Preclinical in Vivo Human Tumor Response to Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Linear Accelerator Versus Conventional Linear Accelerator

L. Wang,J. Cao,H. Lee,Z. Liu,E. Lin,Y. Ding,Z. Wen,B. McDonald,S. Vedam,M. K. Martel,C. D. Fuller,J. Wang,S. P. Krafft,W. Du,R. C. Tailor,G. S. Ibbott,S. J. Frank

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.1044

2019-01-01

Abstract:The magnetic resonance image-guided linear accelerator (MRL) is a newly developed device that combines MRI with a linac to facilitate precise radiotherapy delivery with the goal of enabling high tumor cure rates and low toxicity. Due to the existence of the strong 1.5 T magnetic field (B0) and radiofrequency (RF) fields in our MRL, the in vivo tumor radiation response to MRL versus conventional linac (C-linac) is unknown. We compared the response of human tumor xenografts to MRL and C-linac. Human lung cancer (H460), head and neck cancer (UMSCC-47, Human papillomavirus positive), and prostate cancer (PC3) xenografts growing in the hind leg of nude mice were used (6 to 7 mice for each group). Experiments were initiated when tumors reached average diameters of 7.6 - 7.7 mm (H460), 7.2 - 7.5 mm (UMSCC-47), and 5.9 - 6.1 mm (PC3). Tumors were exposed to MRL (with a cine imaging sequence) or C-linac for 15 minutes each time with or without irradiation. Radiation schedules were: (i) 2 Gy/fraction/day, 5 fractions/week, for a total of ten (UMSCC-47 and PC3) or fifteen (H460) fractions; or (ii) 5 Gy/fraction/day, 3 fractions/week, for a total of four fractions (H460 and UMSCC-47). Mice were euthanized when the tumors reached 12.0 mm (H460 and UMSCC-47) or 11.0 mm (PC3) in average diameter. The endpoint was overall survival time (OS) of mice (defined as the number of days from treatment initiation to mice euthanasia). The OS of mice exposed to MRL versus C-linac was compared by a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Without radiation, the tumor growth of H460 exposed to C-linac and MRL were similar; the mean OSs of mice with UMSCC-47 and PC3 tumors exposed to MRL were barely longer than those exposed to C-linac (Table 1, MRL versus C-linac: p = 0.71 in UMSCC-47 tumors; p = 0.51 in PC3 tumors). Radiation using MRL or C-linac led to similar tumor response in H460 at all radiation settings; and in UMSCC-47 at 5 Gy/fraction setting. Scarcely extended mean OSs were observed in mice with UMSCC-47 and PC3 tumors irradiated with MRL versus those irradiated with C-linac at 2 Gy/fraction setting (Table 1, MRL versus C-linac: p = 0.64 in UMSCC-47 tumors; p = 0.70 in PC3 tumors). In conclusion, without radiation, exposure to the B0 of MRL has no effect on the growth of lung cancer xenograft tested; the growth of head and neck and prostate cancer xenografts tested were delayed by the B0 of MRL in a very limited manner. The H460 lung cancer xenograft responded similarly to both MRL and C-linac irradiation; the UMSCC-47 head and neck cancer and PC3 prostate cancer xenografts demonstrated a suggestion of delayed growth when irradiated by MRL versus C-linac. These data may help to inform the design of future clinical trials.Abstract 3527; Table 1Overall survival time of mice ( Mean ± SE in days)Tumor typeUMSCC-47PC3TreatmentMRLC-linacMRLC-linacWithout radiation56.22 ± 11.1545.45 ± 6.1967.53 ± 12.3058.67 ± 6.00With radiation68.64 ± 13.0061.04 ± 13.16102.00 ± 0.0092.67 ± 6.45 Open table in a new tab