Objective: In this study, bystander effects in MCF-7 breast cancer cells and hFOB 1.19 normal osteoblast cells irradiated with gamma emitting HDR Brachytherapy Ir-192 source were investigated.
Material and Methods: In this in-vitro study, bystander effect stimulation was conducted using medium transfer technique of irradiated cells to the non-irradiated bystander cells. Cell viability, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation and colony forming assay was employed to evaluate the effect.
Results: Results indicate that the exposure to the medium irradiated MCF-7 induced significant bystander killing and decreased the survival fraction of bystander MCF-7 and hFOB from 1.19 to 81.70 % and 65.44 %, respectively. A significant decrease in survival fraction was observed for hFOB 1.19 bystander cells (p < 0.05). We found that the rate of hFOB 1.19 cell growth significantly decreases to 85.5% when added with media from irradiated cells. The ROS levels of bystander cells for both cell lines were observed to have an increase even after 4 h of treatment. Our results suggest the presence of bystander effects in unirradiated cells exposed to the irradiated medium.
Conclusion: These data provide evidence that irradiated MCF-7 breast cancer cells can induce bystander death in unirradiated MCF-7 and hFOB 1.19 bystander cells. Increase in cell death could also be mediated by the ROS generation during the irradiation with HDR brachytherapy.
Methods: In vitro models of breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7, MDA-MB-231) and normal fibroblast cell line (NIH/3T3) were employed. Cellular localization and cytotoxicity studies were conducted prior to inspection on the radiosensitization effects and generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on three proposed radiosensitizers: BiONPs, Cis, and BiONPs-Cis combination (BC). The optimal, non-cytotoxic concentration of BiONPs (0.5 mM) and the 25% inhibitory concentration of Cis (1.30 µM) were applied. The radiosensitization effects were evaluated by using a 0.38 MeV Iridium-192 HDR brachytherapy source over a prescribed dose range of 0 Gy to 4 Gy.
Results: The cellular localization of BiONPs was visualized by light microscopy and accumulation of the BiONPs within the vicinity of the nuclear membrane was observed. Quantification of the sensitization enhancement ratio extrapolated from the survival curves indicates radiosensitization effects for MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 when treated with BiONPs, Cis, and BC. However, NIH/3T3 cells exhibited contradictive behavior as it only reacted towards the BC combination. Nonetheless, the MCF-7 cell line loaded with BC shows the highest SER of 4.29. ROS production analysis, on the other hand, shows that Cis and BC radiosensitizers generated the highest free radicals in comparison to BiONPs alone.
Conclusion: A BiONPs-Cis combination was unveiled as a novel approach that offers promising radiosensitization enhancement that will increase the efficiency of tumor control while preserving the normal tissue at a reduced dose. This data is the first precedent to prove the synergetic implication of BiONPs, Cis, and HDR brachytherapy that will be beneficial for future chemoradiotherapy strategies in cancer care.
METHOD: This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.
RESULTS: The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains-intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics-that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.
CONCLUSION: Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers' receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics' setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.