4.7 Article

The late radiotherapy normal tissue injury phenotypes of telangiectasia, fibrosis and atrophy in breast cancer patients have distinct genotype-dependent causes

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 96, Issue 6, Pages 1001-1007

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603637

Keywords

breast cancer; radiation injury; TGF beta 1; XRCC1; fibrosis; telangiectasia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relationship between late normal tissue radiation injury phenotypes in 167 breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy and: (i) radiotherapy dose (boost); (ii) an early acute radiation reaction and (iii) genetic background was examined. Patients were genotyped at single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in eight candidate genes. An early acute reaction to radiation and/or the inheritance of the transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF beta 1 - 509T) SNP contributed to the risk of fibrosis. In contrast, an additional 15 Gy electron boost and/or the inheritance of X-ray repair cross-complementing 1 (XRCC1) (R399Q) SNP contributed to the risk of telangiectasia. Although fibrosis, telangiectasia and atrophy, all contribute to late radiation injury, the data suggest that they have distinct underlying genetic and radiobiological causes. Fibrosis risk is associated with an inflammatory response (an acute reaction and/or TGF beta 1), whereas telangiectasia is associated with vascular endothelial cell damage (boost and/or XRCC1). Atrophy is associated with an acute response, but the genetic predisposing factors that determine the risk of an acute response or atrophy have yet to be identified. A combined analysis of two UK breast cancer patient studies shows that 8% of patients are homozygous (TT) for the TGFb1 (C-509T) variant allele and have a 15-fold increased risk of fibrosis following radiotherapy (95% confidence interval: 3.76 - 60.3; P = 0.000003) compared with (CC) homozygotes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available