About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 461687, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/461687
Review Article

Radiation Oncology In Vitro: Trends to Improve Radiotherapy through Molecular Targets

1Research Institute of Internal and Preventive Medicine, FSBI, Boris Bogatkov Street 175/1, Novosibirsk 630089, Russia
2School of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenida Alfredo Balena, 190 Santa Efigênia, 30130-100 Belo Horizonte, MG State, Brazil
3Alberto Cavalcanti Hospital, Minas Gerais State Hospital Foundation-FHEMIG, Rua Camilo de Brito, 636 Padre Eustáquio, 30730-540 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
4Department of Physics, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenida Antônio Carlos 6627, 31270-901 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

Received 5 June 2014; Accepted 16 July 2014; Published 15 September 2014

Academic Editor: Jack Yang

Copyright © 2014 Natália Feofanova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Much has been investigated to improve the beneficial effects of radiotherapy especially in that case where radioresistant behavior is observed. Beyond simple identification of resistant phenotype the discovery and development of specific molecular targets have demonstrated therapeutic potential in cancer treatment including radiotherapy. Alterations on transduction signaling pathway related with MAPK cascade are the main axis in cancer cellular proliferation even as cell migration and invasiveness in irradiated tumor cell lines; then, for that reason, more studies are in course focusing on, among others, DNA damage enhancement, apoptosis stimulation, and growth factors receptor blockages, showing promising in vitro results highlighting molecular targets associated with ionizing radiation as a new radiotherapy strategy to improve clinical outcome. In this review we discuss some of the main molecular targets related with tumor cell proliferation and migration as well as their potential contributions to radiation oncology improvements.

1. Introduction

To achieve a better understanding of the different targeted cancer responsiveness a wide range of experimental tumors of various histologic types have been developed for radiobiological studies [1] whose effects, induced by ionizing radiation (IR), can be investigated through many approaches, allowing the identification of radioresistance or radiosensitivity of human cancer cell lines [2]. There are, for instance, similar behaviors between clonogenic repopulation in vitro applying fractioned schedule on human squamous cell carcinoma and patients that were treated with radiotherapy [3]. Nevertheless, several target molecules into different subcellular compartments related with radioresistance were already identified as an attempt to improve cellular radiation responses and in another aspect a number of agents targeting components of cell signaling pathways and processes critical to neoplastic transformation and progression are ongoing clinical development [4]. Amongst other signaling cascades targets, there are some related with cell dynamics in an integrin dependent fashion that increases cancer cell migration induced by IR, like beta-galactoside alpha-(2,6)-sialyltransferase (ST6Gal I), that was found overexpressed in ovarian and other cancers whose expression has been correlated to metastasis and poor prognosis [5, 6]. In colon cancer cells IR increases the expression of ST6Gal I, which, in turn, is involved in radioresistance and radiation-induced migration via sialylation of integrinβ1 that may be a novel target for overcoming radiation-induced survival, especially adhesion and migration of this kind of tumor [7, 8]. Another well-known type of molecules involved in cancer progression after IR is the members of a disintegrin and metalloproteinase (ADAM) family that are thought to mediate the shedding of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ligands, an important signaling pathway to cell proliferation and migration, and this event is critical for a more soluble functional EGFR ligands yield. ADAM is activated by IR leading to an increased triggering cell proliferation cascade in irradiated melanoma cells [9], specifying ADAM’s blockage as an attractive target to radiosensitize this tumor type. Another important subject is radio-induced DNA damage and its repair ability that have been largely investigated including the role of tyrosine kinase pathways such as the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a protein kinase that is best known for its role in the DNA damage response [10], and one recent work describes a new function for 5′-adenosine monophosphate- (AMP-) activated protein kinase (AMPK), an established metabolic stress sensor, that has the ability to control cellular growth and mediate cell cycle checkpoints in cancer cells in response to low energy levels, as a sensor of genomic stress and a participant of the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway, highlighting the importance of targeting AMPK as novel cancer therapeutics for a radiosensitization of human cancer cells, mediated by a simultaneous inhibition of the Akt and activation of the AMPK signaling pathways [1113].

The knowledge in tumor biology has been increased in the last years due to cellular signaling pathways discovering, mechanistically identified by molecular tools that allowed investigation of an enormous range of possibilities, even as new mathematical models have also been subsidizing radiotherapy enhancement. The understanding and identification of specific molecular targets with significant therapeutic implications in order to develop new strategies for radiotherapy are crucial to improve patient survival without substantially increasing toxicity.

2. Radiobiological Models

Delivery of advanced radiotherapy techniques has taken new approaches to treatment including stereotactic irradiation and intensity-modulated X-rays beam in order to improve outcomes of cancer treatment and reduce damage to normal surrounding tissues [14]. The classical well-known radiobiological models are linear-quadratic (LQ) and biologically effective dose (BED) that are widely used to estimate the effects of various radiation schedules, but it has been suggested that LQ is not applicable to high doses per fraction [15] due to the fact that LQ overestimates effects of high daily radiation doses proving that better models should be proposed [16]. Thus, different treatment schedules applying hypofractionated radiotherapy (hRT) and other radiation modalities such as light ions have been used with the same proposal, even though the pattern of received dose is different from that in conventional radiation and therefore the radiobiological aspects of cell death are shown to be modified. Prolonged or short radiation delivery makes sublethal damage repair, repopulation, and reoxygenation be better evaluated specially when a mathematical model is used for dose conversion from conventional treatment to high daily hypofractionated doses [17]. For instance, dose conversion models as repairable-conditionally repairable (RCR) model [18] and multitarget (MT) model are currently recommended. When those models were compared LQ seemed to fit relatively well at doses of 5 Gy or less; at 6 Gy or higher doses, RCR and MT models seemed to be more reliable than LQ [19]. In hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, LQ model should not be used, and conversion models incorporating the concept of RCR or MT models, such as generalized linear-quadratic (gLQ) models, appear to be more suitable [20, 21].

Recent investigations have highlighted differential cellular responses when submitted to intensity-modulated radiation fields [22], particularly in areas outside the primary treatment fields [23]. Differential DNA damage responses following modulated radiation field delivery were found, providing an evidence for a role of intercellular communication in mediating cellular radiobiological response to modulated radiation fields, suggesting that advanced radiotherapy treatment plans require a refinement of existing radiobiological modeling [24]. Concerning radiobiology, DNA double strand breaks (DSB) are considered to be the kind of DNA damage responsible for most end points such as chromosome aberrations and cell killing. However, due to high number of DSBs induced by radiation at sublethal doses, it is immediately obvious that DSB is not lethal in general, indicating that most of induced DSBs can be rejoined or repaired correctly, displaying the spatial distribution of DSBs as major factor in determining lethality [2527]. Nevertheless, a mechanistic dose-response model has been proposed based on the concept of giant loops, which constitute a level of chromatin organization on a megabase pair length scale [2830] that suggests DSBs are induced within different loop domains of DNA assumed to be processed independently by cellular repair mechanism. Given giant loop chromatin organization and assumption of two damage classes representing the main point, Giant LOop Binary LEsion (GLOBLE) approach arises as promising model [31]. This model is able to reveal important features of dose-response curves describing cell survival especially transitions from low to high doses in a dose-response correlation.

The effects of combined modality treatments are investigated by using mathematical models to predict cell death as an attempt to fit LQ, MT, and gLQ models to experimental data based on in vitro assays, demonstrating that gLQ equation is superior to LQ and MT models in predicting cellular death at high doses of radiotherapy [32]. A significant increasing in biologically equivalent dose may be achieved after addition of radiosensitizing agents to hRT as well as linear accelerators containing new technologies such as flattening filter free (FFF), increases instantaneous dose-rate of X-ray pulses by a factor of 2–6 compared to conventional flattened output [33].

New models for radiobiological cell responses have been proposed and one of those is a simple two-parameter, algorithmic model, which captures the essential biological features of irradiation-induced cell death and associated cell cycle delays. This approach estimates directly the underlying irradiation-induced cell survival and was investigated in mammary carcinoma cell line EMT6/Ro where a comparison of estimated underlying cell survival probability with in vitro survival probability data confirms an optimal timing of mixed irradiation/chemotherapy treatments, leading to a development of an accurate spatial and temporal model of tumor progression and cell cycle dynamics [34]. It was already proposed that concurrent chemotherapy with hRT could be beneficial for a number of malignancies taking more variables for survival cell curves and BED calculations [3537]. Apparently, mathematical models concepts associated with in vitro assays and also applying chemotherapy or monoclonal antibodies might be contributed to radiotherapy enhancement.

3. Radiation Sensitivity: Targets of Cellular Proliferation Signaling Pathways

A multiplicity of approaches has been investigated in the efforts to enhance ionizing radiation (IR) effects, particularly, signaling cascade involved in cell proliferation. The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway transduces signals from the cell membrane to the nucleus in response to a variety of different stimuli and participates in various intracellular signaling pathways that control a wide spectrum of cellular processes, including growth, differentiation, and stress responses, and it is known to have a key role in cancer progression [38]. It was already demonstrated in breast cancer cell lines MDAMB-231 that association of SphK1 antagonist FTY720 with IR significantly increased antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects through promoting alterations in MAPK signaling [39]. As is already known Raf-MEK-ERK pathway is a key downstream effector of the Ras small GTPase, the most frequently mutated oncogene in human cancers; thus this signaling network has been subject of intense research and pharmaceutical scrutiny to identify novel target-based approaches for cancer treatment [40]; then small molecule inhibitors of MEK (PD0325901) and Akt (API-2) were subsequently evaluated for their radiosensitizing potential alone and in combination with pancreatic tumor cell lines demonstrating that MEK inhibition results in growth arrest, apoptosis, and radiosensitization of multiple preclinical pancreatic tumor models, and these effects can be enhanced by association with an Akt inhibitor [41].

Since PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling axis controls cell proliferation and survival this pathway has achieved major importance as a target for cancer therapy [42]. It is already known that activation of these signals is a contributing factor to decreased radiation sensitivity [43], indicating target of mTOR, a downstream kinase of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT survival pathway, may be a target for radiation sensitizing several human cancer cell lines. Its inhibition, currently being proved, increased radiosensitivity of some human cell lines, including SQ20B head and neck carcinoma cells and U251 glioblastoma cells [44]. Radiation sensitivity effect of NVP-BEZ235, a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, reveals enhancement of apoptosis in human glioma cells, as well as cell cycle arrest, resulting in striking tumor radiosensitization, which extended the survival of brain tumor-bearing mice [4547]. Likewise, NVP-BEZ235 prominently improved the radiosensitivity of PC-3 prostate cancer cells through inducing a G2/M arrest and enhanced proapoptotic effect after combined IR [48]. Another study applied the inhibitor RAD001 associated with ionizing radiation in six bladder tumor cell lines: UM-UC3, UM-UC5, UM-UC6, KU7, 253J-BV, and 253-JP, showing arrest in both G1 and G2 phases of cell cycle when treatments are carried out together, primarily regulated by changes in the levels of cyclin D1, p27, and p21, suggesting that alterations of cell cycle by inhibiting the mTOR signaling pathway in combination with radiation have favorable outcomes and it is a promising therapeutic modality for bladder cancer [49].

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is frequently overexpressed in malignant tumors, and its level is correlated with increased cellular radioresistance [50]. One of the defined mechanisms is that EGFR amplification or Ras activation by mutations results in increased clonogenic cell survival and decreased tumor growth delay following irradiation [51]. There is, for instance, a current opinion about therapeutics that target EGFR might enhance the cytotoxic effects of IR. One of these approaches are the humanized monoclonal antibodies, used as anticancer therapy and expected to improve the effectiveness of current therapy to stimulate radiation sensitization; amongst other targets, EGFR blockage (cetuximab), EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors such as bevacizumab are still under investigation [5256]. Cetuximab and IR have shown promising results when performed concomitantly. Previous data have shown that use of monoclonal antibody cetuximab (C225) improves local tumor control after irradiation in FaDu human squamous cell carcinoma (hSCC) due to decreasing repopulation and improving reoxygenation effects as well [57]. Recently, cetuximab was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) [58] and phase I/II clinical trials combining bevacizumab with conventional treatments have been performed in advanced/recurrent HNSCC patients. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (E-TKI) promoted radiosensitization of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) A549 and H3255 cells, with low nitric oxide levels, due to suppression of cell viability when associated with IR [59]. A positive correlation between the presence of a KRAS mutation and radiosensitization after treatment with the EGFR inhibitors erlotinib and cetuximab in several non-small cell lung lineages was lately demonstrated [60]. In addition, it was noticed, for instance, that radiation-induced upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) was completely abolished by simultaneous treatment of HNSCC cells with cetuximab [61]. Despite the promising results of applying cetuximab, radiosensitization effect was lost in head and neck tumor cells overexpressing Ras family members such as K-Ras, N-Ras, and H-Ras proteins even as EGFR-independent activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/MAPK pathway [6264].

The humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has single agent activity in previously treated and recurrent cervical, ovarian, and colorectal cancer diseases [6568], even as tumor sensitivity to adjuvant radiotherapy improvement [69, 70]. The mechanisms of interaction between antiangiogenic agents and IR are complex and involve interactions between tumor cells and tumor microenvironment, including tumor oxygenation, stroma, and vasculature. Radiation resistance of solid tumors toward photon irradiation is caused by attenuation of DNA damage in less oxygenated tumor areas and by increased hypoxia-inducible factor- (HIF-) 1 signaling [71]. When the antiangiogenesis drug Endostar combined with radiotherapy was applied on A549 cells, increased radiation sensitivity by transcriptional factors expression reduction of TGF- and HIF-1α was noticed [72], and it was observed in human colon adenocarcinoma cell line WiDr surviving after radiation therapy by acquiring HIF-1 activity and translocation towards tumor blood vessels in a dependent cellular dynamics after irradiation recurrence, what might suggest basis for targeting HIF-1 after radiation therapy [73, 74], especially in hypoxic tumors.

Interestingly, another promising target to radiosensitize tumors resistant to irradiation is nucleoplasmic calcium. The role of nuclear calcium in tumor cell proliferation was previously determined in HepG2 cells showing decreased proliferation rate under low nuclear Ca2+ concentrations due to a mitotic blocking induced by buffering of nuclear Ca2+ [75]. Even though the mechanism by which nuclear Ca2+ regulates cell proliferation is not completely understood, there are reports demonstrating that activation of tyrosine kinase receptors (RTKs) leads to translocation of RTKs to the nucleus to generate localized nuclear Ca2+ signaling which are believed to modulate cell proliferation [76]. We were the first research group who established that nuclear Ca2+ buffering decreases EGFR expression, and also the radiosensitization effect of association between nucleoplasmic Ca2+ buffering and X-rays in human squamous cell carcinoma A431, preventing ADAM-17 overexpression, induced by IR. Furthermore, this association promoted less tumor cells proliferation and reduced their survival fractions [77], suggesting nucleoplasmic Ca2+ as a new target to radiosensitize squamous cell carcinoma.

4. DNA Damage Improvements via PARP and DNA-PKcs Inhibitors

The concept of DNA repair centers and the meaning of radiation-induced foci in human cells have remained controversial in spite of evidences for formation of these repair centers in a dose-response nonlinearity manner [78]. While IR induces a variety of DNA lesions, including base damage and single strand breaks, DNA double strand break (DSB) is widely considered as the lesion responsible not only for the aimed cell killing of tumor cells, but also for the general genomic instability [79]. As part of an intricate repair complex, poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase 1 (PARP1), functioning as DNA nick-sensor, interacting with base excision repair DNA intermediates containing single strand breaks [80, 81]. Some researchers have shown that PARP inhibitors (PARPi) enhance the cytotoxicity effects of gamma and X-irradiation and alkylating agents, at least when tumor sensitization exceeds effects on normal tissues which could improve clinical outcomes [82, 83]. These inhibitors have gained recent attention due to their unique selectivity in killing tumors with defective DNA repair; therefore, achieving interesting results, by improved radiation sensitivity in UM-SCC1, UM-SCC6, and FaDu cancer cells that, used with cetuximab, decreased nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR), mediated DNA double strand break [84]. When olaparib, a potent PARP-1 inhibitor, was investigated in Calu-6 and A549 cells, a human NSCLC, persistent DNA double strand breaks for at least 24 hours after treatment in combination with IR were found, demonstrating radiosensitization to lung cancer cells [85]. Moreover, PARPi was also proposed as a radiosensitizer to Glioblastoma-initiating cells [86, 87] even as another PARP inhibitor ABT-888 (veliparib) enhanced the radiation response of prostate cancer cell lines DU-145 and PC-3 that efficiently promoted abundant senescent cells displaying persistent DNA damage foci, and, in human head and neck cancer cells, improved cytotoxicity with ABT-888 and IR was found, compared to either agent alone [88, 89]. Inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) also increases DNA damage, as was noted in A549 lung, DLD-1 colorectal, MiaPaCa2 pancreatic, and UT-SCC15 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells, treated with NDACI054 histone deacetylase inhibitor that showed a significant intensification of residual γ-H2AX/p53BP1-positive foci leading to radiosensitization of these cell lines [90]. In the same way, decay of γ-H2AX foci correlates with p53 functionality and potentially lethal damage repair in human colorectal carcinoma RKO and prostate cancer DU-145 cells [24, 91]. An alternative treatment strategy to interfere with the proliferative pathways is to apply nimotuzumab, a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that specifically targets EGFR in combination with IR [92]. Because of the inhibition of nuclear translocation of EGFR, nimotuzumab and also cetuximab, both antibodies, induce radiosensitization increasing the percentage of dead/dying cells and the yield of γ-H2AX foci being able to promote intensification of radiosensitivity of malignant cells expressing EGFR and offer potential improving of therapeutic index of radiotherapy [93]. A significant inhibition of radio-induced DNA damage repair, due to inhibited activation of DNA-dependent kinase catalytic subunits (DNA-PKcs) through blocking the PI3K/AKT pathway in A549 cells and MCF-7 breast cancer cells, was observed [92]. In another work, transfected HeLa cells with the anti-DPK3-scFv gene resulted in more sensitivity to IR and diminished DNA repair, which could indicate blockage of DPK3-scFv via targeting DNA-PKcs as a novel biological radiosensitizer for cancer treatment [94]. Table 1 summarizes some molecular targets investigated in their respective tumor cell lines.

tab1
Table 1: Molecular targets related with intracellular signaling pathways in different tumor cell lines.

5. Apoptosis Signaling Pathway Target

Apoptosis is a programmed cell death that is currently of intense research interest in cancer biology and it was already established that expression levels of Bcl-2 family proteins in tumors can modulate apoptosis, influencing tumor behavior and treatment [95], and also, in another way, apoptosis can be triggered intrinsically or extrinsically by DNA damage or other types of severe cellular injures such as reactive oxygen species [96]. For example, Bcl-2 gene has been revealed to be overexpressed in oral cancers predicting outcome in patients treated with definitive radiotherapy [97]. One of the investigated mechanisms of cell death is related with radiation-induced resistance of tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor, an important protein related with failure of recurrent laryngeal cancer. It was suggested that hypermethylation of DR4 CpG island can promote TRAIL radioresistance [98]. Changes in gene expression levels have largely been studied in several cancer types even as their regulatory mechanisms and additionally, microRNAs, a class of endogenous, small noncoding RNAs that negatively regulates gene expression, are considered a new subject of cancer therapy investigation. Recent studies showed that miR-193a-3p was able to radiosensitize both U-251 and HeLa cells by accumulation of intracellular reactive oxygen species increasing DNA damage and also apoptosis directly targeting the antiapoptotic Mcl-1 gene [99], while silencing miR-21 in radioresistant NSCLC A549 cells sensitized them to IR by inhibiting cell proliferation and enhancing cell apoptosis through inhibition of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway [100]. The synergistic effect of resveratrol and IR has been shown in different cancer cell lines effectively acting by enhancing expression of antiproliferative and proapoptotic molecules and inhibiting proproliferative and antiapoptotic molecules, leading to induction of apoptosis through various pathways suggesting resveratrol plus radiotherapy as a therapeutic promise in the near future [101].

Recent investigations have been suggesting autophagy as a cell death pathway that may mediate cancer cells sensitivity to IR even though it could originate a protective mechanism against the treatment itself by removing proteins and organelles that are damaged or, alternatively, produce an effective cell death process [102]. Inhibition of autophagy could sensitize tumor cells to many cytotoxic drugs or reverse resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs, representing a promising strategy to improve the efficacy of cancer treatment [103]. However, the autophagic responses of cancer cells to antineoplastic therapy, including IR, remain a controversial issue.

6. Migration and Invasion Pathways Target

Irradiation of primary tumor might promote invasion and favor metastasis by upregulating the expression of genes and activating signaling pathways that are involved in migration and motility. One of the principal pathways involved in alteration of migratory activities is PI3K/Akt signaling pathway that has been implicated in driving metastatic phenotype in thyroid [104], breast [105], and other cancers [106], and PI3K activity is further increased by radiotherapy in certain tumors [107, 108]. Activation of this signaling pathway promotes metastatic transition via stimulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), even as enhancement of migration and invasion [106].

Besides being related to proliferation cascade responses, Akt2, one of the specific isoforms of Akt which is downstream of PI3K, plays important role in promotion of cell migration and invasion. In a xenograft model of colorectal cancer, knockdown of Akt2 in KM20 cell line inhibits liver metastasis; the converse is observed when constitutively active Myr-Akt2 is expressed [109]. It has been noticed that activation of Akt2 increases cell invasion and metastasis of breast and ovarian cancer cells through upregulated integrin signaling [110]; its inactivation also inhibits glioma cell invasion [111] and knockdown of Akt2, rather than Akt1, in the cell line A549 dramatically abolishes its invasive potential [112].

A growing number of studies demonstrate that IR may enhance the migratory and invasive properties of cancer cells via induction of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). EMT is an embryonic program important for organogenesis in normal development, but its dysfunction can help the survival and dissemination of cancer cells that is characterized by loss of cell-cell contacts, decreased expression of epithelial markers E-cadherin, beta-catenin, and ZO-1, remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton, and increased expression of mesenchymal markers N-cadherin, fibronectin, and vimentin. Several transcription factors have been discovered that can initiate and maintain this process, including Snail, Twist, and Zeb [113]. Furthermore, transforming growth factor beta1 (TGFβ) is a tumor promoter and potent inducer of EMT, though it can be a tumor suppressor during the initial stage of tumorigenesis. Ionizing radiation is able to enhance expression of TGFβ in various cell lines. This enhancement occurs along with increase of mesenchymal markers and decrease of epithelial markers, as well as alterations in migratory and invasive capabilities of the cells [114, 115]. However, IR is shown to induce TGFβ activation in vivo and sensitize even nonmalignant mammary epithelial cells to undergo TGFβ-mediated EMT [116]. In colorectal cancer IR induces an alteration to a malignant phenotype consistent with EMT in vitro [117]. Moreover, TGFβ is known to be master regulator of EMT, and IR-induced EMT can be reversed by its inhibition; nonetheless other pathways of EMT induction exist as well. Events associated with EMT induced by IR could be reversed through inhibition of TGFβ signaling with TGFβR inhibitor SB431542 as was already found in A549 cell line [115]. Another mechanism observed in cervical cancer cells (FIR cells) showed EMT induced by irradiation is dependent on activation of p65 subunit of NF-B [118]. Pharmacological inhibition of Akt with GSK690693 blocks the expression of ZEB1 and vimentin and restores the expression of E-cadherin following IR, thus preventing the migration and EMT of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell lines [119] even as knockdown of Akt2 induces reversion of the EMT process in mammary epithelial cell lines [120]. Cell motility on various substrates as well as penetration of membranes is mediated by integrins expressed on the cell surface. Expression of αvβ3 in glioma cells [108] and α5β1 in pancreatic cancer [121] is upregulated after IR, facilitating cell migration and invasion. Likewise, integrin α3β1 is overexpressed after IR, promoting the migration of meningioma cells via focal adhesion kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase [122]. Moreover, integrin α2β1 is selectively upregulated in irradiated lung cancer cells and is required for aggressive phenotype and invasion in 3D collagen gels and such invasiveness is mediated via PI3K/Akt signaling pathway and then invasion speed in vitro can be reduced significantly by PI3K inhibitor LY294002 [123]. Additionally, integrin expression plays role in activation of MMP-2: interaction of MMP-2 with αvβ3 integrin is required during its maturation and activation demonstrating localization of active MMP-2 and αvβ3 integrin at the migration front accelerates cancer cell migration [124, 125].

Pharmacological inhibition of integrin dependent signaling pathways can be assumed as one of the promising approaches for combined therapy with IR. The function-blocking anti-αvβ3 monoclonal antibody 17E6 and αvβ3/αvβ5 specific antagonist EMD121974 (cilengitide) inhibit in vitro matrigel invasion and lung metastasis formation of tumor cells growing in a preirradiated microenvironment [126] and Cilengitide demonstrates strong antimigratory properties in meningioma cells in vitro, through combination with IR that allows achieving significant decrease of tumor volumes using intracranial model of human meningioma [127].

Nonreceptor tyrosine kinase Src is often activated in various types of cancer via mutations or growth factor signaling pathways including insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGFR-1), EGFR, and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR). Then, Src plays an important role in focal adhesion disassembly since its expression results in disruption of focal adhesions and stress fibers leading to the loss of adhesion to the extracellular matrix [128]. This Src-mediated disruption of focal adhesions leads to a decrease in cell-cell and cell-ECM adhesion and is an important process central to cell migration and invasion. In addition to its effects on motility, Src may enhance cellular invasion by regulating the expression of MMPs and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases [129]. In lung cancer cells EGFR signaling appears to be the dominant mechanism of Src activation. It was already noted that inhibition of Src with submicromolar concentrations of AZD0530 blocks Src and focal adhesion kinase, resulting in significant inhibition of cell migration and matrigel invasion in NSCLC cells [130] suggesting key tyrosine kinase target molecules, combining with IR as a promising radiotherapy enhancement to impair proliferation and invasiveness. Therefore inhibitors of these signaling pathways as part of combination therapy with IR can significantly ameliorate side effect of irradiation. Figure 1 shows a scheme of cellular signaling pathways related with tumor cell progression.

461687.fig.001
Figure 1: Network of signaling cascade involved in tumor progression and radioresistance. The scheme shows tyrosine kinase axis and its signaling cascade leading to cell proliferation, migration, angiogenesis, apoptosis, and DNA damage, some of them activated by phosphorylation (p). These signaling pathways are involved in radiation resistance and are promising targets to improve radiotherapy (IP3R = receptor of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate and NR = nucleoplasmic reticulum).

7. Ionizing Radiation and Microenvironment Interface

Enhancement of invasiveness in response to IR can be caused not only by alterations in cancer cell gene expression profile, which increase cell motility and migratory capacities, but also due to modulation of tumor microenvironment. Irradiated tumor microenvironment may exert potential tumor-promoting effects and tumors growing within a previously irradiated bed tend to be more metastatic [126]. Extracellular cell matrix modifications that favor invasiveness are dependent on expression of such enzymes as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) MMP-2, MMP-9 and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA), as well. It is known that expression of these molecules as well as cytokines, which promote invasion in cancer cells, can be induced by IR both in cancer and in stromal cells. Increased levels of MMP-9 and uPA are found in conditioned medium of irradiated neuroblastoma cells [131]. Furthermore, conditioned medium from irradiated nonparenchymal liver cells contains elevated amounts of MMP-2, MMP-9, EGF, and VEGF and promotes invasiveness of sublethally irradiated cultures in hepatoma cell line McA-RH77 [132]. Notwithstanding, proteolytic enzyme urokinase plasminogen activator is upregulated after irradiation in the IOMM-Lee meningioma cells via activation of EGFR, MEK1/2, and p38 signaling pathways, which results in increased tumor invasion and migration in vitro. Additionally, inhibitors of these signaling pathways with specific inhibitors AG1478, U0126, and SB203580 show decrease of uPA levels in both basal and irradiated-IOMM-Lee cells [133]. Some proteinases which are expressed by advancing cells of metastatic tumor MMPs are believed to play major role in tumor invasion as they can destroy almost all of basement membrane macromolecules. Injury to the basement membrane can result in the release of proinvasive growth factors which can further stimulate the expression of MMPs [134, 135]. Lewis lung carcinoma cells irradiated in dose of 7.5 Gy demonstrate enhanced expression of MMP-9 and increased invasiveness in vitro. When transplanted subcutaneously after subsequent irradiation in xenograft model these cells also have greater lung metastatic potential which is MMP-9 dependent and can be reduced by prototypical MMP-9 inhibitor zoledronic acid [136]. Proteasome inhibitor MG132 potentiates the effect of radiation against the growth and metastasis in NSCLC cells in nontoxic dose. Pretreatment with MG132 followed by irradiation in dose of 4 Gy in vitro is shown to suppress cell migration and invasion abilities in A549 and H1299 cancer cell lines, which is accompanied by decreased expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9 in NSCLC cell lines [137]. Irradiation in dose of 5 Gy is shown to induce COX-2 activation in fibroblasts which leads to increased invasiveness of MDAMB-231 cells, cocultivated with these irradiated fibroblasts. This effect is due to PGE2-dependent induction of MMP-2 expression in MDAMB-231 cells and can be completely reversed by COX-2 inhibitor, NS-398 [138].

Pharmacological inhibition of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway has a great therapeutic potential when combined with IR. In thyroid carcinoma cells PI3K inhibitor GDC0941 significantly inhibits lung metastasis in mice bearing irradiated follicular thyroid carcinoma cells. It is of interest that PI3K is not activated in these cells by IR in vitro, which means that tumor microenvironment is involved in antimetastatic activities of GDC0941 [139].

Many protocols of irradiation therapy involve irradiation of not only the tumor itself but also nonmalignant cells which surround tumor. As a stress stimulus, irradiation changes significantly gene expression profile of these cells and therefore causes modulation of microenvironment [140]. Enhanced expression of genes associated with proinflammatory response, like COX2 and MMPs, leads to reorganization of extracellular matrix facilitating invasiveness of tumor cells. Inhibition of these signaling pathways in cells of tumor microenvironment can become a promising approach for enhancement of positive effect of radiotherapy.

8. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The increased understanding of the molecular processes underlying cellular sensitivity to IR has led to the identification of novel targets for intervention [87]; combining molecular targeted therapies and radiation may allow for reducing radiation toxicities and improving treatment outcomes [141]. Not only traditional photon therapy but also other modalities applying charged particles can be improved and investigations are being developed, for instance, hadrontherapy, a form of external radiation therapy, which uses beams of charged particles such as carbon ions [71]. Interesting changes at gene level response were achieved in PC-3 prostate cancer cells applying carbon ion irradiation [142] and the hypoxia-induced radioresistance to X-rays can be overcome by carbon-ion beams in SCCVII cell line [143]. Gene therapy also rises as new approach to improve radiosensitivity combining two or more targeting genes. For example, the coexpression of doublecortin (DCX) with secreted protein and rich in cysteine (SPARC) collaboratively diminished radioresistance of glioma cells, interfering with cell cycle turnover and increased irradiation-induced apoptosis [144]. Interestingly, anticancer effects of metformin, the most widely used drug for type II diabetes, alone or in combination with IR, were found radiosensitizing MCF-7 human breast cancer cells and FSaII mouse fibrosarcoma cells by inactivation of mTOR and suppression of its downstream effectors S6K1 and 4EBP1 [145].

The trend of radiation therapy improvements has been focused on tyrosine kinase cascade, the principal signaling pathway to development of new target molecules whose members play a pivotal role on cellular proliferation as migration and tumor invasiveness mediators. Predictable responses might be achieved based on combined IR with specific target molecules able to inhibit overexpressed proteins after radiation exposure. In addition, molecular targeted therapy based on signal transduction pathway alterations detected in cancer offers a tailored treatment possibility including improvements on radiation therapy. Thereby, uses of radiotherapy according to predictive markers would potentially reduce costly over treatment, improve the treatment risk-benefit ratio and cancer outcomes [146], providing further evidence for the importance of intercellular signaling in modulated exposures, where dose gradients are present, and may inform the refinement of established radiobiological models to facilitate the optimization of advanced radiotherapy treatment plans [147]. Furthermore, new models reproducing clinical conditions as closely as possible are needed for radiobiological studies to provide information that can be translated from bench to bedside [148].

Some questions arise concerning how to maximize IR effects combined with these new molecular targets as possible strategies including optimization of dosage and radiation schedule leading to management of toxicities. Further in vitro studies are necessary even as systematic reviews focusing on radiobiology and broad molecular targets especially against PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway that is involved on cellular proliferation as cell migration signaling for the purpose of achieving the best outcome associated with IR to the radiotherapy of the future.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brazilian funding agencies FAPEMIG, CAPES, and CNPq for financial support of their researches.

References

  1. E. J. Hall and A. J. Giaccia, Radiobiology for the Radiologists, Edited by L. McAllister, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 6th edition, 2006.
  2. L. M. Andrade, T. P. R. de Campos, M. F. Leite, and A. M. Góes, “In vitro response of the human breast cancer cell line MDAMB-231 and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells exposed to 60Co at single fraction,” Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 205–213, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. C. Petersen, D. Zips, M. Krause et al., “Repopulation of FaDu human squamous cell carcinoma during fractionated radiotherapy correlateswith reoxygenation,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 483–493, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. E. Dancey, “Recent advances of molecular targeted agents opportunities for imaging,” Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 601–609, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. Lee, H.-J. Lee, W. D. Seo, K. H. Park, and Y.-S. Lee, “Sialylation of integrin beta1 is involved in radiation-induced adhesion and migration in human colon cancer cells,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1528–1536, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. J. Schultz, A. F. Swindall, J. W. Wright, E. S. Sztul, C. N. Landen, and S. L. Bellis, “ST6Gal-I sialyltransferase confers cisplatin resistance in ovarian tumor cells,” Journal of Ovarian Research, vol. 6, no. 1, article 25, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. M. Lee, J.-J. Park, Y.-G. Ko, and Y.-S. Lee, “leavage of ST6Gal I by radiation-induced BACE1 inhibits golgi-anchored ST6Gal I-mediated sialylation of integrin β1 and migration in colon cancer cells,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 7, no. 1, article 47, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. P.-C. Lee, Y.-C. Chiou, J.-M. Wong, C.-L. Peng, and M.-J. Shieh, “Targeting colorectal cancer cells with single-walled carbon nanotubes conjugated to anticancer agent SN-38 and EGFR antibody,” Biomaterials, vol. 34, no. 34, pp. 8756–8765, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. H. Kataoka, “EGFR ligands and their signaling scissors, ADAMs, as new molecular targets for anticancer treatments,” Journal of Dermatological Science, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 148–153, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. S. Ditch and T. T. Paull, “The ATM protein kinase and cellular redox signaling: beyond the DNA damage response,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 15–22, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. T. Sanli, A. Rashid, C. Liu et al., “Ionizing radiation activates AMP-activated kinase (AMPK): a target for radiosensitization of human cancer cells,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 221–229, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. T. Sanli, G. R. Steinberg, G. Singh, and T. Tsakiridis, “AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) beyond metabolism: a novel genomic stress sensor participating in the DNA damage response pathway,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 156–169, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. T. Sanli, C. Liu, A. Rashid et al., “Lovastatin sensitizes lung cancer cells to ionizing radiation: modulation of molecular pathways of radioresistance and tumor suppression,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 439–450, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. Y. Shibamoto, C. Sugie, and H. Iwata, “Radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors,” International Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 281–288, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. H. Iwata, Y. Shibamoto, R. Murata et al., “Estimation of errors associated with use of linear-quadratic formalism for evaluation of biologic equivalence between single and hypofractionated radiation doses: an in vitro study,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 482–488, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. Y. Shibamoto, S. Otsuka, H. Iwata, C. Sugie, H. Ogino, and N. Tomita, “Radiobiological evaluation of the radiation dose as used inhigh-precision radiotherapy: effect of prolonged deliverytime and applicability of the linear-quadratic model,” Journal of Radiation Research, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. Brahme, “Accurate description of the cell survival and biological effectat low and high doses and LET's,” Journal of Radiation Research, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 389–407, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. B. K. Lind, L. M. Persson, M. R. Edgren, I. Hedlöf, and A. Brahme, “Repairable-conditionally repairable damage model based on dual poisson processes,” Radiation Research, vol. 160, no. 3, pp. 366–375, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. H. Iwata, N. Matsufuji, T. Toshito, T. Akagi, S. Otsuka, and Y. Shibamoto, “Compatibility of the repairable-conditionally repairable, multi-target and linear-quadratic models in converting hypofractionated radiation doses to single doses,” Journal of Radiation Research, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 367–373, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. Z. Huang, N. A. Mayr, S. S. Lo et al., “A generalized linear-quadratic model incorporating reciprocal time pattern of radiation damage repair,” Medical Physics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 224–230, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. Z. Wang, Z. Huang, S. S. Lo, W. T. C. Yuh, and N. A. Mayr, “A generalized linear-quadratic model for radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and high-dose rate brachytherapy,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 2, no. 39, Article ID 39ra48, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. N. Suchowerska, M. A. Ebert, M. Zhang, and M. Jackson, “In vitro response of tumour cells to non-uniform irradiation,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 50, no. 13, pp. 3041–3051, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. K. T. Butterworth, C. K. McGarry, C. Trainor, J. M. O'Sullivan, A. R. Hounsell, and K. M. Prise, “Out-of-field cell survival following exposure to intensity-modulated radiation fields,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 1516–1522, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. C. Trainor, K. T. Butterworth, C. K. McGarry et al., “DNA damage responses following exposure to modulated radiation fields,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 8, Article ID e43326, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. J. Brenner and J. F. Ward, “Constraints on energy deposition and target size of multiply damaged sites associated with DNA double-strand breaks,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 737–748, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. H. Nikjoo, P. O'Neill, M. Terrissol, and D. T. Goodhead, “Quantitative modelling of DNA damage using Monte Carlo track structure method,” Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 31–38, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. Rydberg, “Clusters of DNA damage induced by ionizing radiation: formation of short DNA fragments. II. Experimental detection,” Radiation Research, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 200–209, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. J. Ostashevsky, “A polymer model for the structural organization of chromatin loops and minibands in interphase chromosomes,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3031–3040, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. E. P. Rogakou, D. R. Pilch, A. H. Orr, V. S. Ivanova, and W. M. Bonner, “DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 273, no. 10, pp. 5858–5868, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. R. K. Sachs, G. van den Engh, B. Trask, H. Yokota, and J. E. Hearst, “A random-walk/giant-loop model for interphase chromosomes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 2710–2714, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. T. Friedrich, M. Durante, and M. Scholz, “Modeling cell survival after photon irradiation based on double-strand break clustering in megabase pair chromatin loops,” Radiation Research, vol. 178, no. 5, pp. 385–394, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. N. Ohri, A. P. Dicker, and Y. R. Lawrence, “Can drugs enhance hypofractionated radiotherapy? A novel method of modeling radiosensitization using in vitro data,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 385–393, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. Georg, T. Knöös, and B. McClean, “Current status and future perspective of flattening filter free photon beams,” Medical Physics, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1280–1293, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. D. Angus and M. J. Piotrowska, “A numerical model of EMT6/Ro spheroid dynamics under irradiation: calibration and estimation of the underlying irradiation-induced cell survival probability,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 320, pp. 23–32, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. J. A. Green, J. M. Kirwan, J. F. Tierney et al., “Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Lancet, vol. 358, no. 9284, pp. 781–786, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J.-P. Pignon, A. L. Maître, E. Maillard, and J. Bourhis, “Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 4–14, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. R. Stupp, M. E. Hegi, W. P. Mason et al., “Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 459–466, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A. Munshi and R. Ramesh, “Mitogen-activated protein kinases and their role in radiation response,” Genes Cancer, vol. 4, no. 9-10, pp. 401–408, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. G. Marvaso, A. Barone, N. Amodio, et al., “Sphingosine analog fingolimod (FTY720) increases radiation sensitivity of human breast cancer cells in vitro,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 797–805, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. P. J. Roberts and C. J. Der, “Targeting the Raf-MEK-ERK mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade for the treatment of cancer,” Oncogene, vol. 26, no. 22, pp. 3291–3310, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. T. M. Williams, A. R. Flecha, P. Keller et al., “Cotargeting MAPK and PI3K signaling with concurrent radiotherapy as a strategy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1193–1202, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. J. F. Tang, Q. Wen, J. Sun, W. M. Zhang, and H. L. Zhu, “Advances in the researches on the biological activities and inhibitors of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase,” Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 673–687, 2014.
  43. Y. Nagata, A. Takahashi, K. Ohnishi et al., “Effect of rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, on radiation sensitivity of lung cancer cells having different p53 gene status,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1001–1010, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. G. J. Cerniglia, J. Karar, S. Tyagi et al., “Inhibition of autophagy as a strategy to augment radiosensitization by the dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor NVP-BEZ235,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 1230–1240, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. C. R. Gil del Alcazar, M. C. Hardebeck, B. Mukherjee et al., “Inhibition of DNA double-strand break repair by the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor NVP-BEZ235 as a strategy for radiosensitization of glioblastoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1235–1248, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. W. J. Wang, L. M. Long, N. Yang et al., “NVP-BEZ235, a novel dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, enhances the radiosensitivity of human glioma stem cells in vitro,” Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 681–690, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. T.-J. Liu, D. Koul, T. LaFortune et al., “NVP-BEZ235, a novel dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, elicits multifaceted antitumor activities in human gliomas,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 2204–2210, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. W. Zhu, W. Fu, and L. Hu, “NVP-BEZ235, dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, prominently enhances radiosensitivity of prostate cancer cell line PC-3,” Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 665–673, 2013.
  49. R. Nassim, J. J. Mansure, S. Chevalier, F. Cury, and W. Kassouf, “Combining mTOR inhibition with radiation improves antitumor activity in bladder cancer cells in vitro and in vivo: a novel strategy for treatment,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 6, Article ID e65257, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. K. Liang, K. K. Ang, L. Milas, N. Hunter, and Z. Fan, “The epidermal growth factor receptor mediates radioresistance,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 246–254, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. K. A. Cengel and W. G. McKenna, “Molecular targets for altering radiosensitivity: lessons from Ras as a pre-clinical and clinical model,” Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 103–116, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. S. K. Kundu and M. Nestor, “Targeted therapy in head and neck cancer,” Tumor Biology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 707–721, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. K. B. Kang, C. Zhu, Y. L. Wong, Q. Gao, A. Ty, and M. C. Wong, “Gefitinib radiosensitizes stem-like glioma cells: inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor-Akt-DNA-PK signaling, accompanied by inhibition of DNA double-strand break repair,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. e43–e52, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. S. Y. Park, Y. M. Kim, and H. Pyo, “Gefitinib radiosensitizes non-small cell lung cancer cells through inhibition of ataxia telangiectasia mutated,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 9, article 222, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. A. K. Das, M. Sato, M. D. Story et al., “Non-small cell lung cancers with kinase domain mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor are sensitive to ionizing radiation,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 19, pp. 9601–9608, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. J. C. Kim, M. A. Ali, A. Nandi et al., “Correlation of HER1/EGFR expression and degree of radiosensitizing effect of the HER1/EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib,” Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 358–365, 2005. View at Scopus
  57. A. Santiago, W. Eicheler, J. Bussink et al., “Effect of cetuximab and fractionated irradiation on tumour micro-environment,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 322–329, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. T. J. Kruser and D. L. Wheeler, “Mechanisms of resistance to HER family targeting antibodies,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 316, no. 7, pp. 1083–1100, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. W. Saleem, Y. Suzuki, A. Mobaraki et al., “Reduction of nitric oxide level enhances the radiosensitivity of hypoxic non-small cell lung cancer,” Cancer Science, vol. 102, no. 12, pp. 2150–2156, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. M. Wang, A. M. Kern, M. Hulskotter, et al., “EGFR-mediated chromatin condensation protects KRAS-mutant cancer cells against ionizing radiation,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 10, pp. 2825–2834, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  61. H. Lu, K. Liang, Y. Lu, and Z. Fan, “The anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab sensitizes human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells to radiation in part through inhibiting radiation-induced upregulation of HIF-1α,” Cancer Letters, vol. 322, no. 1, pp. 78–85, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. M. Saki, M. Toulany, and H. P. Rodemann, “Acquired resistance to cetuximab is associated with the overexpression of Ras family members and the loss of radiosensitization in head and neck cancer cells,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 473–478, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. T. Troiani, S. Napolitano, D. Vitagliano, F. Morgillo, A. Capasso, and V. Sforza, “Primary and acquired resistance of colorectal cancer cells to anti-EGFR antibodies converge on MEK/ERK pathway activation and can be overcome by combined MEK/EGFR inhibition,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 3775–3786, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. S. M. Leto and L. Trusolino, “Primary and acquired resistance to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer: impact on future treatment strategies,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 709–722, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  65. K. S. Tewari, M. W. Sill, H. J. Long, et al., “Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 370, no. 8, pp. 734–743, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. R. A. Burger, M. F. Brady, M. A. Bookman et al., “Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 365, no. 26, pp. 2473–2483, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. P. Garcia-Alfonso, E. Grande, E. Polo, R. Afonso, J. J. Reina, and M. Jorge, “The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer according to K-RAS status,” Angiogenesis, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  68. L. M. Ellis, “Mechanisms of action of bevacizumab as a component of therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer,” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 33, Supplement 10, pp. S1–S7, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. A. L. Myers, R. F. Williams, C. Y. Ng, J. E. Hartwich, and A. M. Davidoff, “Bevacizumab-induced tumor vessel remodeling in rhabdomyosarcoma xenografts increases the effectiveness of adjuvant ionizing radiation,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1080–1085, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. H. Q. Zhuang, Z. Y. Yuan, and P. Wang, “Research progress on the mechanisms of combined bevacizumab and radiotherapy,” Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 129–134, 2014.
  71. F. S. Subtil, J. Wilhelm, V. Bill, et al., “Carbon ion radiotherapy of human lung cancer attenuates HIF-1 signaling and acts with considerably enhanced therapeutic efficiency,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1412–1421, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  72. Y. Wu, Y. Zheng, Z. Shen, W. Ge, Y. Xie, and C. Li, “Endostar combined with radiotherapy increases radiation sensitivity by decreasing the expression of TGF-beta1, HIF-1alpha and bFGF,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 911–916, 2014.
  73. F. Peng and M. Chen, “Antiangiogenic therapy: a novel approach to overcome tumor hypoxia,” Chinese Journal of Cancer, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 715–720, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. H. Harada, M. Inoue, S. Itasaka et al., “Cancer cells that survive radiation therapy acquire HIF-1 activity and translocate towards tumour blood vessels,” Nature Communications, vol. 3, article 783, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. M. A. Rodrigues, D. A. Gomes, M. F. Leite et al., “Nucleoplasmic calcium is required for cell proliferation,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 282, no. 23, pp. 17061–17068, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. R. R. Resende, L. M. Andrade, A. G. Oliveira, E. S. Guimaraes, S. Guatimosim, and M. F. Leite, “Nucleoplasmic calcium signaling and cell proliferation: calcium signaling in the nucleus,” Cell Communication and Signaling, vol. 11, article 14, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  77. L. M. Andrade, J. M. Geraldo, O. X. Gonçalves, et al., “Nucleoplasmic calcium buffering sensitizes human squamous cell carcinoma to anticancer therapy,” Journal of Cancer Science and Therapy, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 131–139, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  78. T. Neumaier, J. Swenson, C. Pham et al., “Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 443–448, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. E. Mladenov, S. Magin, A. Soni, and G. Iliakis, “DNA double-strand break repair as determinant of cellular radiosensitivity to killing and target in radiation therapy,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 3, p. 113, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  80. A. J. Chalmers, M. Lakshman, N. Chan, and R. G. Bristow, “Poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibition as a model for synthetic lethality in developing radiation oncology targets,” Seminars in Radiation Oncology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 274–281, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. M. Sukhanova, S. Khodyreva, and O. Lavrik, “Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 regulates activity of DNA polymerase β in long patch base excision repair,” Mutation Research, vol. 685, no. 1-2, pp. 80–89, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. T. Hirai, H. Shirai, H. Fujimori, R. Okayasu, K. Sasai, and M. Masutani, “Radiosensitization effect of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in cells exposed to low and high liner energy transfer radiation,” Cancer Science, vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 1045–1050, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. D. A. Loser, A. Shibata, A. K. Shibata, L. J. Woodbine, P. A. Jeggo, and A. J. Chalmers, “Sensitization to radiation and alkylating agents by inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase is enhanced in cells deficient in DNA double-strand break repair,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1775–1787, 2010.
  84. S. Nowsheen, J. A. Bonner, A. F. LoBuglio et al., “Cetuximab augments cytotoxicity with poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibition in head and neck cancer,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 8, Article ID e24148, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. J. M. Senra, B. A. Telfer, K. E. Cherry et al., “Inhibition of PARP-1 by olaparib (AZD2281) increases the radiosensitivity of a lung tumor xenograft,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1949–1958, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. M. Venere, P. Hamerlik, Q. Wu, et al., “Therapeutic targeting of constitutive PARP activation compromises stem cell phenotype and survival of glioblastoma-initiating cells,” Cell Death & Differentiation, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 258–269, 2014.
  87. M. Verheij, C. Vens, and B. van Triest, “Novel therapeutics in combination with radiotherapy to improve cancer treatment: rationale, mechanisms of action and clinical perspective,” Drug Resistance Updates, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 29–43, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. J. C. Barreto-Andrade, E. V. Efimova, H. J. Mauceri et al., “Response of human prostate cancer cells and tumors to combining PARP inhibition with ionizing radiation,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1185–1193, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. S. Nowsheen, J. A. Bonner, and E. S. Yang, “The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor ABT-888 reduces radiation-induced nuclear EGFR and augments head and neck tumor response to radiotherapy,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 331–338, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. S. Hehlgans, K. Storch, I. Lange, and N. Cordes, “The novel HDAC inhibitor NDACI054 sensitizes human cancer cells to radiotherapy,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 126–132, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. B. van Oorschot, A. L. Oei, A. C. Nuijens, et al., “Decay of gamma-H2AX foci correlates with potentially lethal damage repair and P53 status in human colorectal carcinoma cells,” Cellular and Molecular Biology Letters, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 37–51, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  92. Y. Y. Qu, S. L. Hu, X. Y. Xu et al., “Nimotuzumab enhances the radiosensitivity of cancer cells in vitro by inhibiting radiation-induced DNA damage repair,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, Article ID e70727, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. J. E. González, J. F. Barquinero, M. Lee, O. García, and A. Casacó, “Radiosensitization induced by the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and nimotuzumab in A431 cells,” Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 71–76, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. L. Du, L.-J. Zhou, X.-J. Pan et al., “Radiosensitization and growth inhibition of cancer cells mediated by an scFv antibody gene against DNA-PKcs in vitro and in vivo,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 5, article 70, no. 1, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. S. Mallick, R. Patil, R. Gyanchandani et al., “Human oral cancers have altered expression of Bcl-2 family members and increased expression of the anti-apoptotic splice variant of Mcl-l,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 217, no. 3, pp. 398–407, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. T. Kondo, “Radiation-induced cell death and its mechanisms,” Radiation Emergency Medicine, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2013.
  97. V. C. Palve and T. R. Teni, “Association of anti-apoptotic Mcl-1L isoform expression with radioresistance of oral squamous carcinoma cells,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 7, no. 1, article 135, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. J. C. Lee, W. H. Lee, Y. J. Min, H. J. Cha, M. W. Han, and H. W. Chang, “Development of TRAIL resistance by radiation-induced hypermethylation of DR4 CpG island in recurrent laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology. Biology. Physics, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 1203–1211, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  99. J.-E. Kwon, B.-Y. Kim, S.-Y. Kwak, I.-H. Bae, and Y.-H. Han, “Ionizing radiation-inducible microRNA miR-193a-3p induces apoptosis by directly targeting Mcl-1,” Apoptosis, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 896–909, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. Y. Ma, H. Xia, Y. Liu, and M. Li, “Silencing miR-21 sensitizes non-small cell lung cancer A549 cells to ionizing radiation through inhibition of PI3K/Akt,” Int, vol. 2014, Article ID 617868, 6 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  101. L. Kma, “Synergistic effect of resveratrol and radiotherapy in control of cancers,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6197–6208, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  102. S. Palumbo and S. Comincini, “Autophagy and ionizing radiation in tumors: the “survive or not survive” dilemma,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 228, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. H. Rikiishi, “Autophagic action of new targeting agents in head and neck oncology,” Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 978–991, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. J. E. Paes and M. D. Ringel, “Dysregulation of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway in thyroid neoplasia,” Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 375–387, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. M. Qiao, J. D. Iglehart, and A. B. Pardee, “Metastatic potential of 21T human breast cancer cells depends on Akt/protein kinase B activation,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 5293–5299, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. L. Larue and A. Bellacosa, “Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in development and cancer: role of phosphatidylinositol 3′ kinase/AKT pathways,” Oncogene, vol. 24, no. 50, pp. 7443–7454, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. A. C. Pickhard, J. Margraf, A. Knopf et al., “Inhibition of radiation induced migration of human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells by blocking of EGF receptor pathways,” BMC Cancer, vol. 11, article 388, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. C. Wild-Bode, M. Weller, A. Rimner, J. Dichgans, and W. Wick, “Sublethal irradiation promotes migration and invasiveness of glioma cells: implications for radiotherapy of human glioblastoma,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2744–2750, 2001. View at Scopus
  109. P. G. Rychahou, J. Kang, P. Gulhati et al., “Akt2 overexpression plays a critical role in the establishment of colorectal cancer metastasis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 51, pp. 20315–20320, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. M. J. Arboleda, J. F. Lyons, F. F. Kabbinavar et al., “Overexpression of AKT2/protein kinase Bβ leads to up-regulation of β1 integrins, increased invasion, and metastasis of human breast and ovarian cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 196–206, 2003. View at Scopus
  111. P. Pu, C. Kang, J. Li, and H. Jiang, “Antisense and dominant-negative AKT2 cDNA inhibits glioma cell invasion,” Tumor Biology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 172–178, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. G. Sithanandam, L. W. Fornwald, J. Fields, and L. M. Anderson, “Inactivation of ErbB3 by siRNA promotes apoptosis and attenuates growth and invasiveness of human lung adenocarcinoma cell line A549,” Oncogene, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1847–1859, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  113. J. P. Thiery, H. Acloque, R. Y. J. Huang, and M. A. Nieto, “Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in development and disease,” Cell, vol. 139, no. 5, pp. 871–890, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. X. Zhang, X. Li, N. Zhang, Q. Yang, and M. S. Moran, “Low doses ionizing radiation enhances the invasiveness of breast cancer cells by inducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 412, no. 1, pp. 188–192, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  115. Y.-C. Zhou, J.-Y. Liu, J. Li et al., “Ionizing radiation promotes migration and invasion of cancer cells through transforming growth factor-β-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 1530–1537, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  116. K. L. Andarawewa, A. C. Erickson, W. S. Chou et al., “Ionizing radiation predisposes nonmalignant human mammary epithelial cells to undergo transforming growth factor β-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 18, pp. 8662–8670, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. A. Kawamoto, T. Yokoe, K. Tanaka et al., “Radiation induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition in colorectal cancer cells,” Oncology Reports, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 51–57, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  118. S. Yan, Y. Wang, Q. Yang et al., “Low-dose radiation-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition through NF-κB in cervical cancer cells,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1801–1806, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  119. W. Chen, S. Wu, G. Zhang, W. Wang, and Y. Shi, “Effect of AKT inhibition on epithelial-mesenchymal transition and ZEB1-potentiated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” Oncology Letters, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1234–1240, 2013.
  120. H. Y. Irie, R. V. Pearline, D. Grueneberg et al., “Distinct roles of Akt1 and Akt2 in regulating cell migration and epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 171, no. 6, pp. 1023–1034, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. H. Yao, Z.-Z. Zeng, K. S. Fay et al., “Role of α5β1 integrin up-regulation in radiation-induced invasion by human pancreatic cancer cells,” Translational Oncology, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 282–292, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. V. R. Gogineni, A. K. Nalla, R. Gupta et al., “α3β1 integrin promotes radiation-induced migration of meningioma cells,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1615–1624, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. B. Xue, W. Wu, K. Huang et al., “Stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) enhances cells invasion by αvβ6 integrin-mediated signaling in ovarian cancer,” Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 380, no. 1-2, pp. 177–184, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. P. C. Brooks, S. Strömblad, L. C. Sanders et al., “Localization of matrix metalloproteinase MMP-2 to the surface of invasive cells by interaction with integrin αvβ3,” Cell, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 683–693, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. E. I. Deryugina, B. Ratnikov, E. Monosov et al., “MT1-MMP initiates activation of pro-MMP-2 and integrin αvβ3 promotes maturation of MMP-2 in breast carcinoma cells,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 263, no. 2, pp. 209–223, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  126. C. Rüegg, Y. Monnier, F. Kuonen, and N. Imaizumi, “Radiation-induced modifications of the tumor microenvironment promote metastasis,” Bulletin du Cancer, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. E47–E57, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  127. A. Wilisch-Neumann, N. Kliese, D. Pachow, et al., “The integrin inhibitor cilengitide affects meningioma cell motility and invasion,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 19, no. 19, pp. 5402–5412, 2013.
  128. T. J. Yeatman, “A renaissance for SRC,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 470–480, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  129. D. A. Hsia, S. K. Mitra, C. R. Hauck et al., “Differential regulation of cell motility and invasion by FAK,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 160, no. 5, pp. 753–767, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  130. P. R. Purnell, P. C. Mack, C. G. Tepper et al., “The src inhibitor AZD0530 blocks invasion and may act as a radiosensitizer in lung cancer cells,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 448–454, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  131. U. Jadhav and S. Mohanam, “Response of neuroblastoma cells to ionizing radiation: modulation of in vitro invasiveness and angiogenesis of human microvascular endothelial cells,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1525–1531, 2006. View at Scopus
  132. L.-Y. Zhou, Z.-M. Wang, Y.-B. Gao, L.-Y. Wang, and Z.-C. Zeng, “Stimulation of hepatoma cell invasiveness and metastatic potential by proteins secreted from irradiated nonparenchymal cells,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 822–828, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  133. O. Kargiotis, C. Chetty, V. Gogineni et al., “uPA/uPAR downregulation inhibits radiation-induced migration, invasion and angiogenesis in IOMM-Lee Meningioma cells and decreases tumor growth in vivo,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 937–947, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  134. H. L. Fillmore, T. E. VanMeter, and W. C. Broaddus, “Membrane-type matrix metalloproteinases (MT-MMPs): expression and function during glioma invasion,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 187–202, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  135. H. K. Rooprai and D. McCormick, “Proteases and their inhibitors in human brain tumours: a review,” Anticancer Research, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 4151–4162, 1997. View at Scopus
  136. C. H. Chou, C. M. Teng, K. Y. Tzen, Y. C. Chang, J. H. H. Chen, and J. C. H. Cheng, “MMP-9 from sublethally irradiated tumor promotes Lewis lung carcinoma cell invasiveness and pulmonary metastasis,” Oncogene, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 458–468, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  137. J. Liu, W. Shen, Y. Tang, et al., “Proteasome inhibitor MG132 enhances the antigrowth and antimetastasis effects of radiation in human nonsmall cell lung cancer cells,” Tumor Biology, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  138. B. Paquette, H. Therriault, G. Desmarais, R. Wagner, R. Royer, and R. Bujold, “Radiation-enhancement of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell invasion prevented by a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 534–541, 2011.
  139. N. Burrows, M. Babur, J. Resch et al., “GDC-0941 inhibits metastatic characteristics of thyroid carcinomas by targeting both the phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K) and hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) pathways,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 96, no. 12, pp. E1934–E1943, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  140. C. Chargari, C. Clemenson, I. Martins, J.-L. Perfettini, and E. Deutsch, “Understanding the functions of tumor stroma in resistance to ionizing radiation: emerging targets for pharmacological modulation,” Drug Resistance Updates, vol. 16, no. 1-2, pp. 10–21, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  141. Y. Du, N. D. Peyser, and J. R. Grandis, “Integration of molecular targeted therapy with radiation in head and neck cancer,” Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 88–98, 2014.
  142. A. Suetens, M. Moreels, R. Quintens, et al., “Carbon ion irradiation of the human prostate cancer cell line PC3: a whole genome microarray study,” International Journal of Oncolog, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1056–1072, 2014.
  143. R. Hirayama, A. Uzawa, N. Takase et al., “Evaluation of SCCVII tumor cell survival in clamped and non-clamped solid tumors exposed to carbon-ion beams in comparison to X-rays,” Mutation Research, vol. 756, no. 1-2, pp. 146–151, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  144. Y. Xu, L. Yang, X. Jiang et al., “Adenovirus-mediated coexpression of DCX and SPARC radiosensitizes human malignant glioma cells,” Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 965–971, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  145. C. W. Song, H. Lee, R. P. M. Dings et al., “Metformin kills and radiosensitizes cancer cells and preferentially kills cancer stem cells,” Scientific Reports, vol. 2, article 362, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  146. F. E. Langlands, D. Dodwell, A. M. Hanby, et al., “PSMD9 expression predicts radiotherapy response in breast cancer,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 13, no. 1, article 73, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  147. C. Trainor, K. T. Butterworth, C. K. McGarry et al., “Cell survival responses after exposure to modulated radiation fields,” Radiation Research, vol. 177, no. 1, pp. 44–51, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  148. A. Tesei, A. Sarnelli, C. Arienti, et al., “In vitro irradiation system for radiobiological experiments,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2013.