Radiobiologic studies of radioimmunotherapy and external beam radiotherapy in vitro and in vivo in human renal cell carcinoma xenografts CANCER Ning, S. C., Trisler, K., Wessels, B. W., Knox, S. J. 1997; 80 (12): 2519-2528


Previous studies suggest that the radiobiologic characteristics of in vitro survival curves are important determinants of the response of tumors to both conventional radiotherapy and radioimmunotherapy (RIT). The purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between in vitro radiation survival curve parameters and the relative sensitivity of tumor to RIT, exponentially decreasing low dose rate (ED LDR) irradiation and conventional high dose rate (HDR) fractionated external beam radiotherapy.Two human renal cell carcinoma cell lines, Caki-1 and A498, were used in vitro and nude mouse xenograft studies. HDR external beam gamma irradiation (dose rate, 430 centigray [cGy]/minute) and ED LDR irradiation (initial dose rate, 22-25 cGy/hour) were performed with a cesium-137 (137Cs) gamma irradiator. RIT was carried out with yttrium-90 (90Y-labeled monoclonal antibody NR-LU-10, and the absorbed radiation doses were calculated by medical internal radiation dose methodology. A clonogenic assay was used to generate radiation survival curves, and a computer FIT program was used to calculate the radiobiologic parameters. The antitumor efficacy of the different treatments was compared in vivo using a tumor regrowth delay assay in these two tumor xenograft models.The radiation survival curves showed that the Caki-1 cell line was more sensitive to both HDR and ED LDR irradiation than A498 in vitro. The Caki-1 cell line, compared with A498, had a larger alpha (0.39 vs. 0.15 Gy following HDR and 0.32 vs. 0.21 Gy following ED LDR) and alpha-to-beta ratio (6.92 vs. 2.60 Gy for HDR and 40.0 vs. 19.2 Gy for ED LDR), a smaller n number (5.13 vs. 23 for HDR and 1.16 vs. 3.53 for ED LDR), a lower quasi-threshold dose (Dq) (1.60 vs. 3.15 Gy for HDR and 0.35 vs. 1.76 Gy for ED LDR), and a lower surviving fraction at 2 Gy (SF2) (0.37 vs. 0.60 for HDR and 0.51 vs. 0.61 for ED LDR), suggesting that Caki-1, compared with A498, had a steep initial slope and a small shoulder. The final slope represented by the beta value and D0 dose (the dose (Gy) required to reduce the fraction of surviving cells of 37% of its previous value in the exponential region of the survival curves) did not vary significantly between these two cell lines at either HDR or ED LDR irradiation. Tumor volume doubling times were 4.0 +/- 1.5 days for Caki-1 and 4.2 +/- 1.8 days for A498 tumor xenografts. One hundred microCi/50 microg of 90Y-labeled, isotype-matched irrelevant monoclonal antibody CCOO16-3 produced a tumor growth delay time (TGD) of 2.1 days in Caki-1 tumors but had no effect on A498 tumors (P < 0.05). RIT with 100 microCi of 90Y-NR-LU-10 resulted in a TGD of 4.8 days for Caki-1 tumors, whereas 100 microCi and 150 microCi of 90Y-NR-LU-10 produced a TGD of 1.9 and 2.7 days for A498 tumors, respectively. Estimated absorbed doses were 21.9 Gy in Caki-1 tumors treated with 100 microCi of 90Y-NR-LU-10 and 14.5 Gy and 21.8 Gy in A498 tumors treated with 100 microCi and 150 microCi of 90Y-NR-LU-10, respectively. The weighted normal tissue absorbed doses were 7.4 Gy for Caki-1 tumor-bearing mice and 9.0 Gy for A498 tumor-bearing mice (P > 0.05). To compare the responses of Caki-1 and A498 xenografts to RIT with external beam ED LDR and HDR irradiation, tumor-bearing mice were treated with equivalent doses (20-22 Gy) of 1) RIT with 90Y-NR-LU-10 (100 microCi for Caki-1 and 150 microCi for A498), 2) continuous ED LDR 137Cs irradiation with a initial dose rate of 22 cGy/hour, or 3) HDR X-irradiation (2 Gy x 10 fractions in 2 weeks). The TGDs produced by RIT, ED LDR, and HDR were 5.3, 9.7, and 8.3 days for Caki-1 and 2.7, 5.1, and 5.8 days for A498. The relative efficacy of RIT in these xenograft models correlated well with the radiobiologic parameters (i.e., the size of the initial slope and shoulder) of in vitro survival curves following HDR and ED LDR irradiation in these cell lines. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

View details for Web of Science ID 000071035600026

View details for PubMedID 9406705