Mathews Journal of Cancer Science

2474-6797

Previous Issues Volume 4, Issue 2 - 2019

An In-Vivo Study on Pulsed Low-Dose-Rate Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Bin Wang1,2, Jianhua Ren3, Peng Zhang4, Dusica Cvetkovic1, Xiaoming Chen1, Lili Chen1, and Chang-Ming Charlie Ma1

1Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA

2Department of Radiation Oncology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA

3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China

4Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, China

Corresponding Author: Dr. C-M Charlie Ma, Ph.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadlephia, PA 19111, E-mail: Charlie.ma@fccc.edu

Received Date: Oct 15, 2019
Published Date: Nov 01, 2019

Citation: Ma CM. (2019). An In-Vivo Study on Pulsed Low-Dose-Rate Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Mathews J Cancer Sci. 4(2): 21

 

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The objective of this study is to investigate the in-vivo tumor control efficacy of pulsed low-dose-rate (PLDR) radiotherapy for prostate cancer treatment.

Materials & Methods: We implemented three in vivo murine models of prostate cancer, namely an orthotopic LNCaP tumor model, a flank PC-3 tumor model, and an orthotopic PC-3 tumor model. The tumor-bearing mice were treated with a daily radiation dose of 2 Gy with either PLDR or at a conventional dose rate. The tumor growth was monitored with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Results: For the orthotopic LNCaP tumor model and the flank PC-3 tumor model, we found that both PLDR and RT group tumors showed significant growth delay compared to the control group tumors. At two weeks after the first treatment, the difference between the mean tumor volume of the control group and the RT (PLDR) group was about 28% (25%) and 41% (43%) for the orthotopic LNCaP and flank PC-3 tumor models, respectively, with student t-test p values <0.05. However, there is no statistically significant difference between PLDR and RT groups. For the orthotopic PC-3 tumor model, we found that the PLDR treatment showed a better tumor control than conventional RT treatment. At two weeks after the first treatment, the difference between the mean tumor volume of the RT and the PLDR group tumors was about 31%, with student t-test p=0.02.

Conclusion: This study showed that PLDR could control prostate tumors at least as effectively as conventional RT. Considering that PLDR could also lead to much less normal tissue toxicity than conventional RT, we expect PLDR to be a viable modality for the management of recurrent prostate cancers.

Keywords: Pulsed low-Dose rate (PLDR); Radiation Therapy; Prostate Cancer; Invivo; Tumor Growth Delay.


© 2015 Mathews Open Access Journals. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
Open Access by Mathews Open Access Journals is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based On a Work at Mathewsopenaccess.com