Predictive biomarkers, side effects and tumor control in radiotherapy-treated male cancer patients
PO-1828
Abstract
Predictive biomarkers, side effects and tumor control in radiotherapy-treated male cancer patients
Authors: Zsolt Juranyi1, Zuzsa S. Kocsis1, Katalin Lumniczky2, Katalin Balázs3, Péter Ágoston4, Gyöngyi Farkas1, Viktória Tölgyesi1, Gábor Székely1, Tibor Major4, Csilla Pesznyák4, Gábor Stelczer4, Kliton Jorgo4, László Gesztesi4, Csaba Polgár5, Géza Sáfrány2
1National Institute of Oncology, Department of Radiobiology and Diagnostic Onco-Cytogenetics, Budapest, Hungary; 2National Public Health Center , Department of Radiation Medicine, Budapest, Hungary; 3National Public Health Center, Department of Radiation Medicine, Budapest, Hungary; 4National Institute of Oncology, Centre of Radiotherapy, Budapest, Hungary; 5National Institute of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Centre of Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
To perform a detailed analysis of the systemic immune
status and change in cytogenetic parameters of prostate cancer patients treated
with various radiotherapy protocols in order to mark potential biomarkers for
patient follow-up.
Material and Methods
Blood samples were collected before and after
radiotherapy, PBM cells were investigated by flow cytometry, chromosome
aberration technique was applied, protein profile of plasma samples of LDR
patients were analysed by LEGENDplex assays
Results
Chromosome aberrations increased after radiotherapy (HDR:
3.4±0,5 to 5.5±0.8; LDR: 2.9±0.4 to 6.4±0.5; EBRT: 4.2±0.4 to 17.2±1.9; Cyberknife:
4.5±0,5 to 11.3±1.5 total aberrations/100 cells). 1.8% Gr 3 acute genitourinal
(GU) side effects were observed. ≤ Gr 2 late GU toxicities were found after LDR
therapy (49.0%), the less after HDR treatment (18.5%). There were 3.4% late GI
side effects. IPSS questionnaire indicated the
highest distress after the last fraction of teletherapies (EBRT: 16.8±1.4,
Cyberknife: 16.9±1.2). Chromosome fragments frequency predicted cumulative GU
toxicities 3 months after HDR therapy (Pearson corr. coeff. 0.49). Radiation
induced lymphocyte apoptosis (RILA) was also measured to identify
radiosensitive patients. Correlation and regression analysis showed that
RILA values and chromosome aberration results are consistent. An increased level of
total circulating NK cells was detected 3 months after in LDR BT patients and
remains elevated up to 36 months compared to control group (CG) and
pre-treatment values as well. In HDR patients mature NK cell level decreased, while
degranulating and anergic NK cell levels significantly increased compared to CG.
The level of lymphoid DCs showed the same pattern in both patients groups; it
was increased in patients before therapy and remained unchanged up to 6 months
after therapy initiation. Changes of myeloid DCs was different; in LDR patients
elevated up to 12 months after the implantation, however in HDR group their
level was near to average of healthy controls. Cancer significantly reduced
naïve and activated CD8 cells and increased senescent CD8 and CD4 cells in HDR
patients compared to CG. Effector memory T cells increased in HDR-treated
patients 3 month after treatment compared to pre-treatment values, T stem cell
memory, central memory and terminal memory T cell levels remained below control
values up to 36 months.
Conclusion
Radiotherapy can influence
the changes of cellular and soluble markers in LDR and HDR patient groups as
well. The increases of lymphoid DCs, of the immature and degranulating NK cells are acute
effects of BT, while the increase of total circulating and anergic NK cells,
the activated and early-senescence CD8 and CD4 T cells and the decrease of
central and terminal memory T cells are late persistent chronic effects of
radiotherapy. Immunological values changed in parallel with cytogenetic
parameters, suggesting their use as predictive indicator of toxicity.