and inter-tumour heterogeneity. Radiother Oncol 18:349–356Google Scholar
  8. Fertil B, Dertinger H, Courdi A, Malaise EP (1984) Mean inactivation dose: a useful concept for intercomparison of human cell survival curves. Radiat Res 99:73–84Google Scholar
  9. Girinsky T, Lubin R, Pignon JP, Chavaudra N, Gazeau J, Dubray B, Cosset JM, Socie G, Fertil B (1992) Predictive value of in vitro radiosensitivity parameters in head and neck cancers and cervical carcinomas: preliminary correlations with local control and overall survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:3–7Google Scholar
  10. Grénman R, Burk D, Virolainen E, Buick RN, Church J, Schwartz DR, Carey TE (1989) Clonogenic cell assay for anchorage-dependent squamous carcinoma cell lines using limiting dilution. Int J Cancer 44:131–136Google Scholar
  11. Grénman R, Carey TE, McClatchey KD, Wagner JG, Pekkola-Heino K, Schwartz DR, Wolf GT, Lacivita LP, Ho L, Baker SR, Krause CJ, Lichter AS (1991), In vitro radiation resistance among cell lines established from patients with squamous cells carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer 67:2741–2747Google Scholar
  12. Hall EJ (1988) Radiobiology for the radiologist, 3rd edn. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelland LR, Steel GG (1988) Differences in radiation response among human cervix carcinoma cell lines. Radiother Oncol 13:225–232Google Scholar
  14. Kelland LR, Steel GG (1989) Recovery from radiation damage in human squamous carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Biol 55:119–127Google Scholar
  15. Kelland LR, Burgess L, Steel GG (1987) Characterization of four new cell lines derived from human squamous carcinomas of the uterine cervix. Cancer Res 47:4947–4952Google Scholar
  16. Kulmala J, Rantanen V, Pekkola-Heino K, Tuominen J, Grénman R (1995) Dosimetry of irradiation models: the 96-well clonogenic assay for testing radiosensitivity of cell lines. Acta Oncol 34:105–109Google Scholar
  17. Patillo RA, Hussa RO, Story MT, Ruckert ACF, Shalaby MR, Mattingly RF (1977) Tumor antigen and human chorionic gonadotropin in CaSki cells: a new epidermoid cervical cancer cell line. Science 196:1456–1458Google Scholar
  18. Peacock JH, Cassoni AM, McMillan TJ, Steel GG (1988) Radiosensitive human tumour cell lines may not be recovery deficient. Int J Radiat Biol 54:945–953Google Scholar
  19. Pekkola-Heino K, Kulmala J, Grénman S, Carey TE, Grénman R (1989) Radiation response of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (UM-SCV-1A, UM-SCV-1B, UM-SCV-2, and A-431) cells in vitro. Cancer Res 49:4876–4878Google Scholar
  20. Pekkola-Heino K, Kulmala J, Klemi P, Lakkala T, Aitasalo K, Joensuu H, Grénman R (1991) Effect of radiation fractionation on four squamous cell carcinoma lines with dissimilar inherent radiation sensitivity. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 117:597–602Google Scholar
  21. Pekkola-Heino K, Kulmala J, Grénman R (1992) Sublethal damage repair in squamous cell carcinoma cell lines. Head Neck 14:196–199Google Scholar
  22. Rantanen V, Grénman S, Kulmala J, Salmi T, Grénman R (1992) Radiation sensitivityof endometrial carcinoma in vitro. Gynecol Oncol 44:217–222Google Scholar
  23. Rantanen V, Grénman S, Kulmala J, Alanen K, Lakkala T, Grénman R (1994) Sublethal damage repair after fractionated irradiation in endometrial cancer cell lines tested with the 96-well plate clonogenic assay. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 120:712–716Google Scholar
  24. Shinohara K, Nakano H (1993) Interphase death and reproductive death in X-irradiated MOLT-4 cells. Radiat Res 135:197–205Google Scholar
  25. Sykes JA, Whitescarver J, Jernstrom P, Nolan JF, Byatt P (1970) Some properties of a new epithelial cell line of human origin. J Natl Cancer Inst 45:107–122Google Scholar
  26. Thilly WG, Deluca JG, Furth EE, Hoppe H, IV Kaden DA, Krolenski JJ, Liber HL, Skopek TR, Slapikoff SA, Tizard RJ, Penman BW (1980) Gene-locus mutation assays in diploid human lymphoblast lines. In: Serpes FJ de, Hollaender A (eds) Chemical mutagens, vol 6. Plenum, New York, pp 331–364Google Scholar
  27. Weichselbaum RR, Beckett M (1987) The maximum recovery potential of human tumor cells may predict clinical outcome in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:709–713Google Scholar
  28. West CML, Davidson DE, Hunter RD (1989) Evaluation of surviving fraction at 2 Gy as a potential prognostic factor for the radiotherapy of carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Biol 56:761–765Google Scholar
  29. West CML, Davidson SE, Hendry JH, Hunter RD (1991) Prediction of cervical carcinoma response to radiotheraphy. Lancet 338:818Google Scholar
  30. West CML, Davidson SE, Roberts SA, Huner RD (1993) Intrinsic radiosensitivity and prediction of patient response to radiotherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer 68:819–823Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virpi Rantanen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seija Grénman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jarmo Kulmala
    • 3
  • Reidar Grénman
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Department of Medical BiochemistryUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of RadiotherapyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations