Advertisement

The Role of Oxygen Tension Distribution on the Radiation Response of Human Breast Carcinoma

  • Paul Okunieff
  • Eamonn P. Dunphy
  • Michael Hoeckel
  • David J. Terris
  • Peter Vaupel
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 345)

Abstract

The response of tumors to radiation is heterogeneous even in animal tumor systems where tumors all originate from the same cell culture, are implanted in genetically similar age-matched animals in a constant anatomic locationl. Hence great heterogeneity of response exists even in situations where intrinsic genetic or epigenetic factors are minimally variable. Several metabolic factors are known to influence the probability of tumor control after radiation. These metabolic factors are also known to vary widely between tumors in humans2,3 and even in animal tumor models. Heterogeneous variables include tumor oxygen tension distribution, glutathione content, glucose delivery and utilization rate, pH, and blood flow. In addition, radiation response can be modified by intrinsic radiation sensitivity, rate of repopulation, and tumor size. The relative importance of oxygen in this list of modifiers of treatment response is unclear, but has been of major concern since the 1950’s4,5. In animal tumors treated with a few radiation fractions, oxygen tension distribution is probably the most powerful predictor of radiation response6. The impact of oxygen on human tumor response, however, is controversial particularly in the treatment of human disease wherein treatment is delivered in many fractions. Recently it has been pos-sible to measure the oxygen tension distributions of human breast carcinoma3,7. Using well established modeling techniques and classical radiation biology it is therefore possible to predict the heterogeneity of radiation treatment response expected secondary to the oxygen tension distribution. The purpose of this analysis is to determine to what extent the known shape of the radiation response curve for human breast cancers treated in situ can be predicted by the tumor oxygenation status.

Keywords

Dose Response Curve Human Breast Carcinoma Radiation Fraction Animal Tumor Tumor Control Probability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H.D. Suit, S. Skates, A. Taghian, P. Okunieff, et al, Clinical implications of heterogeneity of tumor response to radiation therapy, Radiother. Oncol. 25:251–260 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Vaupel, F. Kallinowski and P. Okunieff, Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review, Cancer Res. 49:6449 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Vaupel, K. Schlenger and M. Hoeckel, Blood flow and tissue oxygenation of human tumors: an update, Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 277:895–906 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.H. Thomlinson, Changes of oxygenation in tumors in relation to irradiation, Front. Radiat. Ther. Oncol. 3:109 (1968).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.D. Suit, Hyperbaric oxygen in radiotherapy of four mouse tumors, Proc. Intern. Conf. Radiation Biology & Cancer 1:39 (1966).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H.D. Suit, R. Sedlacek, G. Silver, C-C. Hsieh, et al, Therapeutic gain factors to fractionated radiation treatment of spontaneous murine tumors using fast neutrons, photons plus O2 at 1 or 3 ATA, or photons plus misonidazole, Radiat. Res. 116:482 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Vaupel, K. Schlenger, C. Knoop and M. Hoeckel, Oxygenation of human tumors: evaluation of tissue oxygen distribution in breast cancers by computerized O2 tension measurements, Cancer Res. 51:3316 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Hellman, Improving the therapeutic index in breast cancer treatment: The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award lecture, Cancer Res. 40:4335 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.D. Thames and H.D. Suit, Tumor radioresponsiveness versus fractionation sensitivity, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 12:687 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.H. Hendry and H.D. Thames, Fractionation sensitivity and the oxygen effect, Br. J. Radiol. 63:79 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S.S. Tucker, H.D. Thames and J.M. Taylor, How well is the probability of tumor cure after fractionated irradiation described by Poisson statistics, Radiat. Res. 124:273 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.E. Moulder and S. Rockwell, Hypoxic fractions of solid tumors: experimental techniques, methods of analysis and a survey of exist-ing data, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 10:695 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Denekamp, J.F. Fowler and S. Dische, The proportion of hypoxic cells in a human tumor, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2:1227 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.A. Gatenby, H.B. Kessler, J.S. Rosenblum, L.R. Coia, et al, Oxygen distribution in squamous cell carcinoma metastases and its relationship to outcome of radiation therapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 14:831 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Okunieff, M. Urano, F. Kallinowski, P. Vaupel, et al, Tumors growing in irradiated tissue: Oxygenation, metabolic state, and pH, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 21:667 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Vaupel, P. Okunieff, F. Kallinowski and L.J. Neuringer, Correlations between 31P-NMR spectroscopy and tissue O2 tension measurements in a murine fibrosarcoma, Radiat. Res. 120:477 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Okunieff
    • 1
  • Eamonn P. Dunphy
    • 2
  • Michael Hoeckel
    • 5
  • David J. Terris
    • 3
  • Peter Vaupel
    • 4
  1. 1.Radiation Oncology BranchNatl. Cancer Inst.BethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Dept. Radiation OncologyStanford Univ.StanfordUSA
  3. 3.Div. Head and Neck SurgeryStanford Univ.StanfordUSA
  4. 4.Inst. Physiology and PathophysiologyUniv. of MainzMainzGermany
  5. 5.Dept. Obstetrics and GynecologyUniv. of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations