Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Efficiency Comparison between Radiotherapy Alone And In The Presence of Radio- or Photo- Sensitizers on Viability of DFW and HT29 Cell Lines: From Simulations to Experimental Results

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors
Farideh Sadat Hosseini 1
Nadia Naghavi 1
Ameneh Sazgarnia 2
Atefeh Vejdani Noghreiyan 3
1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2 Medical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran Department of Medical Physics Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, School of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
10.22038/ijmp.2024.77566.2366
Abstract
Introduction: Radiotherapy (RT) is a conventional cancer treatment which address needs of most cancerous patients. However, toxicity of high X-ray energies increases side effects to the normal tissues. Combining RT with agents like radiosensitizers and photosensitizers has improved its effectiveness. This study presents a mathematical model of X-ray induced photodynamic therapy (XPDT) and validates its results with relevant experimental data.
Material and Methods: This study developed XPDT using TiO₂ nanoparticles as nanoscintillators and PpIX as a photosensitizer. A multi-scale physicochemical model was created to simulate XPDT, highlighting the role of molecular oxygen in its efficiency. XPDT outcomes were compared with RT—both alone and combined with radiosensitizers—using data from two radioresistant cell lines: DFW and HT-29.
Results: Simulations and experimental data showed XPDT to be more effective than RT alone or RT with TiO₂. Simulations estimated XPDT reduced cell viability by 45.28% in DFW and 59.02% in HT-29 compared to RT. Modeling helped estimate both apoptotic and necrotic cell death, and a minimum XPDT efficiency was defined based on cells affected synchronously by both RT and PDT. At 4 Gy irradiation and 4 mg/ml nanocomplex concentration, at least 13.22% of DFW and 21.23% of HT-29 cells were eliminated. TiO₂-enhanced RT had the most effects in cell killing during XPDT.
Conclusion: XPDT showed higher efficacy in targeting cancer cells compared to RT or PDT alone. However, further research is needed to understand certain unexpected cellular responses under specific treatment conditions.
Keywords
Radiation
Sensitizing Agents Singlet Oxygen Nanocomposites Mathematical Modeling Combined Modality Therapy
Subjects
  1. Shabanzadeh M, Mohammadi Z, Imanparast A, Sazgarnia A. Photosensitivity and Radiosensitivity of Methylene Blue (MB) With Gold Nanoparticles Coated By Thioglucose (Gnps-Tio): An In Vitro Study. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics/Majallah-I Fīzīk-I Pizishkī-i Īrān. 2023;20(3).
  2. Borhani S, Mozdarani H, Babalui S, Bakhshandeh M, Nosrati H. In vitro radiosensitizing effects of temozolomide on U87MG cell lines of human glioblastoma multiforme. Iranian journal of medical sciences. 2017;42(3):258.
  3. Hendee WR, Ibbott GS, Hendee EG. Radiation therapy physics: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
  4. Juzenas P, Chen W, Sun Y-P, Coelho MAN, Generalov R, Generalova N, et al. Quantum dots and nanoparticles for photodynamic and radiation therapies of cancer. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2008;60(15):1600-14.
  5. Wen X, Li Y, Hamblin MR. Photodynamic therapy in dermatology beyond non-melanoma cancer: An update. Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy. 2017;19:140-52.
  6. Dolmans DE, Fukumura D, Jain RK. Photodynamic therapy for cancer. Nature reviews cancer. 2003;3(5):380-7.
  7. Pass HI. Photodynamic therapy in oncology: mechanisms and clinical use. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1993;85(6):443-56.
  8. Tang R, Habimana-Griffin LM, Lane DD, Egbulefu C, Achilefu S. Nanophotosensitive drugs for light-based cancer therapy: what does the future hold? : Future Medicine. 2017;1101-5.
  9. Wang GD, Nguyen HT, Chen H, Cox PB, Wang L, Nagata K, et al. X-ray induced photodynamic therapy: a combination of radiotherapy and photodynamic therapy. Theranostics. 2016;6(13):2295.
  10. Sun W, Zhou Z, Pratx G, Chen X, Chen H. Nanoscintillator-mediated X-ray induced photodynamic therapy for deep-seated tumors: from concept to biomedical applications. Theranostics. 2020;10(3):1296.
  11. Chen W, Zhang J. Using nanoparticles to enable simultaneous radiation and photodynamic therapies for cancer treatment. Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology. 2006;6(4):1159-66.
  12. Hosseini FS, Naghavi N, Sazgarnia A, and Vejdani Noghreiyan A. Modeling synergy and individual effects of X-ray induced photodynamic therapy components. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1): 453-467.
  13. Morgan NY, Kramer-Marek G, Smith PD, Camphausen K, Capala J. Nanoscintillator conjugates as photodynamic therapy-based radiosensitizers: calculation of required physical parameters. Radiation research. 2009;171(2):236-44.
  14. Bulin A-L, Vasil'Ev A, Belsky A, Amans D, Ledoux G, Dujardin C. Modelling energy deposition in nanoscintillators to predict the efficiency of the X-ray-induced photodynamic effect. Nanoscale. 2015;7(13):5744-51.
  15. Klein JS, Sun C, Pratx G. Radioluminescence in biomedicine: physics, applications, and models. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2019;64(4):04TR1.
  16. Hosseini FS, Naghavi N, Sazgarnia A. A physicochemical model of X-ray induced photodynamic therapy (X-PDT) with an emphasis on tissue oxygen concentration and oxygenation. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1): 17882-897.
  17. Schwarz SB, Schaffer PM, Kulka U, Ertl-Wagner B, Hell R, Schaffer M. The effect of radio-adaptive doses on HT29 and GM637 cells. Radiation Oncology. 2008;3(1):1-6.
  18. Khan MK, Khan N, Almasan A, Macklis R. Future of radiation therapy for malignant melanoma in an era of newer, more effective biological agents. OncoTargets and therapy. 2011:137-48.
  19. Anderson AR. A hybrid mathematical model of solid tumour invasion: the importance of cell adhesion. Mathematical medicine and biology: a journal of the IMA. 2005;22(2):163-86.
  20. Naghavi N, Hosseini FS, Sardarabadi M, Kalani H. Simulation of tumor induced angiogenesis using an analytical adaptive modeling including dynamic sprouting and blood flow modeling. Microvascular research. 2016;107:51-64.
  21. Hosseini F, Naghavi N. Modelling tumor-induced angiogenesis: combination of stochastic sprout spacing and sprout progression. Journal of Biomedical Physics & Engineering. 2017;7(3):233.
  22. Roghani Yazdi M, Naghavi N, Hosseini FS. Modeling and simulation of vascular tumor growth. Iranian Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 2015;9(2):143-61.
  23. Yazdi MR, Naghavi N, Hosseini F. Numerical simulation of solid tumor invasion and metastasis with a continuum-discrete model. 2015 International Congress on Technology, Communication and Knowledge (ICTCK); 2015: IEEE.
  24. Hosseini F, Naghavi N. Two dimensional mathematical model of tumor angiogenesis: coupling of avascular growth and vascularization. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2015;12(3):145-66.
  25. Shamsi M, Saghafian M, Dejam M, Sanati-Nezhad A. Mathematical modeling of the function of Warburg effect in tumor microenvironment. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):8903.
  26. Robertson-Tessi M, Gillies RJ, Gatenby RA, Anderson AR. Impact of metabolic heterogeneity on tumor growth, invasion, and treatment outcomes. Cancer research. 2015;75(8):1567-79.
  27. Jalalimanesh A, Haghighi HS, Ahmadi A, Hejazian H, Soltani M. Multi-objective optimization of radiotherapy: distributed Q-learning and agent-based simulation. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical artificial intelligence. 2017;29(5):1071-86.
  28. Shamsi M, Saghafian M, Dejam M, Sanati-Nezhad A. Mathematical modeling of the function of Warburg effect in tumor microenvironment. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):1-13.
  29. Noghreiyan AV. Photodynamic activation of silica / TiO2 / PpIX nanostructure by X-rays and its evaluation on survival of the human melanoma and colon cell lines: Mashad University of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine. 2020.
  30. Goldman D, Popel AS. A computational study of the effect of capillary network anastomoses and tortuosity on oxygen transport. Journal of theoretical biology. 2000;206(2):181-94.
  31. Ibrahim-Hashim A, Robertson-Tessi M, Enriquez-Navas PM, Damaghi M, Balagurunathan Y, Wojtkowiak JW, et al. Defining cancer subpopulations by adaptive strategies rather than molecular properties provides novel insights into intratumoral evolution. Cancer research. 2017;77(9):2242-54.
  32. Molter TW, Holl MR, Dragavon JM, McQuaide SC, Anderson JB, Young AC, et al. A new approach for measuring single-cell oxygen consumption rates. IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering. 2008;5(1):32-42.
  33. Gatenby RA, Gawlinski ET. The glycolytic phenotype in carcinogenesis and tumor invasion: insights through mathematical models. Cancer research. 2003;63(14):3847-54.
  34. Patel AA, Gawlinski ET, Lemieux SK, Gatenby RA. A cellular automaton model of early tumor growth and invasion: the effects of native tissue vascularity and increased anaerobic tumor metabolism. Journal of theoretical biology. 2001;213(3):315-31.
  35. Sazgarnia A, Bahreyni-Toosi MH, Montazerabadi AR, Ahmadi A. Indocyanine green acts as a photosensitizer but not a radiosensitizer: combined chemo-, photo-and radiotherapy of DFW human melanoma cells. Journal of Experimental Therapeutics and Oncology. 2013;10:189-96.
  36. Yadollahpour A, Rezaee Z, Bayati V, Birgani MJT, Dehbashi FN. Radiotherapy enhancement with electroporation in human intestinal colon cancer HT-29 Cells. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2018;19(5):1259.
  37. Georgakoudi I, Nichols MG, Foster TH. The mechanism of Photofrin photobleaching and its consequences for photodynamic dosimetry. Photochemistry and photobiology. 1997;65(1):135-44.
  38. Hosseini FS, Naghavi N, Sazgarnia A. A physicochemical model of X-ray induced photodynamic therapy (X-PDT) with an emphasis on tissue oxygen concentration and oxygenation. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1):17882.
  39. Rezaei-Tavirani M, Dolat E, Hasanzadeh H, Seyyedi S-S, Semnani V, Sobhi S. TiO2 nanoparticle as a sensitizer drug in radiotherapy: in vitro study. International Journal of Cancer Management. 2013;6(Supplement).
  40. Pan W, Gong S, Wang J, Yu L, Chen Y, Li N, et al. A nuclear-targeted titanium dioxide radiosensitizer for cell cycle regulation and enhanced radiotherapy. Chemical Communications. 2019;55(56):8182-5.
  41. Noghreiyan AV, Soleymanifard S, Sazgarnia A. Design of a novel nanoparticle to use X-Ray fluorescence of TiO2 to induce photodynamic effects in the presence of PpIX. Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy. 2023:103890.

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 22, Issue 2
March and April 2025
Pages 77-88

  • Receive Date 18 January 2024
  • Revise Date 28 May 2024
  • Accept Date 08 June 2024