THE ROLE OF REPAIR PROCESSES IN THE FORMATION OF RADIOSENSITIVITY OF HEALTHY AND TUMOUR CELLS IN HUMANS

E.A. Domina

R.E.Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology, NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/oncology.2024.03.222

Despite significant progress in the development and implementation of new radiotherapeutic techniques over the past decade and positive results of radiotherapy for cancer patients, overall and progression-free survival rates are still poor. The analysis of literature data and our own research in the field of clinical radiobiology and radiation oncology shows that cellular DNA repair systems increase the radioresistance of tumours and thus hinder the improvement of the effectiveness of patient therapy. The role of repair processes in shaping the radiosensitivity of tumours compared to healthy tissues is discussed in detail, and their differences are described. It is emphasized that the repair of irradiated DNA damage in tumour cells is more intensive than in healthy tissue cells due to increased expression of repair enzymes. Together with the instability of the tumour cell genome, this causes a large variation in their radiosensitivity and indicates the priority of research aimed at finding and developing radioprotectors to protect the genome of healthy cells from the environment of the irradiated tumour without affecting (reducing) its radiosensitivity. Such a way to optimize the results of therapeutic radiation will help minimize radiation complications that require additional therapy and worsen the quality of life of treated patients. 

Keywords: cancer patients, radiotherapy, DNA repair, radiosensitivity, genetic instability.

References

1. Ciszewski WM, Tavecchio M, Dastych J, Curtin NJ. DNAPK inhibition by NU7441 sensitizes breast cancer cells to ionizing radiation and doxorubicin. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 143(1): 47–55. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2785-6.
2. Chow JP, Man WY, Mao M, et al. PARP1 is overexpressed in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and its inhibition enhances radiotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther 2013; 12 (11): 2517–28. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0010.
3. Domina EA, Dumanskyi YuV, Mаkovetska L.I, et al. Radiation therapy of cervical cancer patients: view of radiobiologists. Oncology 2024; 26(2): 85–94. doi: 10.15407/oncology.2024.02.085. (in Ukrainian)
4. Ivankova VS, Domina EA, Khrulenko TV, et al. Radiotherapy of oncogynecological patients in the conditions of modern technologies. Clin oncol 2021; 1(1): 1–5. doi: 10.32471/clinicaloncology.2663-466X.43-3.28535. (in Ukrainian)
5. Domina EA, Druzhyna MO, Ryabchenko NM. Individual human radio sensitivity. K: Logos, 2006. 126 p. (in Ukrainian)
6. 6. Kovalev EE, Smirnova OA. Estimation of radiation risk based on concept of individual variability of radiаosensitivity. AFRRI Contact Report 96-1. Glen I. Reeves () Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 1996. 202p.
7. Domina EA. Radiogenic cancer: epidemiology and primary prevention. K: Naukova Dumka, 2016. 196p. (in Ukrainian)
8. Domina EA, Drugina MO. Passport of individual radiosensitivity of humans for cytogenetic indicators. Information sheet No. 322-2018. Kiev, Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2018. 4 p. (in Ukrainian)
9. Grinevich SA, Domina EA. Immune and cytogenetic effects of dense- and rare-ionizing radiations. K: Avicenna, 2021. 384 р. (in Ukrainian)
10. Obaturov GM, Filimonov AS. Role of DNA double-strand breaks in the processes of radiation structural mutagenesis in eukaryotic cells. Rad Biol Radioecol 1993; 33 (2 (5)). 717–23.
11. Lieber MR. The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Ann Rev Biochem 2010; 79(1): 181–211.
12. Joiner MC, van der Kogel A. Basic Clinical Radiobiology (4th ed). London: CRC Press, 2009. 375 p. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15450.
13. Yarmonenko SP, Vainson AA. Radiobiology of man and animals. M: Vysshaya Shkola, 2004. 549 с.
14. Rothkamm K, Kruger I, Thompson LH, Lobrich M. Pathways of DNA double-strand break repair during the mammalian cell cycle. Mol Cell Biol 2003; 23 (16): 5706–15. doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.16.5706-5715.2003.
15. West SC. Molecular views of recombination proteins and their control. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2003; 4 (6): 435–45. doi: 10.1038/nrm1127.
16. Brugmans L, Kanaar R, Essers J. Analysis of DNA double-strand break repair pathways in miсe. Mutat Res 2007; 614: 95–108. doi:10.1016/J.MRFMMM.2006.01.022/.
17. Tamulevicius P, Wang M, Jliakis G. Homology-directed repair is required for the development of radioresistance during S-phase: interplay between double-strand break repair and checkpoint response. Radiat Res 2007; 167 (1): 1–11. doi: 10.1667/RR0751.1.
18. Cramer P, Verhoeven EE, Filon AR, et al. Damage in cockaine syndrome. Cells Radiat Res 2011; 175 (4): 432–43. doi: 10.1667/RR1972.1.
19. Ivankova VS, Domina EA. Problems of tumor sensitivity in radiation oncology. K: Zdorov`ya, 2012. 192 p. (in Ukrainian)
20. Domina EA, Ivankova VS. Individual radiosensitivity of tumours (radiobiological and clinical aspects). Problems of ecological and medical genetics and clinical immunology 2009; 4(91): 33–42. (in Ukrainian)
21. Bristov RG, Hill RP. Hypoxia and metabolism. Hypoxia DNA repair and genetic instability. Nat Rev Cancer 2008; 8 (3): 180–92. doi: 10.1038/nrc2344.
22. Domina EA. Radiation-induced instability of the human genome during low-dose irradiation. Сhapter 8. Heritage of European science ‘2024. Karlsruhe: ScientificWorld-NetAkhatAV, 2024: 88–101.