Roadmap to clinical use of gold nanoparticles for radiation sensitization

The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in interest in the use of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) as radiation sensitizers for radiation therapy. This interest was initially driven by their strong absorption of ionizing radiation and the resulting ability to increase dose deposited within target volumes even at relatively low concentrations. These early observations are supported by extensive experimental validation, showing GNPs' efficacy at sensitizing tumors in both in vitro and in vivo systems to a range of types of ionizing radiation, including kilovoltage and megavoltage X rays as well as charged particles. Despite this experimental validation, there has been limited translation of GNP-mediated radiation sensitization to a clinical setting. One of the key challenges in this area is the wide range of experimental systems that have been investigated, spanning a range of particle sizes, shapes, and preparations. As a result, mechanisms of uptake and radiation sensitization have remained difficult to clearly identify. This has proven a significant impediment to the identification of optimal GNP formulations which strike a balance among their radiation sensitizing properties, their specificity to the tumors, their biocompatibility, and their imageability in vivo. This white paper reviews the current state of knowledge in each of the areas concerning the use of GNPs as radiosensitizers, and outlines the steps which will be required to advance GNP-enhanced radiation therapy from their current pre-clinical setting to clinical trials and eventual routine usage.

Gold nanoparticle induced vasculature damage in radiotherapy: Comparing protons, megavoltage photons, and kilovoltage photons

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to investigate the radiosensitizing effect of gold nanoparticle (GNP) induced vasculature damage for proton, megavoltage (MV) photon, and kilovoltage (kV) photon irradiation. Methods: Monte Carlo simulations were carried out using tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) to obtain the spatial dose distribution in close proximity up to 20 µm from the GNPs. The spatial dose distribution from GNPs was used as an input to calculate the dose deposited to the blood vessels. GNP induced vasculature damage was evaluated for three particle sources (a clinical spread out Bragg peak proton beam, a 6 MV photon beam, and two kV photon beams). For each particle source, various depths in tissue, GNP sizes (2, 10, and 20 nm diameter), and vessel diameters (8, 14, and 20 µm) were investigated. Two GNP distributions in lumen were considered, either homogeneously distributed in the vessel or attached to the inner wall of the vessel. Doses of 30 Gy and 2 Gy were considered, representing typical in vivo enhancement studies and conventional clinical fractionation, respectively. Results: These simulations showed that for 20 Au-mg/g GNP blood concentration homogeneously distributed in the vessel, the additional dose at the inner vascular wall encircling the lumen was 43% of the prescribed dose at the depth of treatment for the 250 kVp photon source, 1% for the 6 MV photon source, and 0.1% for the proton beam. For kV photons, GNPs caused 15% more dose in the vascular wall for 150 kVp source than for 250 kVp. For 6 MV photons, GNPs caused 0.2% more dose in the vascular wall at 20 cm depth in water as compared to at depth of maximum dose (Dmax). For proton therapy, GNPs caused the same dose in the vascular wall for all depths across the spread out Bragg peak with 12.7 cm range and 7 cm modulation. For the same weight of GNPs in the vessel, 2 nm diameter GNPs caused three times more damage to the vessel than 20 nm diameter GNPs. When the GNPs were attached to the inner vascular wall, the damage to the inner vascular wall can be up to 207% of the prescribed dose for the 250 kVp photon source, 4% for the 6 MV photon source, and 2% for the proton beam. Even though the average dose increase from the proton beam and MV photon beam was not large, there were high dose spikes that elevate the local dose of the parts of the blood vessel to be higher than 15 Gy even for 2 Gy prescribed dose, especially when the GNPs can be actively targeted to the endothelial cells. Conclusions: GNPs can potentially be used to enhance radiation therapy by causing vasculature damage through high dose spikes caused by the addition of GNPs especially for hypofractionated treatment. If GNPs are designed to actively accumulate at the tumor vasculature walls, vasculature damage can be increased significantly. The largest enhancement is seen using kilovoltage photons due to the photoelectric effect. Although no significant average dose enhancement was observed for the whole vasculature structure for both MV photons and protons, they can cause high local dose escalation (>15 Gy) to areas of the blood vessel that can potentially contribute to the disruption of the functionality of the blood vessels in the tumor.

Comparing gold nano-particle enhanced radiotherapy with protons, megavoltage photons and kilovoltage photons: a Monte Carlo simulation

Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) have shown potential to be used as a radiosensitizer for radiation therapy. Despite extensive research activity to study GNP radiosensitization using photon beams, only a few studies have been carried out using proton beams. In this work Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess the dose enhancement of GNPs for proton therapy. The enhancement effect was compared between a clinical proton spectrum, a clinical 6 MV photon spectrum, and a kilovoltage photon source similar to those used in many radiobiology lab settings. We showed that the mechanism by which GNPs can lead to dose enhancements in radiation therapy differs when comparing photon and proton radiation. The GNP dose enhancement using protons can be up to 14 and is independent of proton energy, while the dose enhancement is highly dependent on the photon energy used. For the same amount of energy absorbed in the GNP, interactions with protons, kVp photons and MV photons produce similar doses within several nanometers of the GNP surface, and differences are below 15% for the first 10 nm. However, secondary electrons produced by kilovoltage photons have the longest range in water as compared to protons and MV photons, e.g. they cause a dose enhancement 20 times higher than the one caused by protons 10 μm away from the GNP surface. We conclude that GNPs have the potential to enhance radiation therapy depending on the type of radiation source. Proton therapy can be enhanced significantly only if the GNPs are in close proximity to the biological target.

Efficacy and Safety of Radium-223 Dichloride in Symptomatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients With or Without Baseline Opioid Use From the Phase 3 ALSYMPCA Trial

Background: The phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial enrolled metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without baseline opioid use.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) versus placebo in ALSYMPCA patients by baseline opioid use.

Design, setting, and participants: Nine hundred and twenty one patients enrolled at 136 centers globally.

Intervention: Radium-223 (50 kBq/kg, intravenous injection) every 4 wk for six cycles or matching placebo, each plus best standard of care.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]), main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety were evaluated by baseline opioid use. Additional analyses included time to first opioid use, time to first external beam radiation therapy for bone pain, and safety of concomitant external beam radiation therapy.

Results and limitations: At baseline, 408 (44%) patients had no pain and no analgesic use or mild pain with nonopioid therapy (World Health Organization ladder pain score 0–1 [nonopioid subgroup]), and 513 (56%) had moderate pain with occasional opioids or severe pain with regular daily opioids (World Health Organization ladder pain score 2–3 [opioid subgroup]). Radium-223 significantly prolonged OS versus placebo in nonopioid (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.93; p = 0.013) and opioid (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54–0.86; p = 0.001) subgroups, and significantly reduced risk of symptomatic skeletal events versus placebo, regardless of baseline opioid use (nonopioid subgroup: HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39–0.82, p = 0.002; opioid subgroup: HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, p = 0.038). Time to first opioid use for bone pain was significantly delayed with radium-223 versus placebo (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46–0.85,p = 0.002). Adverse event incidences were similar between opioid subgroups.

Conclusions: Radium-223 versus placebo significantly prolonged OS and reduced symptomatic skeletal event risk with a favorable safety profile in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases, regardless of baseline opioid use.

Patient summary: In this ALSYMPCA opioid subgroup analysis, baseline symptom levels did not appear to impact radium-223 dichloride efficacy or safety.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

ARB: Phase II window of opportunity study of short-term preoperative treatment with enzalutamide in ER-positive and triple-negative breast cancer

The androgen receptor (AR) is expressed in 60-80% of breast cancers (BC) across all molecular phenotypes, with a higher incidence in oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) BC compared to ER negative tumours. In ER+ disease, AR-expression has been linked to endocrine resistance which might be reversed with combined treatment targeting ER and AR. In triple negative BCs (TNBC), preclinical and clinical investigations have described a subset of patients that express the AR and are sensitive to androgen blockade, providing a novel therapeutic target. Enzalutamide, a potent 2nd generation anti-androgen, has demonstrated substantial preclinical and clinical anti-tumour activity in AR+ breast cancer. Short-term preoperative window of opportunity studies are a validated strategy for novel treatments to provide proof-of-concept and define the most appropriate patient population by directly assessing treatment effects in tumour tissue before and after treatment. The ARB study aims to assess the anti-tumour effects of enzalutamide in early ER+ breast cancer and TNBC, to identify the optimal target population for further studies and to directly explore the biologic effects of enzalutamide on BC and stromal cells. Methods: ARB is an international, investigator sponsored WOO phase II study in women with newly diagnosed primary ER+ BC or AR+ TNBC of ≥ 1cm. The study has two cohorts. In the ER+ cohort, postmenopausal patients will be randomised 2:1 to receive either enzalutamide (160mg OD) plus exemestane (50mg OD) or exemestane (25mg OD). In the TNBC cohort, AR+ will receive single agent treatment with enzalutamide (160mg OD). Study treatment is planned for 15–29 days, followed by surgery or neo-adjuvant therapy. Tissue and blood samples are collected before treatment and on the last day of study treatment. The primary endpoint is inhibition of tumour-cell proliferation, as measured by change in Ki67 expression, determined centrally by 2 investigators. Secondary endpoints include induction of apoptosis (Caspase3), circulating hormone levels and safety. ARB aims to recruit ≈235 patients from ≈40 sites in the UK, Germany, Spain and USA. The study is open to recruitment.

Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

Modelling responses to spatially fractionated radiation fields using preclinical image-guided radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy is planned to achieve the optimal physical dose distribution to the target tumour volume whilst minimising dose to the surrounding normal tissue. Recent in vitro experimental evidence has demonstrated an important role for intercellular communication in radiobiological responses following non-uniform exposures. This study aimed to model the impact of these effects in the context of techniques involving highly modulated radiation fields or spatially fractionated treatments such as GRID therapy.

METHODS: Using the small animal radiotherapy research platform (SARRP) as a key enabling technology to deliver precision imaged-guided radiotherapy, it is possible to achieve spatially modulated dose distributions that model typical clinical scenarios. In this work, we planned uniform and spatially fractionated dose distributions using multiple isocentres with beam sizes of 0.5 - 5 mm to obtain 50% volume coverage in a subcutaneous murine tumour model, and applied a model of cellular response that incorporates intercellular communication to assess the potential impact of signalling effects with different ranges.

RESULTS: Models of GRID treatment plans which incorporate intercellular signalling showed increased cell killing within the low dose region. This results in an increase in the Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD) for GRID exposures compared to standard models, with some GRID exposures being predicted to be more effective than uniform delivery of the same physical dose.

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential impact of radiation induced signalling on tumour cell response for spatially fractionated therapies and identifies key experiments to validate this model and quantify these effects in vivo.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study highlights the unique opportunities now possible using advanced preclinical techniques to develop a foundation for biophysical optimisation in radiotherapy treatment planning.

The Challenges Faced in Developing Novel Drug Radiation Combinations in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in the UK. Outcomes for patients with this disease remain poor and new strategies to treat this disease require investigation. One potential option is to combine novel agents with radiotherapy in clinical studies. Here we discuss some of the important issues to consider when combining novel agents with radiotherapy, together with potential solutions as discussed at a recent Clinical Translational Radiotherapy Group (CTRad) workshop.