Advertisement

Chemical Approaches to Improved Radiotherapy

  • W. R. Leopold
  • Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 68)

Abstract

Treatment with ionizing radiation is a major modality for the treatment of cancer. Between 50 and 60 percent of all cancer patients receive treatment with ionizing radiation at some time during the course of their disease (1). Thus, approximately 600,000 new patients will receive radiotherapy this year in the United States alone. Despite the proven efficacy of radiotherapy in the treatment of certain tumor types, nearly one half of the patients treated with radiotherapy will die with at least microscopic recurrence of tumor at the irradiated site (2).

Keywords

Hypoxic Cell Hypoxic Region Emetic Potential Sensitizer Enhancement Ratio Significant Tumor Growth Delay 
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.
    Brady LW, Sheline GE, Suntharalingam N, Sutherland RM: The interdisciplinary program for radiation oncology research: Overview. Cancer Treat. Symp. 1:1–11, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diamond JJ, Hanks GH, Kramer S: The structure of radiation oncology practices in the continental United States. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 14:547–548, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russo A, Mitchell J, Kinsella T et al: Determinants of radiosensitivity. Sem. Oncol. 12:332–349, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams GE Clarke ED, Flockhart IR et al: Structure-activity relationships in the development of hypoxic cell radiosensitizers. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 35:133–150, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weissberg JB, Son YH, Papac RJ et al: Randomized clinical trial of mitomycin C as an adjunct to radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol Phys. 17:3–9, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaplin DJ: Hydralazine-induced tumor hypoxia: A potential target for cancer chemotherapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 81:618–622, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakatsuguwa S: Potentially lethal damage repair and its implication in cancer treatment. In: Modification of Radiosensitivity in Cancer Treatment. T Sugahara (ed), Academic Press, Toyko, pp. 221–250, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thames HD, Peters LJ, Withers HR, Fletcher GH: Accelerated fractionation vs. hyper fractionation rationales for several treatments per day. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 9:127–138, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svoboda VHJ: Further experience with radiotherapy by multiple daily sessions. Br. J. Radiol. 51:363–369, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glatstein E, Lichter AS, Fraass BA et al: The imaging revolution and radiation oncology: Use of CT, ultrasound, and NMR for localization, treatment planning and treatment delivery. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11:299–314, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown JM: Evidence for acutely hypoxic cells in mouse tumours, and a possible mechanism of reoxygenation. Br. J. Radiol. 52:650–656, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alper T: Cellular Radiobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coleman CN, Bump EA, Kramer RA: Chemical modifiers of cancer treatment. J. Clin. Oncol. 6:709–733, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adams GE, Ahmed I, Sheldon PW, Stratford IJ: Radiation sensitization and chemopotentiation: RSU 1069, a compound more efficient than misonidazole in vitro and in vivo. Br. J. Cancer 49:571–577, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chaplin DJ, Durand RE, Stratford IJ: The radiosensitizing and toxic effects of RSU-1069 on hypoxic cells in a murine tumor. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 12:1091–1095, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silver ARJ, O'Neill P: Interaction of the aziridine moiety of RSU-1069 with nucleotides and inorganic phosphate. Implications for alkylation of DNA. Biochem. Pharmacol. 35:1107–1112, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horwich A, Hoiliday SB, Deacon JM, Peckham MJ: A toxicity and pharmacokinetic study in man of the hypoxic cell radiosensitizer RSU-1069. Br. J. Radiol. 39:1238–1240, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sebolt-Leopold JS, Arundel-Suto CM, Elliott WL et al: Preclinical evaluation of PD 130908, a desoxy analog of RSU 1069 with superior potency and reduced toxicities. Proc. 38th Annual Mtg. Radiat. Res. Soc. Abst. Cv 14, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leopold WR, Arundel-Suto CM, Elliott WL et al: In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the radiosensitizer PD 130908, an analog of RSU 1069 with superior potency and reduced toxicity. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 31:393, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Overgaard J, Hansen HS, Jorgensen K, Hansen MH: Primary radiotherapy of larynx and pharynx carcinoma — an analysis of some factors influencing local control and survival. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 12:515–521, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown JM, Yu NY, Brown DM, Lee WW: SR-2508, a 2 nitro imidazole amide which should be superior to misonidazole as a radio sensitizer for clinical use. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 7:695–703, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cole S, Stratford IJ, Melden EM et al: Dual function nitroimidazoles less toxic than RSU1069: Selection of candidate drugs for clinical trial (RB 6145 and/or PD 130908). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. In press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sebolt-Leopold JS, Vincent PW, Beningo KA et al: Pharmacologic/pharmacokinetic evaluation of emesis induced by analogs of RSU 1069 and its control by antiemetic agents. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. In press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thraves PJ, Mossman KL, Brennan T, Dritschilo A: Differential radiosensitization of human tumor cells by 3-aminobenzamide and benzamide: Inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribosylation). Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 50:961–972, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benjamin RC, Gill DM: Dependence of poly (ADP-ribose) synthesis on strand breakage in DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 255:10493–10501, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oghushi H, Yoshihara K, Kaniya T: Bovine thymus poly (ADPribose) polymerase. Physical properties and binding to DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 255:6205–6211, 1980.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Durkacz BW, Omidiji O, Gray DA, Shall S: (ADP-ribose)n participates in DNA excision repair. Nature (London) 283:593–596, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nduka N, Skidmore CJ, Shall S: The enhancement of cytotoxicity of N-Methyl-N-Nitroso-Urea and of gamma-irradiation by inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase. Eur. J. Biochem. 105:525–530, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ben-Hur E, Utsumi H, El kind MM: Inhibitors of poly (ADPribose) synthesis enhance x-ray killing of log phase Chinese hamster cells. Radiat. Res. 97:546–555, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wasserman K, Newman RA, McLaughlin JD et al: A possible role for altered poly(Adenosine diphosphoribose)-synthesis in the sensitivity of human head and neck squamous carcinoma cells to ionizing radiation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 154:1041–1046, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lunec J, George AM, Hedges M et al: Postirradiation sensitization with the ADP-ribosyltransferase inhibitor 3-acetamidobenzamide. Br. J. Cancer Suppl. VI. 49:19–25, 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huet J, Laval F: Influence of poly (ADP-ribose) synthesis inhibitors on the repair of sublethal and potentially lethal damage in-irradiated mammalian cells. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 47:655–662, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brown DM, Evans JW, Brown JM: The influence of inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase on x-ray induced potentially lethal damage repair. Br. J. Cancer Suppl. VI. 49:27–34, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suto MJ, Turner WR, Arundel-Suto CM et al: Dihydroisoquinolinones: The design and synthesis of a new series of potent inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase. Anticancer Drug Design 6:107–117, 1991.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shizuta Y, Ito S, Nakata K, Hazaishi O: Poly (ADP-ribose) synthetase from calf thymus. Methods in Enzymology 66:159–165, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arundel-Suto, CM, Scavone SV, Turner WR et al: Effects of PD128763, a new potent inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, on x-ray induced cellular recovery processes in Chinese hamster V79 cells. Radiat. Res. 126:367–371, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arundel-Suto CM, Sebolt-Leopold JS: Inhibition of DNA double strand break repair by inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase and its relationship to inhibition of cellular recovery in Chinese hamster V79 cells. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sebolt-Leopold JS, Arundel-Suto CM, Scavone SV et al: Development of a new series of potent ADP-ribosyltransferase inhibitors: The dihydro-isoquinolinones. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 31:418, 1990.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elliott WL, Sebolt-Leopold JS, Leopold WR, Siemann DW: In vivo evaluation of a new potent inhibitor of ADP-ribosyltransferase activity, PD128763. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 31:418, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Siemann DW, Sebolt-Leopold JS, Leopold WR, Elliott WL: Effects of PD128763, a new potent inhibitor of ADP-ribosyl transferase, on radiation induced cellular recovery processes in solid tumors. Proc. 38th Annual Mtg. Radiat. Res. Soc.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brown JM, Koong A: Therapeutic advantage of hypoxic cells in tumors: A theoretical study. JNCI 83:178–185, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. R. Leopold
  • Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations