Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleProceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society of Biotherapeutic Approaches, 7 December, 2013, Fukuoka, Japan

Radiosensitivity Uncertainty Evaluation for the In Vitro Biophysical Modeling of EMT6 Cells

MASATAKA OITA, YOSHIHIRO UTO, MASAHIDE TOMINAGA, MOTOHARU SASAKI, YASUO HARA, TARO KISHI and HITOSHI HORI
Anticancer Research August 2014, 34 (8) 4621-4626;
MASATAKA OITA
1Department of Radiological Technology, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
2Department of Life System, Institute of Technology and Science, Graduate School, The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: oita-m{at}cc.okayama-u.ac.jp
YOSHIHIRO UTO
2Department of Life System, Institute of Technology and Science, Graduate School, The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MASAHIDE TOMINAGA
3Department of Radiological Technology, Institute of Health Biosciences, Graduate School, The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MOTOHARU SASAKI
4Department of Radiology, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YASUO HARA
4Department of Radiology, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TARO KISHI
4Department of Radiology, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HITOSHI HORI
2Department of Life System, Institute of Technology and Science, Graduate School, The University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The aims of this study were to evaluate the cell survival uncertainty distribution of radiation and to assess the accuracy of predictions of tumor response by using three different in vitro experimental cell cultures with radiosensitizers (including etanidazole). Materials and Methods: Using EMT6 cells and X-rays, the cell survival fraction was obtained from 15, 34, and 21 different experiments under normoxic, hypoxic, and hypoxic-plus-radiosensitizer culture, respectively. Results: The α coefficients were 0.257±0.188, 0.078±0.080, and 0.182±0.116 Gy−1, respectively. The β coefficients were 0.0159±0.0208, 0.0076±0.0113, and 0.0062±0.0077 Gy−2, respectively. The α coefficient and the dose that killed half of the clonogens population (D50) were significantly different between normoxic cell and hypoxic cell cultures (p<0.01), respectively. The use of radiosensitizers under hypoxic conditions improved radiosensitivity. Conclusion: Our results suggest that parameter value distributions are required for biophysical modeling of applications for radiotherapy.

  • Radiotherapy
  • biophysical modelling
  • radiosensitivity uncertainty
  • in vitro

In recent years, there have been rapid advances in radiotherapy technologies, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and image-guided radiotherapy (1-5). Because clinical failures after radiation therapy (due to hypoxia, intrinsic radioresistance, and cellular proliferation) are known to induce genetic changes, radiobiological parameters and molecular biological data from tumor and critical organs could be used in clinical practice for better treatment (6, 7).

Applying biophysical models to treatment planning in radiotherapy could increase tumor controllability and reduce toxicity to normal tissues (8, 9). It is well-recognized that radiation sensitivity is affected by cell heterogeneity and radiosensitizing agents (10-12). Nevertheless, there is uncertainty surrounding radiosensitivity because of the factors involved are not well-accounted for in biophysical modeling (13, 14). In particular, hypoxic cells in tumors lead to increased radioresistance of clonogens, which affects clinical outcome (15, 16). Etanidazole and misonidazole are well-known hypoxic cell radiosensitizers but have had limited therapeutic impact on radiotherapy because of side-effects such as neurotoxicity (17). For biophysical evaluation of physical dose prescriptions, including dose fractions and biological equivalent dose (BED), the linear quadratic (LQ) model based on intrinsic radiosensitivity is commonly used in practical radiotherapy (18). However, to make precise predictions on outcomes after radiotherapy at the treatment planning stage, the above-mentioned uncertainties of radiation sensitivity would need to be carefully considered.

In this study, we evaluated the distribution of uncertainty of cell survival due to radiation and assessed tumor response predictions using three different in vitro experimental cell cultures. We then discuss the relationship between in vitro radiosensitizing activities and uncertainties in cell survival characteristics using radiobiological parameters.

Materials and Methods

Development of the experimental system. Etanidazole was synthesized in our laboratory. EMT6/KU mouse mammary tumor cells (supplied by Dr. Shinichiro Masunaga, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan) were maintained in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM) (Sigma-Aldrich Japan, Tokyo, Japan) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (JR Scientific, Inc., Woodland, CA, USA). For single-cell experiments, exponentially-growing cells were harvested from normoxic cell culture dishes by trypsinization, and suspended in test tubes containing 1 ml of E-MEM (2×106 cells/ml). The hypoxic cultures were treated with 95% N2–5% CO2 gas for 30 min. In vitro radiosensitization was also measured in single EMT6 cells by adding radiosensitizer under hypoxic conditions.

Radiation procedure. X-Ray irradiation was carried out using an X-ray unit (Hitachi X-ray unit, model MBR-1505R2) with 0.5 mm Al/1.0 mm Cu filter (150 kV, 4 Gy/min). In in vitro assays, cells on the dish were irradiated with 4-28 Gy. After irradiation, colony formation assays were performed.

Biophysical modeling. The LQ formalism is used for tumor cure probability curves, which reflect the various tumor parameters. The probability of cells surviving a single dose is given by: Embedded Image (Eq. 1) where N equals the number of surviving cells, N0 equals the number of tumor cells at the start of experiment, α and β are the estimates of radiosensitivity, and D is the total dose given. It follows directly from the above assumptions that the effect of n equally sized fractions and d equally dosed fractions can be shown by: Embedded Image (Eq. 2) The Poisson probability of there being zero surviving cells at the end of a fractionated treatment is then given as the tumor control probability (TCP) by: Embedded Image (Eq. 3) where the other parameters are as given in Eq. 1 and 2.

To evaluate the effects of the radiation sensitizer and the varying sensitivities due to the different cell cultures, data were obtained from 15, 34, and 21 different experiments under normoxic cell culture, hypoxic cell culture, and hypoxic cell culture-plus-radiosensitizer, respectively. For each cell culture, the averaged survival fraction (SF) after a single fraction was calculated based on three repeated experiments and entered into the model. Then summarized dose survival data by each cultured experiment were fitted by the model, and biological parameters, α, β, D50, and γ50 were calculated. D50 and γ50 represented the dose that killed half of the clonogens population and the steepness of a dose–response level, which was defined as SF=0.5, respectively. The effects of cell proliferation and repair were not taken into consideration in this study.

Statistical analysis. Exponential regression analyses were used to assess α and β coefficients, respectively. Statistical comparisons of mean values were analyzed by two-sample independent t-test. All the data were analyzed using OriginLab (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA) scientific graphing and statistical analysis software. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Surviving fractions of EMT6 cells in vitro under normoxia, hypoxia, and hypoxia-plus-etanidazole (ETZ) culture. Fitted curves (solid line) represent the approximated curves of α and β coefficients from exponential regression analysis.

Results

Radiation response of the single cell. Single-cell survival after single-dose fraction in different cell cultures is shown in Figure 1. Fitted curves using median parameter values of α and β coefficients from exponential regression analysis (solid and dotted lines, respectively), and the effect of each coefficient on the curves (α contribution: dark gray, β contribution: light gray) are presented in Figure 2. It can be seen that etanidazole enhanced the radiosensitivity of EMT6 cells in a dose-dependent manner under hypoxic conditions. The variations in predicted survival at higher single doses may be increased; however, this increase could be suppressed by radiosensitizers.

Comparisons of radiobiological parameters. The radiobiological parameters from these experiments are summarized in Table I. The α and D50 values were significantly different between normoxic and hypoxic cell cultures (p<0.01).

Effects of cell survival and tumor control probability on variation in radiobiological parameters. Figure 2 shows that when the α coefficient values were fixed (light gray), the variations in cell survival curves at high doses were increased; a similar trend is seen for the β coefficient values (dark gray) in all cell cultures. The effects of α and β coefficients on TCP (gray shaded area) are shown in Figure 3A-C. Under hypoxic conditions, the mean values of α and β coefficients were smaller and the D50 much higher than under normoxic conditions (Table I). It is apparent that the TCP under such conditions was much lower than that at the same dose under normoxic conditions. The number of cells (proxy for tumor size) is another clinical factor of radioresistance, albeit less effective than the variations of α and β coefficients for detecting early cancer (N0≤108) as shown in Figure 3D-F.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Surviving fractions of EMT6 cells in vitro for cells cultured under normoxic (A), hypoxic (B), and hypoxic-plus-etanidazole (ETZ) (C) conditions. Fitted curves (solid line) represent the approximated curves of α and β coefficients from exponential regression analysis (solid line and dotted line). The effect of each coefficient on the curves are represent by dark gray shading for the α contribution and by light gray shading for the β contribution with 95% confidence intervals (CI), respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Radiobiological parameters of intrinsic in vitro radiosensitivity of EMT6 cells.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Variations of calculated tumor control probability curves for EMT6 cells in vitro for normoxic (A, D), hypoxic (B, E), and hypoxic-plus-etanidazole (ETZ) (C, F) culture related to α and β coefficients and cell numbers. Fitted curves (solid line) in A-C represent the approximated curves of α and β coefficients from exponential regression analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (gray shaded area) in the case of N0=108, respectively.

Discussion

The LQ formalism with α and β coefficients provides quantification of radiobiological response, which describes the radiation inactivation of cell mixtures of different intrinsic radiosensitivity. However, in clinical setting, some factors such as inappropriate derivation of α/β values from single in vitro assays, clarification of radiation-induced late effects, and variations in individual α/β values, might cause unclear interpretation of the results obtained from early- and late-responding tissues (19).

Although the α coefficient is relatively constant throughout the interphase of the cell cycle (20), the intra-tumor heterogeneity could cause variations in intrinsic radiosensitivity at a single-fraction dose. Our data show that the variation of the α coefficient was nearly the same as that in previous studies (21). Consequently, it is suggested the one the variation in the α coefficient is of the same order as the radiosensitivity exhibited by asynchronous populations. It is thought that the β coefficient is relatively invariant and its contribution to cell death is much smaller at conventional treatment doses (22). However, since hypo-fractionation techniques are clinically implemented, it is suggested the effects of the β coefficient will not be negligible.

Wide ranges of the α/β ratios, which can lead to a cell-lethal dose, were shown in our study, including a negative value. The results were caused by a negative β coefficient through differing sensitivities of the cells in the heterogeneous populations at the high-dose region. Moreover, in the curve-fitting process, the data are often more complex than those described using the linear quadratic equation. In the case of single, very high-dose fraction experiments, the survival curve might be dependent on the experimental conditions.

Figure 1 shows the radiosensitivities in different cell cultures. The hypoxic cells appear to be twice as radioresistant as normoxic cells by survival fraction. Intratumoral hypoxic cell proportions are a major complicating factor in cancer therapy, and are an important target for anticancer drug design (23). It can be seen that the use of etanidazole under hypoxic conditions improved the radiosensitivity by enhancement ratio (ER) of 1.72 at mean survival fraction, a value almost equal to that of a previous study (24). Hypoxic cells, which represent one source of tumor heterogeneity, can lead to shallow response and survival curves with low α coefficient. The effects of the variations of α and β coefficients, if either one were fixed to the median value, are shown in Figure 2. Under hypoxic conditions, the effects of radiosensitizing by etanidazole are shown to increase the α coefficient, with a decrease of variation in the α and β coefficients. However, under such conditions, the β coefficient's contribution to radiosensitivity was relatively small. Consequently, the results suggest that etanidazole could lead to reduction of tumor heterogeneity at high doses, including the change of oxygen tension and electron affinity.

Figure 3 shows the variations of calculated TCP curves accounting for the discrepancies of α and β coefficients and cell numbers (tumor volume). Several authors have pointed-out that a precise prediction could potentially be possible by assuming distribution of intrinsic radiosensitivity under various cellular circumstances (14, 25). Another important factor for determining the TCP is the number of cells that should be killed to result in a tumor cure; studies have shown a consistent cell density of 0.5-1.0×106/g (26, 27). Consequently, the number of cells would be in the order of 107-109 in a typical tumor volume of 0.01-100 ml in clinical settings. In addition, non-proliferating tumor cells are considered to be more resistant to radiation than proliferating cells (28). Proliferation is a highly important factor influencing the TCP, especially for highly fractionated treatment schedules (29). It could also be reasonable to consider that the variations of intrinsic radiosensitivities of cells in vitro, tumor cells extracted by biopsy, or the use of tumor-bearing chick embryo (30), will predict the radiation response of similar cells in vivo. The purpose of this study is not to claim that we fully-understand how to model the precise radiation response, but rather to show that important biophysical parameters are useful for predicting tumor response. In conclusion, our results suggest that the distributions of the parameter values are required for biophysical modeling of applications for radiotherapy. Further advancement would benefit from additional experiments employing different tumor models, and thus, in vivo studies are necessary.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) No. 25861105 from MEXT Japan.

  • Received April 4, 2014.
  • Revision received June 10, 2014.
  • Accepted June 11, 2014.
  • Copyright© 2014 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Oita M,
    2. Ohmori K,
    3. Obinata K,
    4. Kinoshita R,
    5. Onimaru R,
    6. Tsuchiya K,
    7. Suzuki K,
    8. Nishioka T,
    9. Ohsaka H,
    10. Fujita K,
    11. Shimamura T,
    12. Shirato H,
    13. Miyasaka K
    : Uncertainty in treatment of head-and-neck tumors by use of intraoral mouthpiece and embedded fiducials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64: 1581-1588, 2006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Onimaru R,
    2. Shirato H,
    3. Shimizu S,
    4. Kitamura K,
    5. Xu B,
    6. Fukumoto S,
    7. Chang TC,
    8. Fujita K,
    9. Oita M,
    10. Miyasaka K,
    11. Nishimura M,
    12. Dosaka-Akita H
    : Tolerance of organs at risk in small-volume, hypofractionated, image-guided radiotherapy for primary and metastatic lung cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56: 126-135, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pardo-Montero J,
    2. Fenwick JD
    : An approach to multiobjective optimization of rotational therapy. II. Pareto optimal surfaces and linear combinations of modulated blocked arcs for a prostate geometry. Med Phys 37: 2606-2616, 2010.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Thariat J,
    2. Bolle S,
    3. Demizu Y,
    4. Marcy PY,
    5. Hu Y,
    6. Santini J,
    7. Bourhis J,
    8. Pommier P
    : New techniques in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: IMRT, CyberKnife, protons, and carbon ions. Improved effectiveness and safety? Impact on survival? Anticancer Drugs 22: 596-606, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Yoshitake T,
    2. Nakamura K,
    3. Shioyama Y,
    4. Sasaki T,
    5. Ohga S,
    6. Nonoshita T,
    7. Terashima K,
    8. Asai K,
    9. Matsumoto K,
    10. Honda H
    : Stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency requiring domiciliary oxygen therapy. Anticancer Res 32: 4041-4044, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Eisenmann S,
    2. Voigt W,
    3. Muller T,
    4. Dempke W
    : Sequential X-irradiation induced acquired resistance to oxaliplatin but increased sensitivity to cisplatin in two human teratoma cell lines in vitro. Anticancer Res 30: 4471-4476, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Hayes M,
    2. Lan C,
    3. Yan J,
    4. Xie Y,
    5. Gray T,
    6. Amirkhan RH,
    7. Dowell JE
    : ERCC1 expression and outcomes in head and neck cancer treated with concurrent cisplatin and radiation. Anticancer Res 31: 4135-4139, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. El Sharouni SY,
    2. Kal HB,
    3. Battermann JJ
    : Tumour control probability of stage III inoperable non-small cell lung tumours after sequential chemo-radiotherapy. Anticancer Res 25: 4655-4661, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Gluck I,
    2. Vineberg KA,
    3. Ten Haken RK,
    4. Sandler HM
    : Evaluating the relationships between rectal normal tissue complication probability and the portion of seminal vesicles included in the clinical target volume in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73: 334-340, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Masunaga S,
    2. Uto Y,
    3. Nagasawa H,
    4. Hori H,
    5. Nagata K,
    6. Suzuki M,
    7. Kinashi Y,
    8. Ono K
    : Evaluation of hypoxic cell radiosensitizers in terms of radio-sensitizing and repair-inhibiting potential. Dependency on p53 status of tumor cells and the effects on intratumor quiescent cells. Anticancer Res 26: 1261-1270, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Seiz M,
    2. Kohlhof P,
    3. Brockmann MA,
    4. Neumaier-Probst E,
    5. Hermes P,
    6. VOND A,
    7. Vajkoczy P,
    8. Schmieder K,
    9. Tuettenberg J
    : First experiences with low-dose anti-angiogenic treatment in gliomatosis cerebri with signs of angiogenic activity. Anticancer Res 29: 3261-3267, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Yamazaki H,
    2. Nakamura S,
    3. Nishimura T,
    4. Kodani N,
    5. Tsubokura T,
    6. Kimoto T,
    7. Sihomi H,
    8. Aibe N,
    9. Yoshida K,
    10. Koizumi M,
    11. Kagiya T
    : Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy with the hypoxic sensitizer AK-2123 (sanazole) for reirradiation of brain metastases: a preliminary feasibility report. Anticancer Res 33: 1773-1776, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Dasu A,
    2. Toma-Dasu I,
    3. Fowler JF
    : Should single or distributed parameters be used to explain the steepness of tumour control probability curves? Phys Med Biol 48: 387-397, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Gong J,
    2. Dos Santos MM,
    3. Finlay C,
    4. Hillen T
    : Are more complicated tumour control probability models better? Math Med Biol 30: 1-19, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Hall EJ,
    2. Astor M,
    3. Bedford J,
    4. Borek C,
    5. Curtis SB,
    6. Fry M,
    7. Geard C,
    8. Hei T,
    9. Mitchell J,
    10. Oleinick N,
    11. Rubin J,
    12. Tu A,
    13. Ullrich R,
    14. Waldren C,
    15. Ward J
    : Basic radiobiology. Am J Clin Oncol 11: 220-252, 1988.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Harada H
    : How can we overcome tumor hypoxia in radiation therapy? J Radiat Res 52: 545-556, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brown JM,
    2. Diehn M,
    3. Loo BW Jr..
    : Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy should be combined with a hypoxic cell radiosensitizer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78: 323-327, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Lee SP,
    2. Leu MY,
    3. Smathers JB,
    4. McBride WH,
    5. Parker RG,
    6. Withers HR
    : Biologically effective dose distribution based on the linear quadratic model and its clinical relevance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33: 375-389, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Brenner DJ,
    2. Sachs RK,
    3. Peters LJ,
    4. Withers HR,
    5. Hall EJ
    : We forget at our peril the lessons built into the alpha/beta model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82: 1312-1314, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Biade S,
    2. Stobbe CC,
    3. Chapman JD
    : The intrinsic radiosensitivity of some human tumor cells throughout their cell cycles. Radiat Res 147: 416-421, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Deacon J,
    2. Peckham MJ,
    3. Steel GG
    : The radioresponsiveness of human tumours and the initial slope of the cell survival curve. Radiother Oncol 2: 317-323, 1984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Chapman JD
    : Can the two mechanisms of tumor cell killing by radiation be exploited for therapeutic gain? J Radiat Res 55: 2-9, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Heddleston JM,
    2. Li Z,
    3. Lathia JD,
    4. Bao S,
    5. Hjelmeland AB,
    6. Rich JN
    : Hypoxia inducible factors in cancer stem cells. Br J Cancer 102: 789-795, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Brown JM,
    2. Workman P
    : Partition coefficient as a guide to the development of radiosensitizers which are less toxic than misonidazole. Radiat Res 82: 171-190, 1980.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Sanchez-Nieto B,
    2. Nahum AE
    : The delta-TCP concept: A clinically useful measure of tumor control probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44: 369-380, 1999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Baker F,
    2. Sanger L
    : The Density of Clonogenic Cells in Human Solid Tumors. Int J Cell Cloning 9: 155-165, 1991.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. West CML,
    2. Davidson SE,
    3. Roberts SA,
    4. Hunter RD
    : Intrinsic radiosensitivity and prediction of patient response to radiotherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer 68: 819-823, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Suit HD,
    2. Zietman A,
    3. Tomkinson K,
    4. Ramsay J,
    5. Gerweck L,
    6. Sedlacek R
    : Radiation Response of xenografts of a human squamous-cell carcinoma and a glioblastoma-multiforme – a progress report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18: 365-373, 1990.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Harting C,
    2. Peschke P,
    3. Borkenstein K,
    4. Karger CP
    : Single-cell-based computer simulation of the oxygen-dependent tumour response to irradiation. Phys Med Biol 52: 4775-4789, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Abe C,
    2. Uto Y,
    3. Nakae T,
    4. Shinmoto Y,
    5. Sano K,
    6. Nakata H,
    7. Teraoka M,
    8. Endo Y,
    9. Maezawa H,
    10. Masunaga S,
    11. Nakata E,
    12. Hori H
    : Evaluation of the in vivo radiosensitizing activity of etanidazole using tumor-bearing chick embryo. J Radiat Res 52: 208-214, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research
Vol. 34, Issue 8
August 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Radiosensitivity Uncertainty Evaluation for the In Vitro Biophysical Modeling of EMT6 Cells
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 16 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Radiosensitivity Uncertainty Evaluation for the In Vitro Biophysical Modeling of EMT6 Cells
MASATAKA OITA, YOSHIHIRO UTO, MASAHIDE TOMINAGA, MOTOHARU SASAKI, YASUO HARA, TARO KISHI, HITOSHI HORI
Anticancer Research Aug 2014, 34 (8) 4621-4626;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Radiosensitivity Uncertainty Evaluation for the In Vitro Biophysical Modeling of EMT6 Cells
MASATAKA OITA, YOSHIHIRO UTO, MASAHIDE TOMINAGA, MOTOHARU SASAKI, YASUO HARA, TARO KISHI, HITOSHI HORI
Anticancer Research Aug 2014, 34 (8) 4621-4626;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Novel Treatment Strategies for Cancer and Their Tumor-targeting Approaches Using Antibodies Against Tumor-associated Antigens
  • The Roles of ZFAT in Thymocyte Differentiation and Homeostasis of Peripheral Naive T-Cells
  • Benefit of Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer: Long-term Analysis of 944 Cases Undergoing Surgery at a Single Center (1975-2004)
Show more Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society of Biotherapeutic Approaches, 7 December, 2013, Fukuoka, Japan

Keywords

  • radiotherapy
  • biophysical modelling
  • radiosensitivity uncertainty
  • in vitro
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire