Skip to main content
UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts logoLink to UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jun 22.
Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oncol. 2010 Jan 22;97(1):9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.006

No association between SNPs regulating TGF-β1 secretion and late radiotherapy toxicity to the breast: Results from the RAPPER study §

Gillian C Barnett a,c,*, Charlotte E Coles b, Neil G Burnet a, Paul DP Pharoah c, Jennifer Wilkinson b, Catharine ML West d, Rebecca M Elliott d, Caroline Baynes c, Alison M Dunning c
PMCID: PMC3120654  EMSID: UKMS31468  PMID: 20096948

Abstract

Background and purpose

Several small studies have reported associations between TGFB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), considered to increase secretion of TGF-β1, and greater than 3-fold increases in incidence of fibrosis – an indicator of late toxicity after radiotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Two SNPs in TGFB1, C-509T (rs1800469) and L10P (rs1800470), were genotyped in 778 breast cancer patients who had received radiotherapy to the breast. Late radiotherapy toxicity was assessed two years after radiotherapy using a validated photographic technique, clinical assessment and patient questionnaires.

Results

On photographic assessment, 210 (27%) patients showed some degree of breast shrinkage, whilst 45 (6%) patients showed marked breast shrinkage. There was no significant association of genotype at either of the TGFB1 SNPs with any measure of late radiation toxicity.

Conclusion

This adequately powered trial failed to confirm previously reported increases in fibrosis with TGFB1 genotype – any increase greater than 1.36 can be excluded with 95% confidence. Similar frequent failures to replicate associations with candidate genes have been resolved using genome-wide association scans: this methodology detects common, low risk alleles but requires even larger patient numbers for adequate statistical power.

Keywords: Radiotherapy, Breast, Genetics, TGFB1, Breast cancer


RAPPER (Radiogenomics: Assessment of Polymorphisms for Predicting the Effects of Radiotherapy), a component project within GENEPI, is a large multi-centred UK collaboration studying the relationship between late radiotherapy morbidity and genetic variation measured by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [1]. The Cambridge Breast Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) study has contributed over 50% of patient blood DNA samples to RAPPER [2].

The TGFB1 gene encodes Transforming Growth Factor-beta1 (TGF-β1), a pro-fibrotic cytokine, which stimulates differentiation of fibroblasts and production of extracellular matrix and inhibits epithelial repair [3]. Transforming Growth Factor exists in three different isoforms, of which TGF-β1 is predominant in human plasma [4]. TGF-β1 is synthesised as a large immature precursor molecule with a signal peptide, enabling extracellular secretion. A large circulating pool of latent TGF-β1 is available for mobilisation after a triggering event [5], such as ionizing radiation [5-8].

The early phase of fibrogenesis after irradiation may be considered as a wound-healing response with up-regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines [3], such as TGF-β1. Endothelial cell killing leading to vascular damage and macrophage activation both contribute to tissue hypoxia, which in turn perpetuates fibrosis [9-11]. Normal epithelia may undergo epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) in response to irradiation and TGF-β1, which could also contribute to fibrosis [12]. The role of TGF-β1 in the radiation response may be multi-factorial – related to development of fibrosis, extracellular signalling, induction of apoptosis and inhibition of proliferation in response to DNA damage [8,13].

TGF-β1 has been implicated in the development of fibrosis in lung cancer patients [14-17]. Some studies have reported a correlation between elevated serum TGF-β1 levels and increased fibrosis in breast cancer patients [18]. However, others have not found such associations [19]. Several small studies have reported a correlation between SNPs in the TGFB1 gene and fibrosis, one form of late radiotherapy toxicity, in breast cancer patients [20-22]. In addition, a study of prostate cancer patients found significant associations between TGF genotype and certain toxicity end-points [23]. However, a recent study found no significant association between genotype and late clinical radiosensitivity in patients treated for gynaecological tumours [24]. A recent review of genetic variants and radiation toxicity included studies of the TGFB1 gene and highlighted the methodological issues involved [25]. The SNPs that have been studied in the TGFB1 gene include C-509T (rs1800469) and T+29C (rs1800470 encoding Leu10Pro; previously known as rs1982073), which are in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) with each other such that the minor allele of C-509T (the T allele) and the minor C allele of L10P, encoding proline Pro10 tend to be inherited together.

We sought to confirm reports indicating that SNPs associated with this increased secretion of TGF-β1 are also associated with increased radiation toxicity in a large number of patients who have been recruited to the RAPPER study. The RAPPER study is designed to look for an association between genetic variation and the development of radiation toxicity in several cancer types [26]. We assessed radiation toxicity using photographic assessment of breast shrinkage and clinical assessment of telangiectasia, induration of the breast, breast oedema and pigment change. Patient-reported pain and hyper-sensitivity of the treated breast were also studied.

Materials and methods

The patient characteristics and radiotherapy technique used in the Cambridge Breast IMRT trial have been previously described [2]. In this study 778 women, with operable unilateral histological-confirmed breast cancer (T1-3, N0-1, M0 at presentation) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requiring radiotherapy after complete macroscopic excision of the tumour by breast conserving surgery (no implants), were treated either with forward-planned IMRT or standard 2-field radiotherapy. A standard plan consisting of paired tangents was produced for all trial patients. Dose–volume histograms were then created for all patients for evaluation of dose homogeneity. Patients with significant dose inhomogeneities were randomised to either standard breast radiotherapy (285 patients in the control arm) or IMRT (286 in the interventional arm). Those patients with satisfactory dose homogeneity were not randomised, but treated with standard radiotherapy and followed up as per the randomised patients (207 patients).

The planning target volume (PTV) was the whole breast with a 1 cm margin. A dose of 40 gray (Gy) in 15 fractions, 5 days a week over 3 weeks was prescribed to the ICRU 50 reference point. An energy of 6 MV was used in most patients, but mixed energies of 6 and 15 MV photons were used when required in patients with larger separations. Nodal radiotherapy and a tumour bed boost were administered according to local protocols [2]. A boost was given to all patients except those deemed at low risk with all of the following: age >50 years, T1 stage, Grade 1 or 2, absence of lymph node metastases (including micrometastases), no lymphovascular space invasion, margins ≥5 mm (or 2 mm if anterior or deep margin and no more tissue to take). The tumour bed with a 2 cm radial margin was treated to a dose of 9 Gy in 3 fractions prescribed to the 100% isodose over 3 days by a direct electron field using 6–15 MeV electrons, depending on the skin–chest wall separation.

Data were collected on potentially confounding factors such as age at randomisation, smoking history, body mass index, use of tamoxifen and chemotherapy, breast boost, breast volume, ethnicity and co-morbidity such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease. Ethical approval was obtained from the Cambridge Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients. All patients provided a blood sample.

Study end-points

The primary end-point of the Cambridge Breast IMRT trial was photographic assessment of late cosmetic effects. Frontal photographs of both breasts were taken after primary surgery and before the start of radiotherapy, and repeated at 2 years after treatment. Two photographs were taken, one with the hands resting on the hips, the other with the arms raised above the head. Follow-up photographs were terminated in the case of local tumour relapse, further breast surgery, declining health or patient refusal. Changes in breast shrinkage were scored on a 3-point scale (none/minimal = 1, mild = 2, marked = 3) by three observers comparing the photographs taken at 2 years with the baseline images reaching a consensus score. A multidisciplinary team of seven clinicians (four oncologists, a radiographer, a surgeon and a breast care nurse) were involved in the assessment of the clinical photographs, a panel of three being present at any one time. This method had been validated and shown to be as sensitive but quicker than using three independent scorers with re-scoring of discrepancies and final resolution through discussion [27-29]. In this study photographic assessment of breast shrinkage due to radiotherapy was used as the end-point to assess any relationship with genotype.

Clinical assessment was made by a trained specialist radiographer (JW) at a follow-up appointment at 2 years after completion of radiotherapy. The initial 70 patients were assessed by an oncologist (CC). A specialist radiographer JW was trained in clinical assessment by CC during this time period. She then assessed the remainder of the patients. The treated breast was examined for the presence of breast oedema, telangiectasia, change in pigmentation, and palpable induration of the breast. Induration of the breast was defined as hardening of the breast tissue and was the clinical end-point used to assess the pathological process of fibrosis. Each of the secondary clinical end-points was graded 0–3 (none, a little, quite a bit, very much) on the scale used in the START trials [27,28]. Pigmentation change was scored from 0 to 2 according to the Late Effects of Normal Tissue-Subjective Objective Management Analytical (LENT-SOMA) score [30,31].

Patients completed validated quality of life questionnaires at baseline, 6 months and 2 years after the completion of radiotherapy. In this genotyping study, results from the EORTC BR23 questionnaire were used to assess pain and hyper-sensitivity in the treated breast at 2 years following radiation treatment [32]. Pain and oversensitivity experienced in the last week were scored on a scale from 1 to 4 (not at all, a little, quite a bit and very much). Patients recorded any medication that was prescribed for the management of breast pain.

Genotyping

DNA was extracted from the blood samples by Tepnel Life Sciences (www.tepnel.com). High-quality DNA was extracted from >99% of samples, with an average yield of 195 ± 67 μg (range 22–494 μg). All samples were genotyped using the Taqman 7900HT Sequence Detection System according to manufacturer’s instructions. Each assay was carried out using 10 ng DNA in a 5 μL reaction using Taqman Universal PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Warrington, United Kingdom), forward and reverse-primers and FAM- and VIC-labelled probes designed by Applied Biosystems (ABI Assay-by-Design). The sequences of the forward- and reverse-primers for L10P were AGGCGTCAGCACCAGTAG and GGAGAGCAATTCTTACAGGTGTCT, respectively. The sequence of the Vic-labelled probe was CAGCAGCGGCAGCA whilst that of the Fam-labelled probe was CAGCAGCAGCAGCA. For C-509T the sequences of the forward- and reverse-primers were CTGGGAAACAAGGTAGGAGAAGAG and GGAGAGCAATTCTTACAGGTGTCT. The sequence of the Vic-labelled probe was ACACCTGAAGGATGGA and that of the Fam-labelled probe was CACCTGAGGGATGGA. For both SNPs 40 cycles of PCR were carried out at 60 °C. All assays were carried out in 384-well arrays and each plate contained negative controls. In addition, 5% of all samples were duplicated and deviations of the genotype frequencies from those expected under Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) were assessed by χ2 tests, for quality control. Genotypes were determined using Allelic Discrimination Sequence Detection software (Applied Biosystems). DNA samples that did not give a clear genotype result at the first attempt were not repeated. The call rates were 96.1% and 99.6% for L10P and C-509T, respectively, concordance between duplicate samples was 100% and the genotype distributions did not differ from those expected under HWE.

Statistical analysis

Polychotomous logistic regression was used to relate genotype with photographic and clinical assessment scores. Polychotomous logistic regression, also known as ordinal response regression, was considered most appropriate for analysing the data as the dependent variables (toxicity end-points) take multiple ordered values. No numeric relationship is assumed between these grades; it is only assumed that lower grades correspond to milder reactions. Patients are assumed to have a decreasing risk of developing a specific grade of reaction when going from rare allele homozygous to heterozygous and to common allele homozygous. This form of regression effectively looks for a trend both down and across a table of toxicity score against genotype. In addition, the mean scores for each toxicity end-point according to genotype were calculated and the resulting P value for trend was derived using linear regression. The trend test assumes an increasing or decreasing risk of toxicity with increasing number of rare alleles. Whilst polychotomous logistic regression provides good power to detect association across a range of genetic models, the parameter estimates do not have an easily interpretable meaning. In order to aid their interpretation we dichotomized the variables. End-points were dichotomized by combining scores of 0 and 1 as one group and ≥2 as the other group.

If the effect of genotype occurred above a dose-threshold, rather than with increasing dose, it could be postulated that the administration of a radiotherapy boost may be an interacting factor. If such a model was correct, a patient’s genotype may not have an effect on the incidence of toxicity at lower doses. Genotype may only become important if they received a dose over a certain threshold. We therefore investigated possible interactions with radiotherapy boost using the log likelihood functions and calculating the change in model deviance when interaction terms were incorporated.

Results

Late clinical assessment data and genotype were available for 778 participants; photographic data were available for 703 study participants. Patient questionnaire data were available in 681 patients. Analysis was performed on all 778 patients; therefore some patients had missing values for some end-points. On photographic assessment, 210 patients (27%) showed some degree of breast shrinkage, whilst 45 patients (6%) showed marked breast shrinkage. The mean age of the patients was 59 years (range 26–83). Table 1 shows the results of clinical assessment of toxicity.

Table 1.

The frequency of adverse effects by photographic and clinical assessment.

Late toxicity end-point Frequency of clinical score (%)
0 1 2 3 4 Total
Photographic assessment of breast shrinkage N/A 448 (63.7) 210 (29.9) 45 (6.4) N/A 703
Telangiectasia 657 (84.4) 63 (8.1) 42 (5.4) 16 (2.1) N/A 778
Any induration 135 (17.4) 356 (45.8) 222 (28.5) 65 (8.4) N/A 778
Breast oedema 444 (57.1) 205 (26.3) 100 (12.9) 29 (3.7) N/A 778
Pigment change 549 (81.3) 62 (9.2) 64 (9.5) N/A N/A 675
Breast paina N/A 340 (50.1) 294 (43.4) 37 (5.5) 7 (1.0) 678
Oversensitivity of the breast N/A 414 (60.8) 228 (33.5) 30 (4.4) 9 (1.3) 681
a

Only 20 patients took analgaesia for breast pain, 1 took evening primrose oil, 4 took paracetamol, 4 took ibuprofen, 2 used combination of paracetamol and ibuprofen, 2 patients used medication for neuropathic pain and 7 patients required a weak opioid.

Table 2 shows the correlation between the different toxicity end-points used in the study. It can be seen that in many cases there is a significant correlation between two end-points, but the correlation coefficient is relatively low. It appears that patients who experience one toxicity end-point are more likely to experience other aspects of toxicity. Unsurprisingly there is a significant correlation between patient-reported breast pain and oversensitivity of the breast (R = 0.53; P < 0.0001).

Table 2.

The correlation between the different variables used in the study correlation coefficients are indicated for each pair of end-points with the corresponding P values in parenthesis.

Photographic breast shrinkage Telangiectasia Breast induration Breast oedema Pigment change Breast pain
Photographic breast shrinkage 1.00
Telangiectasia 0.19 (<0.0001) 1.00
Breast induration 0.18 (<0.0001) 0.05 (0.21) 1.00
Breast oedema 0.28 (<0.0001) 0.22 (<0.0001) 0.13 (0.0004) 1.00
Pigment change 0.11 (<0.0001) 0.13 (0.0005) 0.07 (0.07) 0.28 (<0.0001) 1.00
Breast pain 0.14 (0.0005) 0.04 (0.25) 0.06 (0.14) 0.11 (0.006) 0.006 (0.89) 1.00
Oversensitivity of the breast 0.15 (0.0002) 0.085 (0.027) 0.077 (0.045) 0.16 (<0.0001) 0.037 (0.37) 0.53 (<0.0001)

As expected, breast volume was significantly correlated with the development of both acute and late effects. Patients with larger breast volumes were significantly more likely to experience breast shrinkage assessed by photographs, telangiectasia, breast oedema, pigmentation, breast pain and changes in skin sensation. Increased toxicity was seen in all end-points for patients who received a radiotherapy boost. There were statistically significant differences in photographic assessment of radiotherapy shrinkage (P = 0.008), clinical assessment of breast oedema (P = 0.001) and of breast induration (P < 0.001) and patient-reported breast pain (P = 0.02) between patients who did and did not receive a boost. The influence of both breast volume and boost on the development of late toxicity validates the sensitivity of the end-points used in this study.

Table 3 shows the results of polychotomous logistic regression for each of the late toxicity outcomes with genotype at the L10P and C-509T SNPs. There are no significant associations of any late outcome with genotype. Table 4 shows the mean scores for each toxicity end-point according to genotype and the resulting P value for trend. The trend test assumes an increasing or decreasing risk of toxicity with increasing number of rare alleles. The P values for trend are similar to those calculated using polychotomous logistic regression. Using this trend test, there were no significant associations between genotype at L10P or C-509T and any of the toxicity end-points. After dichotomizing the variables, there were also no significant associations between genotype and any of the toxicity end-points assessed.

Table 3.

Association of toxicity end-points with genotype at L10P and C-509T using regression analysis.

Late toxicity end-point L10P (rs1800470)
C-509T (rs1800469)
Regression coefficienta (95% CI) P value Regression coefficienta (95% CI) P value
Photographic breast shrinkage 0.08 (−0.15, 0.31) 0.48 0.01 (−0.23, 0.25) 0.92
Telangiectasia −0.05 (−0.35, 0.26) 0.77 −0.19 (−0.51, 0.13) 0.23
Breast induration 0.03 (−0.17, 0.22) 0.79 0.03 (−0.18, 0.24) 0.77
Breast oedema −0.04 (−0.24, 0.17) 0.74 0.00 (−0.21, 0.22) 0.98
Pigment change −0.03 (−0.32, 0.26) 0.85 −0.17 (−0.49, 0.14) 0.27
Breast pain −0.18 (−0.42, 0.04) 0.11 −0.14 (−0.38, 0.10) 0.26
Oversensitivity of the breast −0.16 (−0.40, 0.08) 0.18 −0.12 (−0.37, 0.13) 0.35

CI, confidence intervals.

a

Regression coefficients are from polychotomous logistic regression.

Table 4.

Mean scores of toxicity end-points and genotype at L10P and C-509T.

Late toxicity
end-point
L10P (rs1800470)
C-509T (rs1800469)
Mean scores (standard deviation) by genotype
Mean scores (standard deviation) by genotype
Common allele
homozygote (TT)
Heterozygote
(TC)
Rare allele
homozygote (CC)
P
trenda
Common allele
homozygote (CC)
Heterozygote
(CT)
Rare allele
homozygote (TT)
P
trenda
Photographic breast shrinkage 1.40 (0.60) 1.45 (0.62) 1.42 (0.56) 0.64 1.42 (0.62) 1.44 (0.63) 1.37 (0.49) 0.87
Telangiectasia 0.20 (0.57) 0.26 (0.64) 0.16 (0.58) 0.93 0.27 (0.67) 0.25 (0.64) 0.15 (0.55) 0.25
Breast induration 1.28 (0.80) 1.28 (0.87) 1.34 (0.91) 0.64 1.28 (0.82) 1.26 (0.86) 1.38 (0.94) 0.68
Breast oedema 0.68 (0.88) 0.59 (0.81) 0.69 (0.86) 0.64 0.65 (0.87) 0.61 (0.83) 0.68 (0.83) 0.86
Pigment change 0.29 (0.63) 0.27 (0.61) 0.3 (0.66) 0.99 0.32 (0.66) 0.24 (0.57) 0.31 (0.68) 0.29
Breast pain 1.62 (0.66) 1.55 (0.63) 1.49 (0.61) 0.08 1.61 (0.67) 1.55 (0.62) 1.52 (0.61) 0.15
Oversensitivity of the breast 1.53 (0.70) 1.39 (0.58) 1.45 (0.54) 0.06 1.53 (0.72) 1.39 (0.57) 1.5 (0.58) 0.09
a

The mean scores for each toxicity end-point according to genotype were calculated and the resulting P value for trend was derived using linear regression.

Specifically, we saw no significant association of either SNP with mean induration score (a clinical measure of fibrosis) although the mean induration score of patients who were homozygotes for the minor Proline allele of L10P was higher (1.34) than the mean induration scores of those who carried the Leucine allele (1.28). After dichotomizing the end-point induration, patients who were heterozygous for the rare allele variant of L10P had a 1.04-fold increased risk of fibrosis (95% CI 0.83–1.30). A similar pattern was observed with C-509T with an odds ratio of 1.08 per allele (95% CI 0.85–1.36). This is to be expected given the strong linkage disequilibrium between L10P and C-509T, which have a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.84 in these patients.

Potential confounding factors such as age at randomisation, smoking history, body mass index, use of tamoxifen and chemotherapy, breast boost, breast volume, ethnicity and co-morbidity such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease were not associated with TGFβ1 genotype. We found no evidence for an interaction of genotype with the administration of a radiotherapy boost.

Discussion

This large, purpose designed study has been unable to confirm recent reports of significant associations between the TGFB1 (C-509T) SNP and increased risk of radiation fibrosis [20-22]. We did not find a significant association between either of the correlated TGFB1 SNPs, L10P (rs1800470) or C-509T (rs1800469), with the development of induration, assessed by the clinician. Induration of the breast is the clinical end-point used to assess the pathological process of fibrosis. Furthermore, we found no significant association of these SNPs with photographic assessment of radiotherapy shrinkage, clinician’s assessment of other late toxicity end-points or patient-reported symptoms.

C-509T is in the promoter region of TGFB1 but is not within any putative promoter regulatory elements and Leu10Pro is in the signal peptide. The two SNPs have been reported to act by altering the rate of secretion of TGFB1 and hence the circulating levels of mature protein [33-36]. However, not all studies have demonstrated such a relationship [37] – the presence, in the circulation, of both latent and activated forms may complicate the interpretation of studies on circulating levels.

Andreassen et al. found an increased risk of fibrosis in 41 patients who underwent post-mastectomy radiotherapy in patients with the Pro/Pro genotype in codon 10 and the T/T genotype in position −509 [21]. In addition, a similar SNP association with risk of subcutaneous fibrosis was found in 26 breast cancer patients and 26 matched controls [38]. However, these results were not replicated in a further study by the same group [39]. In a combined analysis of two published studies [20,22] of adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast (a total of 236 patients) it was reported that CT heterozygotes for C-509T had a 3-fold increased risk and TT homozygotes had a 15-fold increased risk of fibrosis following radiotherapy compared with CC homozygotes [22].

In our study 283 patients had induration of grade ≥2. The highly significant association of increased induration with breast boost shows that this is a sensitive end-point. We had 99% power to detect a 3-fold increase in incidence of fibrosis or induration for carriers of the T allele of the C-509T SNP, as reported in the combined analysis [22], with a type I error rate of 0.05. It remains possible that these SNPs do influence the development of late toxicity, but with much smaller effect sizes than reported in the previous small studies. This study enables the exclusion of a greater than 1.36-fold increased incidence of induration, associated with the T allele of C-509T, with >95% confidence. In order to have a 90% power to detect an effect size of 1.36 with a type I error rate of 0.05, assuming a minor allele frequency of 30% for the C-509T SNP and the same incidence of induration as in this study, a sample size of 1400 patients would be required.

Normal tissue reaction such as induration and telangiectasia develop gradually after a latency period [40-42]. However, there is evidence that late effects at 2 years are predictive of those at 5 years [43]. The follow-up of this study is currently 2 years and therefore it is likely that not all patients will have expressed their final level of toxicity. This study is on-going and follow-up will continue on these patients, so re-analysis will be possible at 5 years.

Conclusion

Our finding emphasises the need for trials of sufficient size to have rigorous statistical power. It also illustrates a common problem, found with most other human genetic traits; that is, an iterative candidate gene approach is not an efficient methodology for discovering genetic determinants of variation. In traits where the common-variant-common-disease model holds, or at least contributes, well-designed genome-wide association scan (GWAS) methodology has proved more efficient and definitive at finding the common variants [26].

Acknowledgements

Dr. Gill Barnett is funded by a fellowship from Cancer Research UK and The Royal College of Radiologists. The Breast Cancer Campaign provides funding for the Cambridge Breast IMRT Trial radiographer, Jennifer Wilkinson and Cancer Research UK funds the RAPPER study. Alison Dunning is funded by CR-UK and Paul Pharoah is a Senior Clinical Research Fellow of CR-UK. Dr. Neil Burnet and Dr. Charlotte Coles are supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. Professor Catharine West also has ECMC support for the work.

The Cambridge Breast IMRT Trial investigators include Dr. A.M. Moody, Dr. C.B. Wilson, Ms. C. McQuade, Professor G.C. Wishart, Mrs. N. Twyman and Dr. A.C.F. Hoole.

Footnotes

§

On behalf of the Cambridge Breast IMRT Trial Investigators.

References

  • [1].Burnet NG, Elliott RM, Dunning A, West CM. Radiosensitivity, radiogenomics and RAPPER. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2006;18:525–8. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2006.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Barnett GC, Wilkinson J, Moody AM, et al. A randomised controlled trial of forward-planned radiotherapy (IMRT) for early breast cancer: baseline characteristics and dosimetry results. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Bentzen SM. Preventing or reducing late side effects of radiation therapy: radiobiology meets molecular pathology. Nat Rev. 2006;6:702–13. doi: 10.1038/nrc1950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Wakefield LM, Letterio JJ, Chen T, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta1 circulates in normal human plasma and is unchanged in advanced metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 1995;1:129–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Ehrhart EJ, Segarini P, Tsang ML, Carroll AG, Barcellos-Hoff MH. Latent transforming growth factor beta1 activation in situ: quantitative and functional evidence after low-dose gamma-irradiation. FASEB J. 1997;11:991–1002. doi: 10.1096/fasebj.11.12.9337152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Randall K, Coggle JE. Expression of transforming growth factor-beta 1 in mouse skin during the acute phase of radiation damage. Int J Radiat Biol. 1995;68:301–9. doi: 10.1080/09553009514551231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Martin M, Vozenin MC, Gault N, Crechet F, Pfarr CM, Lefaix JL. Coactivation of AP-1 activity and TGF-beta1 gene expression in the stress response of normal skin cells to ionizing radiation. Oncogene. 1997;15:981–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1201433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Ewan KB, Henshall-Powell RL, Ravani SA, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta1 mediates cellular response to DNA damage in situ. Cancer Res. 2002;62:5627–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Delanian S, Lefaix JL. The radiation-induced fibroatrophic process: therapeutic perspective via the antioxidant pathway. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:119–31. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Vujaskovic Z, Anscher MS, Feng QF, et al. Radiation-induced hypoxia may perpetuate late normal tissue injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:851–5. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01593-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Anscher MS, Chen L, Rabbani Z, et al. Recent progress in defining mechanisms and potential targets for prevention of normal tissue injury after radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:255–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.01.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Andarawewa KL, Erickson AC, Chou WS, et al. Ionizing radiation predisposes nonmalignant human mammary epithelial cells to undergo transforming growth factor beta induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Cancer Res. 2007;67:8662–70. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Barcellos-Hoff MH. Integrative radiation carcinogenesis: interactions between cell and tissue responses to DNA damage. Semin Cancer Biol. 2005;15:138–48. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2004.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Anscher MS, Kong FM, Marks LB, Bentel GC, Jirtle RL. Changes in plasma transforming growth factor beta during radiotherapy and the risk of symptomatic radiation-induced pneumonitis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:253–8. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(96)00529-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Novakova-Jiresova A, Van Gameren MM, Coppes RP, Kampinga HH, Groen HJ. Transforming growth factor-beta plasma dynamics and post-irradiation lung injury in lung cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2004;71:183–9. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Fu XL, Huang H, Bentel G, et al. Predicting the risk of symptomatic radiation-induced lung injury using both the physical and biologic parameters V(30) and transforming growth factor beta. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:899–908. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01524-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Evans ES, Kocak Z, Zhou SM, et al. Does transforming growth factor-beta1 predict for radiation-induced pneumonitis in patients treated for lung cancer? Cytokine. 2006;35:186–92. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2006.07.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Li C, Wilson PB, Levine E, Barber J, Stewart AL, Kumar S. TGF-beta1 levels in pre-treatment plasma identify breast cancer patients at risk of developing post-radiotherapy fibrosis. Int J Cancer. 1999;84:155–9. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19990420)84:2<155::aid-ijc11>3.0.co;2-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Kahan Z, Csenki M, Varga Z, et al. The risk of early and late lung sequelae after conformal radiotherapy in breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:673–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Quarmby S, Fakhoury H, Levine E, et al. Association of transforming growth factor beta-1 single nucleotide polymorphisms with radiation-induced damage to normal tissues in breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Biol. 2003;79:137–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Andreassen CN, Alsner J, Overgaard M, Overgaard J. Prediction of normal tissue radiosensitivity from polymorphisms in candidate genes. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:127–35. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2003.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Giotopoulos G, Symonds RP, Foweraker K, et al. The late radiotherapy normal tissue injury phenotypes of telangiectasia, fibrosis and atrophy in breast cancer patients have distinct genotype-dependent causes. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1001–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Peters CA, Stock RG, Cesaretti JA, et al. TGFB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms are associated with adverse quality of life in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:752–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].De Ruyck K, Van Eijkeren M, Claes K, et al. TGFbeta1 polymorphisms and late clinical radiosensitivity in patients treated for gynecologic tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1240–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Andreassen CN, Alsner J. Genetic variants and normal tissue toxicity after radiotherapy: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:299–309. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Barnett GC, West CM, Dunning AM, et al. Normal tissue reactions to radiotherapy: towards tailoring treatment dose by genotype. Nat Rev. 2009;9:134–42. doi: 10.1038/nrc2587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG, et al. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:331–41. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70077-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG, et al. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1098–107. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60348-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Haviland JS, Ashton A, Broad B, et al. Evaluation of a method for grading late photographic change in breast appearance after radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008;20:497–501. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2008.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].LENT SOMA tables. Radiother Oncol. 1995;35:17–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].LENT SOMA scales for all anatomic sites. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:1049–91. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(95)90159-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2756–68. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Shah R, Hurley CK, Posch PE. A molecular mechanism for the differential regulation of TGF-beta1 expression due to the common SNP −509C-T (c. - 1347C > T) Hum Genet. 2006;120:461–9. doi: 10.1007/s00439-006-0194-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Dunning AM, Ellis PD, McBride S, et al. A transforming growth factor beta1 signal peptide variant increases secretion in vitro and is associated with increased incidence of invasive breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2003;63:2610–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Grainger DJ, Heathcote K, Chiano M, et al. Genetic control of the circulating concentration of transforming growth factor type beta1. Human Mol Genet. 1999;8:93–7. doi: 10.1093/hmg/8.1.93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Yokota M, Ichihara S, Lin TL, Nakashima N, Yamada Y. Association of a T29→C polymorphism of the transforming growth factor-beta1 gene with genetic susceptibility to myocardial infarction in Japanese. Circulation. 2000;101:2783–7. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.101.24.2783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Saltzman BS, Yamamoto JF, Decker R, et al. Association of genetic variation in the transforming growth factor beta-1 gene with serum levels and risk of colorectal neoplasia. Cancer Res. 2008;68:1236–44. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Andreassen CN, Alsner J, Overgaard J, et al. TGFB1 polymorphisms are associated with risk of late normal tissue complications in the breast after radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:18–21. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Andreassen CN, Alsner J, Overgaard M, Sorensen FB, Overgaard J. Risk of radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis in relation to single nucleotide polymorphisms in TGFB1, SOD2, XRCC1, XRCC3, APEX and ATM–a study based on DNA from formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue samples. Int J Radiat Biol. 2006;82:577–86. doi: 10.1080/09553000600876637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Bentzen SM, Thames HD, Overgaard M. Latent-time estimation for late cutaneous and subcutaneous radiation reactions in a single-follow-up clinical study. Radiother Oncol. 1989;15:267–74. doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(89)90095-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Dikomey E, Borgmann K, Peacock J, Jung H. Why recent studies relating normal tissue response to individual radiosensitivity might have failed and how new studies should be performed. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:1194–200. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00188-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Turesson I. Individual variation and dose dependency in the progression rate of skin telangiectasia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;19:1569–74. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(90)90374-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Turesson I, Nyman J, Holmberg E, Oden A. Prognostic factors for acute and late skin reactions in radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36:1065–75. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(96)00426-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES