Encrypted login | home

Program Information

An in Vivo Study On Pulsed Low Dose-Rate Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

no image available
B Wang

B Wang1*, D Cvetkovic1 , X Chen1,2 , P Zhang1,3 , C Zhang1,4 , L Chen1 , C Ma1 , (1) Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, (2) Virtua Fox Chase Cancer Center, Voorhees, NJ, (3) Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, China, (4) Qiqihar Medical University, Qiqihar, China


SU-E-T-34 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: Re-irradiation with conventional radiotherapy techniques (CRT) may pose significant risks due to high accumulative radiation doses. Pulsed low dose-rate radiotherapy (PLDR) has been used in clinical trials for recurrent cancer treatment. In our previous studies, PLDR irradiation showed significantly lower toxicity than CRT, resulting in much longer survival of mice after PLDR total body irradiation (TBI) than conventional TBI. The purpose of this study was to investigate tumor control efficacy of PLDR treatment for prostate cancer with an animal model of prostate cancer LNCaP.

Methods: We used an orthotopic murine model of LNCaP cell line for this study. LNCaP cells were implanted into immune-suppressed male nude mice via surgery. We monitored the tumor growth with MRI. The tumor-bearing mice were allocated into a PLDR(n=9), CRT(n=7), and control group(n=7) randomly. The mice in the PLDR and CRT groups were irradiated with 2Gy dose for one time. For the CRT treatment, the mice received 2Gy at a dose-rate of 300 MU/minute. For the PLDR treatment, the 2Gy dose was further divided into ten pulses of 0.2Gy at the same dose-rate with an interval of 3 minutes between the pulses.

Results: Sizable tumor growth delays were observed for the PLDR and CRT groups through weekly MRI scans. The mean values of the normalized tumor volumes (± standard deviation of the mean) were 1.53±0.07, 1.53±0.14, and 1.81±0.09 at one week after treatment, 2.28±0.13, 2.19±0.16, and 3.04±0.25 at two weeks after treatment, and 3.31±0.23, 3.14±0.24 and 4.62±0.49 at three weeks after treatment, for the PLDR, CRT, and control groups, respectively.

Conclusion: The PLDR and CRT treatments showed comparable tumor control rates in this study. Our in vivo results indicate that PLDR may be a viable option for treating recurrent prostate cancer due to its equivalent tumor control but low normal tissue toxocities.

Contact Email: