Effectiveness of FLASH vs conventional dose rate radiotherapy in a model of orthotopic, murine breast cancer

Stavros Melemenidis,Vignesh Viswanathan,Suparna Dutt,Rakesh Manjappa,Naviya Kapadia,Brianna Lau,Luis A Soto,Ramish M Ashraf,Banita Thakur,Adel Z. I. Mutahar,Lawrie B. Skinner,Amy S. Yu,Murat Surucu,Kerriann M. Casey,Erinn B. Rankin,Kathleen C. Horst,Edward E. Graves,Billy W. Loo Jr.,Frederick M. Dirbas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.14.628467

2024-12-17

Abstract:Purpose: Radiotherapy is an effective breast cancer treatment that enhances local tumor control and prolongs overall survival yet is associated with undesirable side effects which can impair quality of life. Ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy (FLASH) has been shown to induce less normal tissue toxicity while producing comparable tumor growth delay in a variety of preclinical tumor models when compared with conventional dose rate radiotherapy (CONV). However, growth delay is not a surrogate for tumor eradication, which is a critical endpoint of cancer therapy, and studies using FLASH in breast cancer are limited. We sought to evaluate whether FLASH produced comparable tumor control to CONV in a breast cancer model with tumor eradication as the primary endpoint. Methods and Materials: 10 cells from the radiation sensitive mammary tumor cell line Py117 were used to create non-metastatic, syngeneic, orthotopic tumors in the left 4th mammary fat pad of C57BL/6J mice (n=67). Tumors were established for two distinct sequential irradiation studies (Rounds 1 and 2), utilizing either large (7.5 mm into the body) or small (5 mm) treatment tumor margins, respectively. For Round 1, mice were divided into groups with either small (20–40 mm ) or large (250–800 mm ) tumors, whereas only small tumors were included in Round 2. Tumors were irradiated with FLASH (93, 192 and 200 Gy/s) or CONV (0.08 Gy/s) using 16.6 MeV FLASH and 15.7 MeV CONV electron beams. Mice in the small tumor cohort were treated with single fractions of 20, 25, or 30 Gy. The larger tumors were treated with a single fraction of 30 Gy. Tumor eradication was determined by palpation and with histology as needed to clarify physical findings. Results: Single fractions of FLASH and CONV demonstrated comparable treatment responses within matched cohorts of small and large tumors. A portion of small tumors treated with single fractions of 20 or 25 Gy were eradicated though most regrew within 2 to 3 weeks. Eradication of small tumors was best seen treated with 30 Gy and a large treatment tumor margin. These mice had no tumor regrowth at 30 days with either FLASH or CONV: however, euthanasia criteria were met at the 30-day time point due to concerns over skin toxicity for both FLASH and CONV groups. Small tumors treated with 30 Gy and a smaller treatment tumor margin had less skin toxicity with 75% of mice remaining tumor free at 48 days. 30 Gy FLASH and CONV applied to larger tumors demonstrated growth delay equally with a partial reduction in size but without tumor eradication. Conclusions: FLASH and CONV produced comparable tumor control in this model of orthotopic, murine breast tumors. Single fractions of 30 Gy with both FLASH and CONV applied to small tumors achieved the highest rates of tumor eradication in particular when delivered with a wider treatment margin. Skin toxicity seen at this dose and in this location could be ameliorated with the use of multiple fractions or different tangents in future studies. Efforts at eradicating larger tumors would require testing higher single fraction doses, multiple fractions, and/or hypofractionated treatment regimens. The equivalent effectiveness between FLASH and CONV in this study of murine breast tumors supports ongoing evaluation of FLASH for use in treating human breast cancer. To this end future efforts at tumor eradication with single fraction FLASH doses with comprehensive evaluation of the toxicity of organs at risk as compared to CONV will be necessary. Additionally, studies of dose-response in a range of tumor volumes with additional breast cancer cell lines and tumors, including human xenografts, along with refined target margins, will guide future studies into the use of FLASH in the adjuvant therapy of primary human breast cancer.

Biology