Clinical Cancer Research The Future of Cancer Research: Science and Patient Impact
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Benbrook, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Dynlacht, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Benbrook, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Dynlacht, J. R.

Clinical Cancer Research, Vol 3, Issue 6 939-945, Copyright © 1997 by American Association for Cancer Research


ARTICLES

Differential retinoic acid radiosensitization of cervical carcinoma cell lines

DM Benbrook, J Shen-Gunther, ER Nunez and JR Dynlacht
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Gynecological Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73190, USA. Doris-Benbrook@uokhsc.edu

The potential of retinoic acid as a radiosensitizer was investigated using SiHa and CC-1 human uterine cervical carcinoma cell lines, representative of high- and low-grade lesions, respectively. SiHa was significantly (P < 0.05) radiosensitized, whereas CC-1 was not. Although 48 h of treatment with 5 microM 13-cis-retinoic acid prior to irradiation was sufficient to induce radiosensitization, continuation of treatment after irradiation significantly increased the effect (P < 0.05). Three hypotheses were tested to explain the different responses of the two lines. One hypothesis was that SiHa is more sensitive to retinoic acid than CC-1. Measurement of growth revealed that SiHa was more sensitive to growth inhibition by retinoic acid than CC-1. The second hypothesis was that retinoic acid increases the proportion of G1-phase cells in SiHa but not in CC-1. This was found not to be true, because a retinoic acid treatment schedule that induced radiosensitization did not alter cell cycle distribution profiles in the absence of radiation. The third hypothesis was that retinoic acid alters the cell cycle response of SiHa but not CC-1 to radiation. Postirradiation cell cycle profiles revealed that retinoic acid increased G1 delay in SiHa, whereas CC-1 exhibited no significant G1 delay. Both lines exhibited G2 delays that were unaffected by retinoic acid. In conclusion, radiosensitization of SiHa but not CC-1 may be explained by different sensitivities to retinoic acid and differences in postirradiation cell cycle responses. Radiosensitization at radiation doses used clinically was observed when retinoic acid was administered both before and after irradiation.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 1997 by the American Association for Cancer Research.