Alpha Particle-Emitting Radiopharmaceuticals as Cancer Therapy: Biological Basis, Current Status, and Future Outlook for Therapeutics Discovery.

Critical advances in radionuclide therapy have led to encouraging new options for cancer treatment through the pairing of clinically useful radiation-emitting radionuclides and innovative pharmaceutical discovery. Of the various subatomic particles used in therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals, alpha (α) particles show great promise owing to their relatively large size, delivered energy, finite pathlength, and resulting ionization density. This review discusses the therapeutic benefits of α-emitting radiopharmaceuticals and their pairing with appropriate diagnostics, resulting in innovative "theranostic" platforms. Herein, the current landscape of α particle-emitting radionuclides is described with an emphasis on their use in theranostic development for cancer treatment. Commonly studied radionuclides are introduced and recent efforts towards their production for research and clinical use are described. The growing popularity of these radionuclides is explained through summarizing the biological effects of α radiation on cancer cells, which include DNA damage, activation of discrete cell death programs, and downstream immune responses. Examples of efficient α-theranostic design are described with an emphasis on strategies that lead to cellular internalization and the targeting of proteins involved in therapeutic resistance. Historical barriers to the clinical deployment of α-theranostic radiopharmaceuticals are also discussed. Recent progress towards addressing these challenges is presented along with examples of incorporating α-particle therapy in pharmaceutical platforms that can be easily converted into diagnostic counterparts.

Targeted Inhibition of DNA-PKcs, ATM, ATR, PARP, and Rad51 Modulate Response to X Rays and Protons.

Small molecule inhibitors are currently in preclinical and clinical development for the treatment of selected cancers, particularly those with existing genetic alterations in DNA repair and DNA damage response (DDR) pathways. Keen interest has also been expressed in combining such agents with other targeted antitumor strategies such as radiotherapy. Radiotherapy exerts its cytotoxic effects primarily through DNA damage-induced cell death; therefore, inhibiting DNA repair and the DDR should lead to additive and/or synergistic radiosensitizing effects. In this study we screened the response to X-ray or proton radiation in cell lines treated with DDR inhibitors (DDRis) targeting ATM, ATR, DNA-PKcs, Rad51, and PARP, with survival metrics established using clonogenic assays. We observed that DDRis generate significant radiosensitization in cancer and primary cells derived from normal tissue. Existing genetic defects in cancer cells appear to be an important consideration when determining the optimal inhibitor to use for synergistic combination with radiation. We also show that while greater radiosensitization can be achieved with protons (9.9 keV/µm) combined with DDRis, the relative biological effectiveness is unchanged or in some cases reduced. Our results indicate that while targeting the DDR can significantly radiosensitize cancer cells to such combinations, normal cells may also be equally or more severely affected, depending on the DDRi used. These data highlight the importance of identifying genetic defects as predictive biomarkers of response for combination treatment.

An empirical model of proton RBE based on the linear correlation between x-ray and proton radiosensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is known to depend on physical factors of the proton beam, such as its linear energy transfer (LET), as well as on cell-line specific biological factors, such as their ability to repair DNA damage. However, in a clinical setting, proton RBE is still considered to have a fixed value of 1.1 despite the existence of several empirical models that can predict proton RBE based on how a cell's survival curve (linear-quadratic model [LQM]) parameters α and ß vary with the LET of the proton beam. Part of the hesitation to incorporate variable RBE models in the clinic is due to the great noise in the biological datasets on which these models are trained, often making it unclear which model, if any, provides sufficiently accurate RBE predictions to warrant a departure from RBE = 1.1. PURPOSE: Here, we introduce a novel model of proton RBE based on how a cell's intrinsic radiosensitivity varies with LET, rather than its LQM parameters. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed clonogenic cell survival assays for eight cell lines exposed to 6 MV x-rays and 1.2, 2.6, or 9.9 keV/µm protons, and combined our measurements with published survival data (n = 397 total cell line/LET combinations). We characterized how radiosensitivity metrics of the form DSF% , (the dose required to achieve survival fraction [SF], e.g., D10% ) varied with proton LET, and calculated the Bayesian information criteria associated with different LET-dependent functions to determine which functions best described the underlying trends. This allowed us to construct a six-parameter model that predicts cells' proton survival curves based on the LET dependence of their radiosensitivity, rather than the LET dependence of the LQM parameters themselves. We compared the accuracy of our model to previously established empirical proton RBE models, and implemented our model within a clinical treatment plan evaluation workflow to demonstrate its feasibility in a clinical setting. RESULTS: Our analyses of the trends in the data show that DSF% is linearly correlated between x-rays and protons, regardless of the choice of the survival level (e.g., D10% , D37% , or D50% are similarly correlated), and that the slope and intercept of these correlations vary with proton LET. The model we constructed based on these trends predicts proton RBE within 15%-30% at the 68.3% confidence level and offers a more accurate general description of the experimental data than previously published empirical models. In the context of a clinical treatment plan, our model generally predicted higher RBE-weighted doses than the other empirical models, with RBE-weighted doses in the distal portion of the field being up to 50.7% higher than the planned RBE-weighted doses (RBE = 1.1) to the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: We established a new empirical proton RBE model that is more accurate than previous empirical models, and that predicts much higher RBE values in the distal edge of clinical proton beams.

Effect of boron compounds on the biological effectiveness of proton therapy.

PURPOSE: We assessed whether adding sodium borocaptate (BSH) or 4-borono-l-phenylalanine (BPA) to cells irradiated with proton beams influenced the biological effectiveness of those beams against prostate cancer cells to investigate if the alpha particles generated through proton-boron nuclear reactions would be sufficient to enhance the biological effectiveness of the proton beams. METHODS: We measured clonogenic survival in DU145 cells treated with 80.4-ppm BSH or 86.9-ppm BPA, or their respective vehicles, after irradiation with 6-MV X-rays, 1.2-keV/µm (low linear energy transfer [LET]) protons, or 9.9-keV/µm (high-LET) protons. We also measured γH2AX and 53BP1 foci in treated cells at 1 and 24 h after irradiation with the same conditions. RESULTS: We found that BSH radiosensitized DU145 cells across all radiation types. However, no difference was found in relative radiosensitization, characterized by the sensitization enhancement ratio or the relative biological effectiveness, for vehicle- versus BSH-treated cells. No differences were found in numbers of γH2AX or 53BP1 foci or γH2AX/53BP1 colocalized foci for vehicle- versus BSH-treated cells across radiation types. BPA did not radiosensitize DU145 cells nor induced any significant differences when comparing vehicle- versus BPA-treated cells for clonogenic cell survival or γH2AX and 53BP1 foci or γH2AX/53BP1 colocalized foci. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with 11 B, at concentrations of 80.4 ppm from BSH or 86.9 ppm from BPA, had no effect on the biological effectiveness of proton beams in DU145 prostate cancer cells. Our results agree with published theoretical calculations indicating that the contribution of alpha particles from such reactions to the total absorbed dose and biological effectiveness is negligible. We also found that BSH radiosensitized DU145 cells to X-rays, low-LET protons, and high-LET protons but that the radiosensitization was not related to DNA damage.