Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0231511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231511

Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice

Alia Zander 1, Tatjana Paunesku 1, Gayle E Woloschak 1,*
Editor: Nobuyuki Hamada2
PMCID: PMC7928494  PMID: 33657093

Abstract

The Department of Energy conduced ten large-scale neutron irradiation experiments at Argonne National Laboratory between 1972 and 1989. Using a new approach to utilize experimental controls to determine whether a cross comparison between experiments was appropriate, we amalgamated data on neutron exposures to discover that fractionation significantly improved overall survival. A more detailed investigation showed that fractionation only had a significant impact on the death hazard for animals that died from solid tumors, but did not significantly impact any other causes of death. Additionally, we compared the effects of sex, age first irradiated, and radiation fractionation on neutron irradiated mice versus cobalt 60 gamma irradiated mice and found that solid tumors were the most common cause of death in neutron irradiated mice, while lymphomas were the dominant cause of death in gamma irradiated mice. Most animals in this study were irradiated before 150 days of age but a subset of mice was first exposed to gamma or neutron irradiation over 500 days of age. Advanced age played a significant role in decreasing the death hazard for neutron irradiated mice, but not for gamma irradiated mice. Mice that were 500 days old before their first exposures to neutrons began dying later than both sham irradiated or gamma irradiated mice.

Introduction

Ionizing radiation can be classified by its linear energy transfer (LET) to better understand how quickly radiation is attenuated and the concentration of energy deposited near the particle track. Experiments evaluating the biological effects of low and high LET ionizing radiation found that high LET radiation is more damaging to biological material in part because sites of DNA double strand damage and other types of damage are in closer proximity to one another than occurs with low LET radiation. These clusters of damage make DNA repair more difficult and lead to increased cell death [1]. Neutrons are the most penetrating of all particles included in the category of high LET ionizing radiation. Neutrons are further classified by the amount of kinetic energy in a free neutron and this energy ranges from less than 0.02eV for cold neutrons to over 20MeV for ultrafast neutrons. While numerous animal studies were conducted in the USA, Europe and Asia using low LET radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays [25], extensive neutron irradiation experiments were less common.

Between 1972 and 1989, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) housed one of the few neutron irradiators called the JANUS reactor suitable for large-scale whole-body animal irradiations with fission spectrum neutrons with an energy range peak at 1 MeV [610]. During this time, ANL performed ten independent experiments investigating the effects of gamma and neutron irradiations on mice [11]. These animals were irradiated under different conditions and allowed to live out their entire lifespan. Ionizing radiation exposures ranged from low to high doses, included fractionated and acute exposures, and the age when mice were first exposed to ionizing radiation varied by experiment. Moribund mice were necropsied to determine a cause of death (COD), other death contributing diseases, and non-contributing diseases. The resulting dataset from the Janus studies includes information on over 50,000 male and female mice [3, 1113]. A neutron irradiation study of this magnitude will most likely never be reproduced and it is important that researchers continue to analyze these data in light of novel biological findings and analytical methods. Innovative statistical approaches, such as the ones used here, can lead to new insights into the effects of neutron irradiation on whole organisms.

In this study we analyzed neutron irradiated mice using methods similar to those used for investigation of cobalt 60 gamma irradiated mice [14]. Here, we included comparisons between key findings from our analyses on neutron and gamma irradiated mice. Comparisons between the two qualities of radiation are beneficial for determining the underlying biological factors leading to differential health outcomes. Numerous in vivo studies comparing x-rays or gamma rays with neutrons evaluated life shortening or focused on genetic changes to establish a suitable relative biological effectiveness factor (RBE) [69, 1521]. Work with radioprotectors and neutron irradiation in vivo and in vitro also found profound differences between the high and low LET ionizing radiation [2225].

Previous neutron irradiation studies suggested that fractionation had little effect on overall survival or cancer risk from neutron exposures [6, 7, 9, 2631]. We re-analyzed data from the Janus experiments conducted at ANL by pooling results from different studies in a new way in order to determine the role of fractionation in neutron irradiations for overall survival and for risks of specific causes of death. Rigorous statistical testing on sham irradiated mice enabled us to combine several Janus experiments into one large dataset. This approach increased our statistical power and allowed comparisons of different fractionation regimens across a wide array of total doses [14]. A more voluminous dataset generated by this approach allowed us to explore neutron fractionation effects in young and old mice across a wide array of total doses of fission spectrum neutrons.

Methods

Data selection

Details on data selection methods used in this study can be found in our previously published work [14] and S1 Table in S1 File. To increase the statistical power given the limited set of fractionation schedules for neutron irradiated mice, we combined mice that received their total doses in 24 and 60 fractions into a single group. Therefore, in addition to the initial analysis of control mice, we also verified that grouping together 24 and 60 sham irradiation fractions did not significantly change survival probabilities in control mice compared to animals that received acute sham exposures. Because the greatest number of fractions a neutron irradiated mouse received was only 60 fractions, we also excluded all animals with more than 60 sham irradiation fractions from this work.

We used Cox proportional hazards models with sex and a categorical fractionation term as independent variables for the main model (S1A and S1B Fig in S1 File). For sensitivity analysis, we also stratified by sex (S1C and S1D Fig in S1 File) and found no significant changes in the model output. In addition, we tested the impact of using a mixed-effects model to account for variability between experiments. The results in S2 Table in S1 File show similar results to the main model. Model output showed that the integrated and penalized log likelihoods were very similar and both significant (p-value < 0.001), increasing our confidence that the control experiments outlined in our previous paper [14] were sufficient for capturing variability between experiments. Finally, we used Kaplan Meier survival curves to validate the proportional hazards assumption in our model and found non-overlapping survival curves between sham irradiated mice that received acute and fractionated exposures (S1E Fig in S1 File). After filtering out any control mice that received more than 60 sham irradiation fractions, we again verified that there were no significant differences between control mice based on experiment number or age first irradiated. S1 Table in S1 File outlines the filtering process used to determine an acceptable cohort of neutron irradiated mice that combined data from multiple Janus experiments.

Survival analysis

Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were used for categorical univariate survival analysis in R through the survfit function within the survival package [32, 33]. Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were utilized to evaluate survival over time for multivariate models. Cox PH models enabled us to include interactions between variables, incorporate quantitative and categorical variables, and stratify by variables that do not have proportional hazards [34]. The main Cox PH model used for neutron irradiated mice was as follows:

λ(t)=λ0(t)e(β1sex+β2firstirrad+β3totaldose+β4fractionated+β5totaldose:fractionated)

where λ(t) is the hazard function based on our set of covariates (sex, age first irradiated, total dose, fractionated (acute vs. fractionated), and the interaction between total dose and fractionated), β is a vector of their associated parameter estimates, and λ0(t) is the baseline hazard. All Cox PH models were created in R through the coxph function from the survival package [33]. We checked for multicollinearity in our models using the vif function from the car package in R. As expected, there was multicollinearity with the interaction term, however this was not an issue in our model because the standard error in our models was not overly inflated. Additionally, sensitivity analyses showed consistent results across different models.

Competing risks analysis

We conducted competing risks analyses to understand the risks and probabilities of specific causes of death. In situations where there are no competing risks, or events that could decrease the likelihood of observing the event of interest (i.e. other causes of death), the cumulative incidence of an event is calculated as the one minus the survival function estimated with KM curves. However, when competing risks are present, the KM method is biased upward and the Fine and Gray method for CIF is more appropriate for examining probabilities of particular event types [35]. For our competing risks analyses, we assessed crude incidences, cause-specific hazard models, and cumulative incidence function (CIF) regression models (also known as the subdistribution hazard) [36]. To investigate crude, nonparametric incidences with competing risks present, we utilized the cuminc function from the cmprsk package in R [37].

We utilized both cause specific hazards and CIF models for multivariate regression analyses in the presence of competing risks. Cause specific hazards are used to determine the effect that covariates have on all event free subjects. These hazards were estimated using the coxph function from the survival package in R [33]. For this method all causes of death other than the event of interest, were censored. Concretely:

λk(t)=λ0k(t)e(β1sex+β2firstirrad+β3totaldose+β4fractionated+β5totaldose:fractionated),

subset data for age first irradiated < 500 days.

where λk(t) is the hazard function for the kth cause of death.

The cumulative incidence function describes the overall likelihood of a specific result and does not depend on a subject being event free [35, 3840]. We utilized the crr function in the cmprsk package in R to model CIF regression hazards [37]. Concretely:

λk*(t)=λ0k(t)e(β1sex+β2firsrirrad+β3totaldose+β4fractionated+β5totaldose:fractionated),

subset data for age first irradiated < 500 days.

where λk*(t) is the subdistribution hazard function for the kth cause of death.

Cause of death animal groupings

The full list of causes of death separated by radiation treatment conditions (control, gamma rays, neutrons) and subdivided by sex is shown in S3 Table in S1 File. “Grouped Macros” data was downloaded from the Janus website and includes all pathologies found at necropsy. CODs were categorized as lethal (L), contributory (C), or non-contributory (N) [11]. For the purposes of this study, we only investigated lethal disorders. We grouped causes of death as solid tumors other than lymphomas (referred to as tumors), lymphomas, non-tumors, or cause of death unknown (CDU) to gain a better understanding of disease trends. For certain analyses, we also looked at lung tumors separately from all other non-lymphoma solid tumors and examined non-thymic lymphoma specifically.

Survival analysis for JM8 mice

One of the Janus experiments excluded from the main analysis and treated separately is the experiment JM8 where animals received once a week a 45 minutes sham fraction or a fraction of gamma rays (dose rates of 0.15, 0.37, or 0.68 cGy/min), or neutrons (dose rates 0.014, 0.035 or 0.056 cGy/min). Because irradiations continued until the death of the animals, it was impossible to ascribe discrete total doses in this study.

The main Cox PH model used for gamma irradiated JM8 mice analysis was:

λ(t)=λ0(t)e(β1sex+β2doserate(0.148)+β3doserate(0.370)+β4doserate(0.680)),

all mice included.

The main Cox PH model used for neutron irradiated JM8 mice analysis was:

λ(t)=λ0(t)e(β1sex+β2doserate(0.0138)+β3doserate(0.0349)+β4doserate(0.0558)),

all mice included.

Results

Fractionation decreases the death hazard in mice exposed to neutrons

We examined age at death in mice from Janus experiments for different total doses and fractionation regimens (Fig 1). The range of total doses for neutron irradiated mice was 0.94cGy - 301cGy. A minor subset of animals was first exposed to neutrons when they were over 500 days old, while the remainder of the mice were first irradiated around 100 days +/- 15 days (Fig 1B). The highest acute exposure neutron dose was 37.68cGy for young mice and 150.72cGy for aged mice. When comparing the age at death for aged mice compared to mice first irradiated around 100 days, there was a noticeable increase in longevity in the aged irradiated mice. No equivalent finding was noted in the gamma irradiated young and old mice cohorts (Fig 1C and [14]). We excluded the aged irradiated mice from our main analysis because none of the sham irradiated animals in our cohort were aged before sham exposure and this small subset of data would have had a large amount of leverage on our model. Aged mice were, however, incorporated in robustness tests. Excluding these 560 aged mice from further investigation resulted in 14,018 mice total for our neutron analysis.

Fig 1. Analysis on animals filtered in S1 Table in S1 File including controls or neutron irradiated.

Fig 1

(A) Box plot of age at death in days versus total dose in Gy. Colors indicate if the exposure was acute or fractionated. (B) Age at death in days versus total dose in Gy. Colors indicate whether a mouse was first irradiated before (light) or after (dark purple) 500 days. (C) Histogram of the total number of animals versus age first irradiated in days. (D) Representative graphs from Cox PH model output with age at death as the time scale and sex, age first irradiated, total dose, fractions, and the interaction between total dose and fractions as independent variables. The predicted outcomes shown are for female mice first irradiated at 120 days. All independent variables were significant in the model, as shown by the parameter estimates and statistical output from the model (Table 1).

The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) used to set up gamma ray and neutron irradiations was based on life shortening per cumulative dose; it was estimated to be around 10 for neutron doses up to 40cGy and approximately 5 or less for neutron doses over 40cGy ([11]–page 36). Because of this RBE estimate, the maximal total dose for neutrons was approximately one order of magnitude lower than the maximum dose used for gamma irradiations. In addition, the fractionation schedule was more limited and neutron irradiated mice only received 24 or 60 fractions. We combined these two fractionation conditions to increase sample size.

Using Cox PH models to study the effects of fractionation on survival in neutron irradiated mice, we found that the key interaction term between fractionations and total dose significantly decreased the death hazard (Fig 1D and Table 1). Similar to gamma irradiated mice, males had a significantly lower death hazard compared to female mice and the main effects for fractionation and total dose significantly increased the hazard. Even with a limited range of ages from 90 to 180 days, an increase in age first irradiated significantly decreased the hazard. All of these variables showed statistical significance in our model, including the age first irradiated, a variable that was not significant in gamma irradiated mice [14]. Robustness tests showed similar results, increasing our confidence in the benefit of fractionation on neutron irradiated mice (S2 Fig in S1 File). When we included aged mice for our robustness testing, acute exposures appeared to be less hazardous compared to fractionated exposures (S2A and S2B Fig in S1 File). However, after correcting the model by adding in an interaction term between age first irradiated and total dose to account for the increased rescue effect of older ages at higher doses (Fig 1C), fractionation decreased the death hazard (S2C and S2D Fig in S1 File). Adding an interaction term between age first irradiated and total dose for the main model did not change the significance nor the sign of any terms in the model, and the interaction term itself was not significant (S2E and S2F Fig in S1 File). Stratifying by sex (S2G and S2H Fig in S1 File) and including exact fractionation regimen and age first irradiated for control mice (S2I and S2J Fig in S1 File) had no major consequence on the model. We used KM curves to validate the proportional hazards assumption in our model and found parallel survival curves between groups based on sex, number of fractions, age first irradiated, and total dose (S3 Fig in S1 File).

Table 1. Parameter estimates, hazard ratios with 95% confidence interval, and p-values for main Cox PH model.

term Estimate Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P-value
Sex(M) -0.19 0.828 (0.790, 0.868) <0.001
Fractionated 0.165 1.179 (1.105, 1.259) <0.001
Total Dose 1.85 6.36 (4.13, 9.78) <0.001
Age First Irradiated -0.003 0.997 (0.9943, 0.9998) 0.040
Fractionated:Total Dose -0.933 0.39 (0.26, 0.61) <0.001

In neutron irradiated mice, fractionation significantly decreases the hazard for tumor deaths

Accounting for competing risks by calculating cause-specific hazards, we found that the interaction between total dose and the fractionation variable was significant for tumor deaths (Fig 2A and Table 2) where fractionation was beneficial for survival. In animals that developed lymphoma (Fig 2B and Table 2), non-tumors (Fig 2C and Table 2) or CDU (Fig 2B and Table 2) fractionation lead to differences that were not significant. In Fig 2B and 2C the line representing acute exposures is hidden directly behind the line showing fractionated exposures. To evaluate this further, we inspected death due to lung tumors (S4A Fig in S1 File), non-thymic lymphoma (S4C Fig in S1 File), and tumors other than lung tumors (S4B Fig in S1 File). The interaction term between fractionation and total dose was not significant for lung tumors nor non-thymic lymphoma, but was still significant in tumors other than lung tumors (S4B and S4D Fig in S1 File and Table 2). Males had a lower death for all specific causes of death, except for tumors. Males had a higher hazard for lung tumors specifically, but not for tumors excluding lung tumors, indicating that lung tumor risk in males was driving the entire outcome for the tumor group.

Fig 2. Competing risks models for specific causes of death in neutron-irradiated mice with age as a time scale and sex, age first irradiated, total dose, fractions, and the interaction between total dose and fractions as independent variables.

Fig 2

Survival curves for causes of death being (A) any solid tumors, (B) lymphoma, (C) non-tumors, and (D) cause of death unknown. Model estimates, confidence intervals and p-values are listed in Table 2. The graphs represent predicted outcomes for female mice first irradiated at 120 days.

Table 2. Competing risks model output for cause specific hazards and subdistribution hazards.

Cause Specific Hazards Subdistribution Hazards
COD Independent Variable Estimate Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P-value Estimate Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P-value
Tumors sexM 0.17 1.185 (1.101, 1.276) <0.001 0.482 1.62 (1.508, 1.74) <0.001
Fractions 0.275 1.32 (1.18, 1.47) <0.001 0.027 1.027 (0.941, 1.121) 0.55
Total dose 3.362 28.8 (15.1 54.9) <0.001 0.199 1.221 (0.974, 1.53) 0.083
First irrad -0.008 0.993 (0.987 0.998) 0.005 0 1 (0.999, 1.001) 0.88
Fractions: Total dose -2.421 0.09 (0.05, 0.17) <0.001 -0.023 0.977 (0.773, 1.235) 0.85
Lymphoma sexM -0.46 0.634 (0.587, 0.685) <0.001 -0.38 0.69 (0.64, 0.74) 0
Fractions 0.29 1.33 (1.20, 1.47) <0.001 0.22 1.25 (1.15, 1.36) <0.001
Total dose 0.749 2.12 (1.01, 4.43) 0.047 -0.429 0.651 (0.499, 0.85) 0.002
First irrad 0.003 1.003 (0.997, 1.008) 0.310 2.75E-04 1.000 (1.000, 1.001) 0.46
Fractions: Total dose -0.138 0.87 (0.42, 1.83) 0.714 0.026 1.027 (0.776, 1.359) 0.85
Non-tumors sexM -0.49 0.61 (0.42, 0.69) <0.001 -0.34 0.71 (0.63, 0.80) <0.001
Fractions -0.306 0.74 (0.63, 0.86) <0.001 -0.40 0.67 (0.58, 0.77) <0.001
Total dose 1.128 3.09 (1.06, 8.99) 0.039 0.445 1.56 (1.119, 2.175) 0.009
First irrad -0.009 0.991 (0.98, 0.999) 0.016 0 1 (0.999, 1.001) 0.62
Fractions: Total dose 0.114 1.12 (0.38, 3.26) 0.835 0.144 1.155 (0.819, 1.627) 0.41
CDU sexM -0.30 0.74 (0.62, 0.89) 0.002 -0.13 0.883 (0.74, 1.05) 0.17
Fractions 0.19 1.21 (0.93, 1.57) 0.163 0.023 1.024 (0.824, 1.272) 0.83
Total dose 1.011 2.75 (0.38, 20.05) 0.318 -0.019 0.981 (0.568, 1.694) 0.95
First irrad 0.003 1.003 (0.991, 1.015) 0.659 0.001 1.001 (0.999, 1.002) 0.53
Fractions: Total dose 0.157 1.17 (0.16, 8.54) 0.877 0.303 1.354 (0.771, 2.378) 0.29
Lung tumors sexM 0.79 2.20 (1.97, 2.46) <0.001 1.12 3.08 (2.76, 3.43) <0.001
Fractions 0.206 1.23 (1.02, 1.47) 0.026 0.13 1.14 (0.99, 1.32) 0.071
Total dose 1.078 2.94 (0.71, 12.12) 0.136 0.03 1.03 (0.784, 1.353) 0.830
First irrad -0.011 0.989 (0.982, 0.997) 0.008 0.001 1.00 (1.000, 1.002) 0.027
Fractions: Total dose -0.254 0.78 (0.19, 3.20) 0.726 -0.006 0.994 (0.748, 1.323) 0.97
Tumors (excluding lung tumors) sexM -0.44 0.643 (0.58, 0.72) <0.001 -0.268 0.765 (0.691, 0.847) <0.001
Fractions 0.263 1.30 (1.13, 1.50) <0.001 -0.065 0.937 (0.835, 1.052) 0.27
Total dose 4.218 67.9 (32.9, 140.3) <0.001 0.526 1.691 (1.067, 2.681) 0.025
First irrad -0.006 0.994 (0.987, 1.001) 0.093 -0.002 0.998 (0.997, 1) 0.024
Fractions: Total dose -3.169 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) <0.001 -0.312 0.732 (0.458, 1.17) 0.19

Lymphoma is the most common COD in neutron irradiated mice while sex significantly impacts probabilities for most COD in control and neutron irradiated mice

Fig 3A shows the non-parametric cumulative incidence for each main COD. Lymphoma was the most prevalent, followed by lung tumors, all remaining tumors, non-tumors, and CDU. After dividing the data into control (Fig 3B) and neutron-irradiated mice (Fig 3C), we observed that the earliest cases of death occurred around 750 days in both groups of animals. These graphs were also showing sex differences for specific causes of death. For control and neutron-irradiated mice, males had a lower incidence of lymphomas, tumors excluding lung tumors, and non-tumors, but females had a much lower incidence of lung tumors. The difference between males and female mice was significant for both controls and neutron irradiated mice for all causes of death, except CDU (Fig 3B and 3C).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(A) Non-parametric CIF for the five main categories of COD without grouping. (B) Non-parametric CIF for the five main categories of COD grouped by sex for control/sham irradiated mice or (C) neutron-irradiated mice. P-values for differences in sex for each COD for mice graphed in (B): Tumor = 1.11E-05, lung tumor = 0, lymphoma = 3.75E-11, non-tumor = 2.01E-06, CDU = 0.66, and for mice graphed in (C): tumor = 1.783E-08, lung tumor = 0, lymphoma = 0, non-tumor = 7.07E-12, CDU = .453. Predicted outcome under the following conditions: low dose = 0.01Gy, high dose = 0.1Gy for (D) tumors (excluding lung), (F) lung tumors, (H) lymphomas, and (J) non-tumors. Predicted outcome under the following conditions: low dose = 0.01Gy, high dose = 1Gy for (E) tumors (excluding lung), (G) lung tumors, (I) lymphomas, and (K) non-tumors. All predicted outputs model males first irradiated at 120 days. Model output with parameter estimates, hazard ratios (95% confidence interval), and p-values are listed in Table 2.

Tumors other than lung tumors were more frequent with acute neutron exposures

It is important to examine subdistribution hazards, also known as cumulative incidence functions in addition to cause-specific hazards [35, 36, 3840]. The parameter estimates have a less direct interpretation using the Fine and Grey method for CIFs, but explain the overall likelihood of a specific outcome. We included sex, age first irradiated, number of fractions, total dose, and the interaction between fractions and total dose as independent variables in our subdistribution hazards model. The competing risk groups included lymphomas, lung tumors, tumors excluding lung tumors, non-tumors, and CDU. We discovered that females were more susceptible to tumors excluding lung tumors. Specifically, the incidence of tumors excluding lung tumors increased with increase of total dose and decreased with fractionation (Table 2). By graphing predicted outcomes under varying conditions, we found that the model predicted that when there was a tenfold difference in total dose, fractionation was the largest determinant for tumor incidence, with acute exposures resulting in the most tumors (Fig 3D). When model was generated for the hundredfold difference in total dose, fractionation remained the dominant factor modulating outcome. Acute high dose exposures resulted in the most tumor incidences in all scenarios (Fig 3E).

Examining lung tumors specifically, we found that males were more prone to lung tumors and increases in total dose and fractionation contributed to increased lung tumor incidence although not significantly (Table 2). Plotting predicted outcomes under variable conditions for the tenfold difference between high and low total doses, fractionation was the major indicator for lung tumor incidence (Fig 3F). When the difference between high and low total doses was hundredfold, fractionation again correlated with the greater lung tumor occurrences (Fig 3G).

Lymphoma deaths were most frequent in mice that received fractionated low-dose-range neutron exposures

When examining lymphoma deaths, we found that females were at higher risk than males. Increasing the total dose of neutrons decreased lymphoma death incidence, fractionation increased it (Table 2). Predicted outcome graphs showed that when the difference between high and low total doses was tenfold, fractionation was the most important determinate for increased lymphoma incidence (Fig 3H). Conversely, when the difference between high and low total doses was hundredfold, dose became the leading factor and lower total dose exposures resulted in the most lymphoma incidences (Fig 3I). Under all conditions, low dose fractionated exposures resulted in the greatest number of lymphoma incidences.

Non-tumor deaths were most common after acute high dose exposures

Non-tumor deaths were more prevalent in female mice compared to male mice, increasing with an increase in total dose. Fractionation decreased the probability of death due to non-tumors (Table 2). In the graph of predicted outcomes for the tenfold difference between high and low total doses, either acute exposure results in the most non-tumor cases (Fig 3J). Conversely, when the difference between high and low total doses was hundredfold, dose became the dominant factor and high-dose conditions result in the most non-tumor death incidences (Fig 3K). Under all conditions, high dose acute exposures resulted in the greatest non-tumor incidence.

A 60cGy cut-off does not impact CIF outcomes in neutron irradiated mice

Unlike in gamma ray irradiated mice [14], no shoulder was observed in the lymphoma or non-tumor incidence graphs for neutron irradiation. Removal of mice exposed to neutrons with total doses of 60cGy or greater did not change the CIF output graphs as it did after removal of mice exposed to high doses of gamma rays (S5 Fig in S1 File).

Mice first exposed to neutrons after 500 days of age began dying later and had increased incidences of death due to tumors

Because of the pronounced difference in longevity of aged mice exposed to neutrons, we examined causes of death in mice irradiated at 500 days of age versus those that were irradiated younger. In addition, we compared old neutron irradiated animals with the mice exposed to gamma rays at 500 days of age. Control mice (Fig 4A) and gamma irradiated mice first irradiated before 200 days of age (Fig 4B and 4C) all displayed similar trends in COD patterns with lymphomas as the most prevalent, followed by tumors, non-tumors, and CDU. Control mice (Fig 4A), aged gamma-irradiated mice (Fig 4D), and mice that were first gamma irradiated at a young age began dying around 600 days. However, data graphs for mice exposed to 6 Gy or more of gamma rays showed a shoulder with increased death incidence beginning around 300 days of age associated with lymphomas and non-tumors (Fig 4B). In gamma irradiated aged mice (Fig 4B), there were significantly more cases of non-tumors and significantly fewer cases of lymphoma in comparison to mice exposed at a young age. In neutron-irradiated mice, solid tumors were as frequent as lymphomas when they were irradiated at a young age (Fig 4E). This became more evident in neutron irradiated aged mice (Fig 4F) where tumors were markedly more frequent than lymphomas. Aged mice died significantly more often with tumors and non-tumors compared to younger neutron irradiated mice, and there were significantly fewer deaths from lymphomas in aged mice (Fig 4). Mice first irradiated with neutrons at age of 500 days did not begin dying until close to 750 days of age, while mice first irradiated at age close to 115 days began dying around 600 days. Thus, aged neutron-irradiated mice began dying later in life than the control mice (Fig 4F compared to Fig 4A).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Non-parametric CIFs for the four main categories for COD in (A) control mice, (B) gamma irradiated mice first irradiated under 200 days old, (C) gamma irradiated mice that were first irradiated under 200 days old with a dose cut-off of 6Gy, (D) gamma irradiated mice first irradiated at or after 500 days, (E) neutron irradiated mice first irradiated under 200 days old, and (F) neutron irradiated mice first irradiated over 500 days old. P-values for differences between groups of ages first irradiated in C and D: tumor = 0.73, lymphoma = 7.03E-05, non-tumor = 9.73E-13, CDU = 0.09, and in E and F: tumor = 2.30E-03, lymphoma = 3.71E-08, non-tumor = 2.49E-04, and CDU = 0.97.

Gamma and neutron irradiated mice exposed to fractionated once weekly irradiation had a significantly greater death hazard with increase in weekly dose/dose rate

Janus experiments JM8 included mice that were irradiated once a week until death for 45 minutes at a time with dose rates of 0.15, 0.37, or 0.68 cGy/min with cobalt 60 gamma rays or 0.014, 0.035 or 0.056 cGy/min with fission spectrum neutrons. Because the total dose in this experiment was dependent on the lifespan, we performed a separate analysis with Cox PH models using dose rate as our independent variable. We found that as the dose rate increased, the death hazard increased significantly for mice exposed to gamma rays or neutrons (Fig 5A and 5B, and S4 Table in S1 File). Sensitivity analyses for gamma- and neutron-irradiated mice (S5 and S6 Tables in S1 File) supported these results. We examined KM curves to validate the proportional hazards assumption for using CoxPH models (S6 Fig in S1 File). The KM curves for sex in neutron-irradiated mice revealed that male and female survival curves overlapped (S6D Fig in S1 File). However, when we tested for an interdependence between residuals and time using Schoenfeld residuals (S6E Fig in S1 File), we found a non-significant relationship, therefore validating our use of Cox PH models.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Representative graphs from Cox PH model with age at death as the time scale and sex and categorical dose rate as independent variables for (A) JM8 gamma irradiated mice and (B) JM8 neutron irradiated mice. The predicted outcomes shown in A and B represent female mice. Non-parametric CIFs for the five main categories of COD, grouped by sex for JM8 mice that were (C) sham irradiated, (D) neutron irradiated, or (E) gamma irradiated. P-values for differences between sexes in (C): tumor = 0.46, lung tumor = 0.0073, lymphoma = 0.085, non-tumor = 0.62, CDU = 0.51, (D): tumor = 7.37E-04, lung tumor = 6.24E-11, lymphoma = 1.04, non-tumor = 0.139, CDU = 0.938 and (E): tumor = 0.18, lung tumor = 5.13E-06, lymphoma = 0.68, non-tumor = 0.029, CDU = 0.57.

Sex variable is significant in weekly exposed neutron irradiated but not gamma irradiated JM8 mice

In the JM8 experiment, sex played a significant role in neutron-irradiated mice, but not gamma-irradiated mice (S4 Table in S1 File). The JM8 dataset consisted of 392 male and 215 female neutron exposed mice and 395 male and 215 female mice gamma irradiated animals. This indicates that sample size is not contributing to the difference in significance for the sex term in our Cox PH model utilizing gamma irradiated mice. Upon further investigation through non-parametric CIFs, we found that control mice only exhibited a significant difference between sexes for lung tumors (Fig 5C). Neutron irradiated mice had a significant difference between sexes for lung tumors, tumors (excluding lung tumors), and lymphomas (Fig 5D). Gamma irradiated mice only displayed a significant difference between lung tumors and non-tumors (Fig 5E). For all treatment groups, females were at a greater risk than male mice for every COD except lung tumors.

Discussion

Age first irradiated played a significant role in decreasing the death hazard in neutron-irradiated mice. This was evident by examining box plots and the main CoxPH model output for neutron irradiated mice. Age first irradiated was not a significant variable in the main model for gamma irradiated mice [14], but it was a significant term in the main model output for neutron-irradiated mice (Table 1). A significant interaction between age first irradiated and total dose for neutron irradiated mice was discernible when aged mice data were added to the analysis. As dose increased, the importance of age first irradiated also increased. Among the atomic bomb survivors who were exposed acutely and predominantly to gamma rays, the excess relative risk decreased approximately 21% per decade of age first irradiated [41]. In general, it has been accepted that exposures later in life are less risky because the latent phase for slower developing diseases, such as tumors, extends past the average lifespan. In this study, the comparisons between mice irradiated at a younger age vs. 500 days old showed a shift in type of disease as a cause of death. For both radiation qualities, accumulation of solid tumors as a cause of death was the highest in aged animals and this trend was more pronounced in the neutron irradiated animals. This was different from the prevalent cause of death in control animal or animals irradiated at a younger age where lymphoma was the most frequent cause of death. The most striking difference between gamma and neutron irradiated mice is that the average lifespan of the neutron irradiated animals increases with the later age at exposure. Because high LET ionizing radiation is more likely to produce clustered DNA damage, which is more difficult to repair [1] and because aged mice are less likely to have efficient cellular recovery mechanisms, it is possible that neutron irradiation late in life may lead to permanent senescence of latent cancer stem cells. Similar hypotheses were stated by others [42, 43] but never in conjunction with neutron exposures. Recent studies investigating radiation sensitivity for different age at exposure have shown that ionizing radiation could may put younger populations at increased risk due to disease initiation, while in substantially older groups have an increased cancer risk may be associated with increased cancer progression, with an overall bimodal risk distribution with respect to age [44]. The large increase in tumor death incidences we observed in neutron irradiated aged mice agrees with this finding, while at the same time risk of lymphoma becomes lower and the average age of animals increases for the same total dose. Further work will be necessary to explore these novel findings.

Fractionation decreased the death hazard in neutron irradiated mice (Fig 1D and Table 1). Some effects of fractionation on neutron exposures were noted previously [9, 17, 20, 28, 45], albeit with mixed conclusions, possibly related to the time between fractions. For example, in female BALB/c mice lung adenocarcinoma incidence was increased by as much as two-fold when animals where exposed to fractionated fission neutrons with 24 h between fractions [46]. On the other hand, a study by De Majo [31] that included a one-day-five-fractions fractionation schedule, found no significant differences for lung cancer incidence in BC3F1 mice. In a study examining lung cancer risk using the Janus dataset, Heidenreich et al. found that fractionation slightly reduced the relative risk of mice exposed to less than 0.3Gy, but had a detrimental effect at higher total doses [47]. We found that fractionation was only protective for tumor deaths and did not play a significant role for any other COD group we analyzed (Fig 2, Table 2, and S4 Fig in S1 File). Exploring the mechanism for decreased death hazard through fractionation for mice that died with tumors could lead to potential new radiation treatment or radiation protection strategies.

Lung tumors showed distinct differences in incidence based on sex and response to fractionation. While fractionation was protective against tumor deaths in mice exposed either to neutrons or gamma rays, fractionation was not protective for lung tumors in either case [14]. In humans, females exposed to ionizing radiation are at a greater risk for lung tumors compared to males [45, 46]. The differences in etiology between lung tumors and all other tumors are worthy of further investigation.

In gamma and neutron irradiated mice, the hazard of death was greater in females compared to males for all causes of death, except for lung tumors. This was one of our most robust findings with cause-specific hazards, subdistribution hazards, and crude CIF results all in agreement for both qualities of radiation. The increased risk for lung tumors in males compared to females, however, may be specific to B6CF1 mice. Reports on lung tumor incidence rates in RFM mice suggested that males exposed to 10 Gy of x-rays were more resistant to lung tumor development than females exposed to 9 Gy of x-rays, the opposite from the trend seen in B6CF1 mice [29, 48, 49]. The breathing rate of mice after radiation exposures could potentially contribute to differences in lung tumor susceptibility between sexes. It is known that breathing rates increase after high dose radiation exposures, creating a high oxidative state with more free radicals that many be causing tumor initiation and progression [50, 51]. Studies examining differences in breathing rates between male and female mice have yet to be conducted, but they could lead to new insights in lung tumor development differences between sexes. Tissue samples from mice in the Janus Tissue Archive are available for conducting more detailed molecular biology experiments, such as the PCR based study carried out on Rb and p53 gene deletions in lung adenocarcinomas [52]. It is also possible that there is a contribution of genetics to this difference in response since RFM and B6CF1 mice have many genetic differences, as one would predict for different mouse strains.

Exploring the differences in disease patterns between aged mice exposed to neutrons or gamma rays led to several significant findings (Fig 4). First, we discovered that lymphoma is the most frequent COD in control mice and gamma irradiated mice at a younger age, but that tumors are equally frequent COD as lymphoma in neutron irradiated mice. This distinction could lead to new hypotheses regarding the differences in disease initiation and progression between lymphomas and solid tumors. Second, in aged gamma irradiated mice the frequency of tumors “catches up” with the lymphomas while in neutron irradiated mice tumors become predominant COD. Finally, the non-parametric CIF curves also showed that the age of death was earlier in control and gamma irradiated mice compared to aged neutron irradiated mice (Fig 4). The mechanisms responsible for these differences have yet to be revealed.

Finally, this work included neutron and gamma irradiated mice that were irradiated once weekly until death, making our intention-to-treat analysis method non suitable [53]. Instead, we analyzed the data on these animals using dose rate as the independent variable. Not surprisingly, we found a significant increase in the death hazard as dose rate increased both in gamma and neutron irradiated mice (Fig 5A and 5B). Gamma ray dose rate increase resulted in gradual decrease in the survival probability for dose rates up to 0.048cGy, but higher dose-rates of 0.37cGy/min to 0.68cGy/min had a greater health impact. Conversely, among neutron irradiated mice, detriment from weekly irradiation was marked with dose rate increase until it nearly plateaued with little difference in the survival curves plotted for mice exposed to weekly neutron doses of 1.58 or 2.52 cGy.

In conclusion, whole body exposures to fission spectrum neutrons evaluated in this work suggest that factors such as age at exposure and fractionation play a decisive role in the ultimate health outcomes from neutron exposures. Because these findings suggest that the passage of time increases resilience to neutron exposure we should investigate the role of biological mechanisms engaged in neutron irradiated whole organisms in our efforts to apprehend the effects of neutron exposures.

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper publicly acknowledge the support of Edward Malthouse and Benjamin Haley for their support and statistical expertise. We also thank Carissa Ritner for her support and thoughtful conversations.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from http://janus.northwestern.edu/janus2/index.php.

Funding Statement

National Institute of Health grants R01OH010469 and RO1CA221150 were both awarded to GEW.

References

  • 1.Goodhead DT, Thacker J, Cox R. Weiss Lecture. Effects of radiations of different qualities on cells: molecular mechanisms of damage and repair. International journal of radiation biology. 1993;63(5):543–56. 10.1080/09553009314450721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zander A, Paunesku T, Woloschak G. Radiation databases and archives—examples and comparisons. International journal of radiation biology. 2019:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Haley B. Past and Future Work on Radiobiology Mega Studies: A Case Study at Argonne National Laboratory. 2011;100(6):613–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Birschwilks M, Schofield PN, Grosche B. The European Radiobiological Archives: online access to data from radiobiological experiments is available now. Health physics. 2012;102(2):220. 10.1097/HP.0b013e3182216d02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Braga-Tanaka I 3rd, Tanaka S, Kohda A, Takai D, Nakamura S, Ono T, et al. Experimental studies on the biological effects of chronic low dose-rate radiation exposure in mice: overview of the studies at the Institute for Environmental Sciences. International journal of radiation biology. 2018;94(5):423–33. 10.1080/09553002.2018.1451048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Carnes BA, Grahn D. Issues about neutron effects: the JANUS program. Radiation research. 1991;128(1 Suppl):S141–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grahn D, Lombard LS, Carnes BA. The comparative tumorigenic effects of fission neutrons and cobalt-60 gamma rays in the B6CF1 mouse. Radiation research. 1992;129(1):19–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hoel DG, Carnes BA. Cardiovascular effects of fission neutron or (60)Co gamma exposure in the B6CF1 mouse. International journal of radiation biology. 2017;93(6):563–8. 10.1080/09553002.2017.1286051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thomson JF, Grahn D. Life shortening in mice exposed to fission neutrons and gamma rays. VII. Effects of 60 once-weekly exposures. Radiation research. 1988;115(2):347–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bennett EF, Yule TJ. A neutron spectrum map of the JANUS irradiation facility using proton-recoil proportional counters. Radiation research. 1972;50(2):219–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grahn D, Wright BJ, Carnes B, Williamson FS, Fox C. Studies of Acute and Chronic Radiation Injury at the Biological and Medical Research Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 1970–1992: the JANUS Program Survival and Pathology 1995.
  • 12.Haley B. Janus Tissue Archive Northwestern UniversityA 2010 http://janus.northwestern.edu/janus2/index.php.
  • 13.Wang Q, Paunesku T, Woloschak G. Tissue and data archives from irradiation experiments conducted at Argonne National Laboratory over a period of four decades. Radiation and environmental biophysics. 2010;49(3):317–24. 10.1007/s00411-010-0270-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zander A, Paunesku T, Woloschak GE. Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in gamma irradiated B6CF1 mice. PloS one. 2020;15(8):e0231510. 10.1371/journal.pone.0231510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Carnes BA, Grahn D, Thomson JF. Dose-response modeling of life shortening in a retrospective analysis of the combined data from the JANUS program at Argonne National Laboratory. Radiation research. 1989;119(1):39–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Grahn D, Carnes BA. Genetic injury in hybrid male mice exposed to low doses of 60Co gamma-rays or fission neutrons. III. Frequencies of abnormal sperm and reciprocal translocations measured during and following long-term weekly exposures. Mutation research. 1988;198(2):285–94. 10.1016/0027-5107(88)90005-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Grahn D, Carnes BA, Farrington BH. Genetic injury in hybrid male mice exposed to low doses of 60Co gamma-rays or fission neutrons. II. Dominant lethal mutation response to long-term weekly exposures. Mutation research. 1986;162(1):81–9. 10.1016/0027-5107(86)90073-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Grahn D, Carnes BA, Farrington BH, Lee CH. Genetic injury in hybrid male mice exposed to low doses of 60Co gamma-rays or fission neutrons. I. Response to single doses. Mutation research. 1984;129(2):215–29. 10.1016/0027-5107(84)90154-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Neafsey PJ, Lowrie WB. A mortality kinetics approach to characterizing the relative biological effectiveness of short-term exposure to fission neutrons. Radiation research. 1994;137(2):208–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Storer JB, Mitchell TJ. Limiting values for the RBE of fission neutrons at low doses for life shortening in mice. Radiation research. 1984;97(2):396–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Liu W, Haley BM, Kwasny MJ, Li JJ, Grdina DJ, Paunesku T, et al. The effects of radiation and dose-fractionation on cancer and non-tumor disease development. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2012;9(12):4688–703. 10.3390/ijerph9124688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Paunesku D, Paunesku T, Wahl A, Kataoka Y, Murley J, Grdina DJ, et al. Incidence of tissue toxicities in gamma ray and fission neutron-exposed mice treated with Amifostine. International journal of radiation biology. 2008;84(8):623–34. 10.1080/09553000802241762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carnes BA, Grdina DJ. In vivo protection by the aminothiol WR-2721 against neutron-induced carcinogenesis. International journal of radiation biology. 1992;61(5):567–76. 10.1080/09553009214551381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Grdina DJ, Sigdestad CP, Carnes BA. Protection by WR1065 and WR151326 against fission-neutron-induced mutations at the HGPRT locus in V79 cells. Radiation research. 1989;117(3):500–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Grdina DJ, Wright BJ, Carnes BA. Protection by WR-151327 against late-effect damage from fission-spectrum neutrons. Radiation research. 1991;128(1 Suppl):S124–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tran V, Little MP. Dose and dose rate extrapolation factors for malignant and non-malignant health endpoints after exposure to gamma and neutron radiation. Radiation and environmental biophysics. 2017;56(4):299–328. 10.1007/s00411-017-0707-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Storer JB, Serrano LJ, Darden EB Jr., Jernigan MC, Ullrich RL. Life shortening in RFM and BALB/c mice as a function of radiation quality, dose, and dose rate. Radiation research. 1979;78(1):122–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Storer JB, Ullrich RL. Life shortening in BALB/c mice following brief, protracted, or fractionated exposures to neutrons. Radiation research. 1983;96(2):335–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ullrich RL, Jernigan MC, Adams LM. Induction of lung tumors in RFM mice after localized exposures to X rays or neutrons. Radiation research. 1979;80(3):464–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ullrich RL, Jernigan MC, Storer JB. Neutron carcinogenesis. Dose and dose-rate effects in BALB/c mice. Radiation research. 1977;72(3):487–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Di Majo V, Coppola M, Rebessi S, Saran A, Pazzaglia S, Pariset L, et al. Neutron-induced tumors in BC3F1 mice: effects of dose fractionation. Radiation research. 1994;138(2):252–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Goel MK, Khanna P, Kishore J. Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimate. International journal of Ayurveda research. 2010;1(4):274–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Therneau TM. A Package for Survival Analysis in S 2015 [version 2.38: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.
  • 34.Cox DR. Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1972;34(2):187–220. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the Analysis of Survival Data in the Presence of Competing Risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601–9. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fine JP, Gray RJ. A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1999;94(446):496–509. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gray B. Subdistribution Analysis of Competing Risks 2014 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cmprsk.
  • 38.Latouche A, Allignol A, Beyersmann J, Labopin M, Fine JP. A competing risks analysis should report results on all cause-specific hazards and cumulative incidence functions. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(6):648–53. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Noordzij M, Leffondre K, van Stralen KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW, Jager KJ. When do we need competing risks methods for survival analysis in nephrology? Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—European Renal Association. 2013;28(11):2670–7. 10.1093/ndt/gft355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zhang Z. Survival analysis in the presence of competing risks. Annals of translational medicine. 2017;5(3):47. 10.21037/atm.2016.08.62 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Grant EJ, Brenner A, Sugiyama H, Sakata R, Sadakane A, Utada M, et al. Solid Cancer Incidence among the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–2009. Radiation research. 2017;187(5):513–37. 10.1667/RR14492.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Campisi J. Cancer and ageing: rival demons? Nature reviews Cancer. 2003;3(5):339–49. 10.1038/nrc1073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Campisi J, d’Adda di Fagagna F. Cellular senescence: when bad things happen to good cells. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology. 2007;8(9):729–40. 10.1038/nrm2233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shuryak I, Sachs RK, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010;102(21):1628–36. 10.1093/jnci/djq346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Storer JB, Fry RJ. On the shape of neutron dose-effect curves for radiogenic cancers and life shortening in mice. Radiation and environmental biophysics. 1995;34(1):21–7. 10.1007/BF01210541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ullrich RL. Tumor induction in BALB/c mice after fractionated or protracted exposures to fission-spectrum neutrons. Radiation research. 1984;97(3):587–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Heidenreich WF, Carnes BA, Paretzke HG. Lung cancer risk in mice: analysis of fractionation effects and neutron RBE with a biologically motivated model. Radiation research. 2006;166(5):794–801. 10.1667/RR0481.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rivina L, Davoren MJ, Schiestl RH. Mouse models for radiation-induced cancers. Mutagenesis. 2016;31(5):491–509. 10.1093/mutage/gew019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yuhas JM, Walker AE. Exposure-response curve for radiation-induced lung tumors in the mouse. Radiation research. 1973;54(2):261–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Travis EL, Down JD, Holmes SJ, Hobson B. Radiation pneumonitis and fibrosis in mouse lung assayed by respiratory frequency and histology. Radiation research. 1980;84(1):133–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Reuter S, Gupta SC, Chaturvedi MM, Aggarwal BB. Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: how are they linked? Free radical biology & medicine. 2010;49(11):1603–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang Y, Woloschak GE. Rb and p53 gene deletions in lung adenocarcinomas from irradiated and control mice. Radiation research. 1997;148(1):81–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspectives in clinical research. 2011;2(3):109–12. 10.4103/2229-3485.83221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Norman J Kleiman

25 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-08070

Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Woloschak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Norman J Kleiman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your submission. Both reviewers offer helpful counsel and suggestions to improve this manuscript. In particular, one suggests a somewhat different statistical approach which might prove more helpful in addressing some of the concerns. Please review their comments carefully. We look forward to your response and resubmission.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.".

We note that the CA (Gayle E. Woloschak) is a section editor for PLOS ONE.

i) Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

ii) Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please include a caption for figure 4.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports a new analysis of a series of large-scale neutron irradiation experiments held at

Argonne National Laboratory between 1972 and 1989. These experiments produced a dataset on over 50,000 male and female mice which is a mine of important discoveries still underutilized.

Using a new approach to utilize experimental controls to determine whether a cross comparison between experiments was appropriate, the Authors amalgamated data on neutron exposures and reached important conclusions.

The first one is that dose fractionation significantly improved overall survival having a significant impact on the death hazard for animals that died of solid tumors, but did not significantly impact any other causes of death.

The second one regarded the dominant cause of death that was represented by solid tumors in neutron irradiated mice while lymphomas were the dominant cause of death in gamma irradiated mice.

Additionally, the Authors propose that irradiation at advanced age played a significant role in decreasing the death hazard for neutron irradiated mice, but not for gamma irradiated mice. Mice that were 500 days old before their first exposures to neutrons began dying later than both sham irradiated or gamma irradiated mice.

These conclusions are very well supported by the statistical analyses and of great interest not only for radiobiologists but also for a more general audience and the work certainly deserves publication on PlosOne. On the other hand, there are some presentation defects and inaccuracies that need to be corrected in order to improve the manuscript before publication (see below).

Major points

- Figure 1 panel C does not correspond to the legend

C) Age at death in days versus total dose in Gy. Colors indicate whether a mouse was first irradiated before or after 500 days.

- Legend to Fig. 1. All independent variables were significant in the model, as shown by the parameter estimates and statistical output from the model (E).

I do not see panel E

- Line 234: The interaction was beneficial for survival in groups of animals that developed tumors and lymphoma (Fig 2B and Table 2) and detrimental for mice dying of non tumors and CDU (Fig 2C and 2D and Table 2).

Here I have difficulties in interpreting the figures. Why the acute curve does not show in panel B and C at 2 Gy? If this is because there is no survival at this acute dose, then fractionation is beneficial also for mice dying for non-tumors. Fractionation looks detrimental to me only for unknown cause of death (2D).

- Legend to Figure 4 is missing so it is difficult to follow the text.

- Line 333: Control mice (Fig 4A) and gamma irradiated mice (Fig 4 B-D) all displayed similar trends in COD patterns with lymphomas as the most prevalent, followed by tumors, non-tumors, and CDU.

In panel 4D Lymphomas does not seem the most prevalent.

Discussion

- Line 406: However, the stark contrast in effect for age first irradiated between gamma and neutron irradiated mice indicates that a longer time for disease development is not completely sufficient for increasing risk in younger mice. Because high LET ionizing radiation is more likely to produce clustered DNA damage, which is more difficult to repair (1) and because aged mice are less likely to have efficient cellular recovery mechanisms, it is possible that neutron irradiation late in life may lead to permanent senescence of latent cancer stem cells.

Here the Authors should also take in account that aged mice exposed to neutrons die significantly more of tumors and non-tumors, and significantly less of lymphomas which is discussed below but could be also relevant in this issue.

- Line 434: In gamma and neutron irradiated mice, the hazard of death was greater in males

compared to females for all causes of death, except for lung tumors.

Should’nt be the other way around?

- Line 457: Second, aged mice exposed to gamma rays died significantly more of non-tumors and died significantly less of lymphomas compared to neutron irradiation survivors ?????.

Neutron irradiation survivors do not die…. The phrase is cryptic

Minor points

Line 199 should read: life shortening per cumulative dose was estimated to be around 10 for neutron doses up to 40cGy and....

Line 267 should read: 5 main categories of COD grouped by sex for control/sham irradiated mice.....

There are some other typos and a careful text revision should be done

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice” used a very large data set, generated by pooling various experimental results on neutron and gamma ray mouse irradiations from the JANUS archive. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze the data and quantify the effects of neutron dose, dose fractionation, and other variables. The paper reports some important results, but its methods would be improved by addressing the following issues:

The authors “used Cox proportional hazards models with sex and a categorical fractionation term as independent variables for the main model”.

If I understand correctly, only fixed effects were used in the models. However, random effects would be very likely be helpful in the model because mouse responses could be correlated by experiment type, year, etc. The authors could use Mixed Effects Cox Models (coxme R package) to address the potential effects of such factors.

The authors used separate terms for total dose, dose fractionation (categorical), and an interaction of these. The resulting parameter estimates are sometimes not very intuitive, e.g. positive for fractionated and negative for interaction in Tables 1-2. A more mechanistically plausible explanation could be provided by using the Biologically Effective Dose (BED) concept (e.g. 21 years of biologically effective dose, JF Fowler - The British journal of radiology, 2010). It conveniently integrates total dose and fractionation, with alpha/beta being set to some plausible values (e.g. 10 Gy). BED could be inserted into the Cox model instead of separate terms for total dose and fractionation, reducing parameter number by 1.

Was there any testing for multicollinearity in the Cox models?

The authors state “In Survival Analysis for JM8 mice, dose rates are treated as categorical variables.” Why not try some continuous response to dose rate/dose which is biologically meaningful?

The authors state “Because the greatest number of fractions a neutron irradiated mouse received was only 60 fractions, we also excluded all animals with more than 60 sham irradiation fractions from this work.” Would it make a difference not to exclude them?

The authors state “we used Kaplan Meier survival curves to validate the proportional hazards assumption in our model (S1 Fig E)”. It is not clear from this figure panel how the validation was done.

What are “nuanced variables” that the authors refer to?

The authors state “lung tumors were more common after fractionated exposures”. Perhaps this represents an inverse dose rate / protraction effect, which is known for lung cancers induced by prolonged high-LET radiation. Could be mentioned in the discussion.

Lines 403-404: formatting issue

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0231511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231511.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Nov 2020

Dear Dr Kleiman-

We have made numerous changes on our manuscript PONE-D-20-08070 “Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice” as suggested by you and the reviewers. We are grateful for your comments and believe that the manuscript is now significantly improved. In the text below – comments from the reviewers will be in italics, our responses in regular front and the excerpts of the newly added text are underlined.

Editor’s comments requested that we update the cover letter by adding the information on GEW’s editor status.

We have made this addition and now attach a new version of the cover letter.

Editor’s comments: Please include a caption for figure 4

We have used a text box for this caption in error (and the box became “hidden” between two pages). We now deleted this text box and added Figure 4 caption in the body of the document:

“Figure 4: Non-parametric CIFs for the four main categories for COD in (A) control mice, (B) gamma irradiated mice first irradiated under 500 days old, (C) gamma irradiated mice that were first irradiated under 500 days old with a dose cut-off of 6Gy, (D) gamma irradiated mice first irradiated over 500 days old, (E) neutron irradiated mice first irradiated under 500 days old, and (F) neutron irradiated mice first irradiated over 500 days old. P-values for differences between groups of ages first irradiated in C and D: tumor = 0.73, lymphoma = 7.03E-05, non-tumor = 9.73E-13, CDU = 0.09, and in E and F: tumor = 2.30E-03, lymphoma = 3.71E-08, non-tumor = 2.49E-04, and CDU = 0.97.”

We have noticed that we used text boxes for figure legends in several other instances. In order to preempt repetition of the problem with Figure 4 caption we have now-redone these captions as regular text. Also, in the process of correcting this figure legend we found that we were not consistent with placing later labels. Consequently, we made adjustments of latter placement in the captions as necessary in order to decrease possible confusion.

Review Comments to the Authors: Reviewer 1

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports a new analysis of a series of large-scale neutron irradiation experiments held at Argonne National Laboratory between 1972 and 1989. These experiments produced a dataset on over 50,000 male and female mice which is a mine of important discoveries still underutilized. Using a new approach to utilize experimental controls to determine whether a cross comparison between experiments was appropriate, the Authors amalgamated data on neutron exposures and reached important conclusions.

The first one is that dose fractionation significantly improved overall survival having a significant impact on the death hazard for animals that died of solid tumors, but did not significantly impact any other causes of death.

The second one regarded the dominant cause of death that was represented by solid tumors in neutron irradiated mice while lymphomas were the dominant cause of death in gamma irradiated mice.

Additionally, the Authors propose that irradiation at advanced age played a significant role in decreasing the death hazard for neutron irradiated mice, but not for gamma irradiated mice. Mice that were 500 days old before their first exposures to neutrons began dying later than both sham irradiated or gamma irradiated mice.

These conclusions are very well supported by the statistical analyses and of great interest not only for radiobiologists but also for a more general audience and the work certainly deserves publication on PlosOne. On the other hand, there are some presentation defects and inaccuracies that need to be corrected in order to improve the manuscript before publication (see below).

We are very grateful for your nice words and detailed comments!

Figure 1 panel C does not correspond to the legend C) Age at death in days versus total dose in Gy. Colors indicate whether a mouse was first irradiated before or after 500 days.

Thank you for noticing this issue (we have swapped the panels by accident). The legend is now corrected.

“Fig 1: Analysis on animals filtered in S1 Table that were controls or neutron irradiated. (A) Box plot of age at death in days versus total dose in Gy. Colors indicate if the exposure was acute or fractionated. (B) Age at death in days versus total dose in Gy. Colors indicate whether a mouse was first irradiated before or after 500 days. (C) Histogram of the total number of animals versus age first irradiated in days….”

Legend to Fig. 1. All independent variables were significant in the model, as shown by the parameter estimates and statistical output from the model (E).

I do not see panel E

The text should have referred to Table 1, this error is now fixed. “All independent variables were significant in the model, as shown by the parameter estimates and statistical output from the model (Table 1).”

Line 234: The interaction was beneficial for survival in groups of animals that developed tumors and lymphoma (Fig 2B and Table 2) and detrimental for mice dying of non tumors and CDU (Fig 2C and 2D and Table 2).

Here I have difficulties in interpreting the figures. Why the acute curve does not show in panel B and C at 2 Gy? If this is because there is no survival at this acute dose, then fractionation is beneficial also for mice dying for non-tumors. Fractionation looks detrimental to me only for unknown cause of death (2D).

We have now tried to fix the confusing text and we also add that in Figure 2 for 2 Gy in panels B and C the acute line is directly behind the fractionation line.

“Accounting for competing risks by calculating cause-specific hazards, we found that the interaction between total dose and the fractionation variable was significant for tumor deaths (Fig 2A and Table 2) where this interaction was beneficial for survival. In animals that developed lymphoma (Fig 2B and Table 2), non-tumors (Fig 2C and Table 2) or CDU (Fig 2B and Table 2) fractionation lead to differences that were not significant. In figures 2B and 2C the line representing acute exposures is hidden directly behind the line showing fractionated exposures.”

Legend to Figure 4 is missing so it is difficult to follow the text.

As we have added in our responses to the editor

“Figure 4: Non-parametric CIFs for the four main categories for COD in (A) control mice, (B) gamma irradiated mice first irradiated under 500 days old, (C) gamma irradiated mice that were first irradiated under 500 days old with a dose cut-off of 6Gy, (D) gamma irradiated mice first irradiated over 500 days old, (E) neutron irradiated mice first irradiated under 500 days old, and (F) neutron irradiated mice first irradiated over 500 days old. P-values for differences between groups of ages first irradiated in C and D: tumor = 0.73, lymphoma = 7.03E-05, non-tumor = 9.73E-13, CDU = 0.09, and in E and F: tumor = 2.30E-03, lymphoma = 3.71E-08, non-tumor = 2.49E-04, and CDU = 0.97.”

Line 333: Control mice (Fig 4A) and gamma irradiated mice (Fig 4 B-D) all displayed similar trends in COD patterns with lymphomas as the most prevalent, followed by tumors, non-tumors, and CDU.

In panel 4D Lymphomas does not seem the most prevalent.

Thank you for your comment - the portion of a paragraph below was edited with changes underlined. With the added caption for figure 4 we hope that this will now make more sense.

“Because of the pronounced difference in longevity of aged mice exposed to neutrons, we examined causes of death in mice irradiated when aged versus those that were irradiated younger. In addition, we compared them with the mice exposed to gamma rays at 500 days of age. Control mice (Fig 4A) and gamma irradiated mice first irradiated under 500 days old (Figs 4B and 4C) all displayed similar trends in COD patterns with lymphomas as the most prevalent, followed by tumors, non-tumors, and CDU.”

Discussion

Line 406: However, the stark contrast in effect for age first irradiated between gamma and neutron irradiated mice indicates that a longer time for disease development is not completely sufficient for increasing risk in younger mice. Because high LET ionizing radiation is more likely to produce clustered DNA damage, which is more difficult to repair (1) and because aged mice are less likely to have efficient cellular recovery mechanisms, it is possible that neutron irradiation late in life may lead to permanent senescence of latent cancer stem cells.

Here the Authors should also take in account that aged mice exposed to neutrons die significantly more of tumors and non-tumors, and significantly less of lymphomas which is discussed below but could be also relevant in this issue.

Thank you for this suggestion – we have added a new sentence to this section:

“In this study, the comparisons between animals irradiated at a younger age vs. aged showed a shift in type of disease as a cause of death. For both radiation qualities, accumulation of solid tumors as a cause of death was the highest in aged animals and this was more pronounced in the neutron irradiated animals. This was different from the prevalent cause of death in control animal or animals irradiated at a younger age where lymphoma was the most frequent cause of death.”

Line 434: In gamma and neutron irradiated mice, the hazard of death was greater in males compared to females for all causes of death, except for lung tumors.

Should’nt be the other way around?

Yes, thank you, this is now fixed. The corrected sentence is “In gamma and neutron irradiated mice, the hazard of death was greater in females compared to males for all causes of death, except for lung tumors.”

Line 457: Second, aged mice exposed to gamma rays died significantly more of non-tumors and died significantly less of lymphomas compared to neutron irradiation survivors ?????.

Neutron irradiation survivors do not die…. The phrase is cryptic

Yes, thank you, the text was confusing and we have removed some text and added some new text:

“Exploring the differences in disease patterns between aged mice exposed to neutrons or gamma rays led to several significant findings (Fig 4). First, we discovered that lymphoma is the most frequent COD in control mice and gamma irradiated mice at a younger age, but that tumors are equally frequent COD as lymphoma in neutron irradiated mice. This distinction could lead to new hypotheses regarding the differences in disease initiation and development between lymphomas and solid tumors. Second, in aged gamma irradiated mice the frequency of tumors “catches up” with the lymphomas while in neutron irradiated mice tumors become clearly predominant COD. Finally, the non-parametric CIF curves also showed that the age of death was earlier in control and gamma irradiated mice compared to aged neutron irradiated mice (Fig 4). The mechanisms responsible for these differences have yet to be revealed.”

Minor points

Line 199 should read: life shortening per cumulative dose was estimated to be around 10 for neutron doses up to 40cGy and…

Word was added:

“… to be around 10 for neutron doses up to 40cGy and approximately 5 or less for neutron doses over 40cGy …”

Line 267 should read: 5 main categories of COD grouped by sex for control/sham irradiated mice.....

Correction was made.

There are some other typos and a careful text revision should be done

Thank you, we found a few other typos as well as some labeling inconsistencies. These changes should be clear from the track changes version of the document.

Reviewer 2:

The manuscript “Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice” used a very large data set, generated by pooling various experimental results on neutron and gamma ray mouse irradiations from the JANUS archive. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze the data and quantify the effects of neutron dose, dose fractionation, and other variables. The paper reports some important results, but its methods would be improved by addressing the following issues:

The authors “used Cox proportional hazards models with sex and a categorical fractionation term as independent variables for the main model”. If I understand correctly, only fixed effects were used in the models. However, random effects would be very likely be helpful in the model because mouse responses could be correlated by experiment type, year, etc. The authors could use Mixed Effects Cox Models (coxme R package) to address the potential effects of such factors.

We are grateful for this suggestion and will look into using coxme package more extensively as we approach this dataset again. At this point of time, however, complete redoing of this manuscript would make it difficult for a comprehensive joint consideration of this study with the work that we have already done with the gamma irradiated mice (reference 14: Zander A, Paunesku T, Woloschak GE. Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in gamma irradiated B6CF1 mice. PloS one. 2020;15(8):e0231510.) where the main body of our work with control mice dataset was published.

Nevertheless, we did use the coxme R package to generate an additional supplemental table (S2 Table) that supports our work in this study as well as the one that was already published (14) and we discuss this in the methods section of the manuscript as follows:

“We used Cox proportional hazards models with sex and a categorical fractionation term as independent variables for the main model (S1 Fig A and B). For sensitivity analysis, we also stratified by sex (S 1 Fig C and D) and found no significant changes in the model output. In addition, we tested the impact of using a mixed-effects model to account for variability between experiments. The results in S2 Table show similar results to the main model. Model output showed that the integrated and penalized log likelihoods were very similar and both significant (p-value < 0.001), increasing our confidence that the control experiments outlined in our previous paper (14) were sufficient for capturing variability between experiments.”

S2 Table is now also included:

Term Estimate Hazard Ratio P-value

Sex(M) -0.210 0.810 (0.77,0.85) <0.001

Fractionated 0.023 1.023 (0.88, 1.18) 0.76

Total Dose 0.019 1.019 (1.01, 1.02) <0.001

Age First Irradiated -0.002 0.998 (0.99, 1.00) 0.23

Fractionated:Total Dose -0.010 0.990 (0.99, 0.99) <0.001

S2 Table. Results from mixed effects model using the coxme function from the coxme R package. The fixed effects covariates were sex, fractionation, total dose, an interaction term between the total dose and fractions, and age first irradiated. The random effect covariate was experiment number as a categorical variable.

The authors used separate terms for total dose, dose fractionation (categorical), and an interaction of these. The resulting parameter estimates are sometimes not very intuitive, e.g. positive for fractionated and negative for interaction in Tables 1-2. A more mechanistically plausible explanation could be provided by using the Biologically Effective Dose (BED) concept (e.g. 21 years of biologically effective dose, JF Fowler - The British journal of radiology, 2010). It conveniently integrates total dose and fractionation, with alpha/beta being set to some plausible values (e.g. 10 Gy). BED could be inserted into the Cox model instead of separate terms for total dose and fractionation, reducing parameter number by 1.

Thank you for highlighting the possibility of using BED for our work. We chose not to use BED because it implies alpha-beta ratios and linear quadratic formula vs. tumor control in therapy. We appreciate the value of BED for therapy as explained in 21 years of Biologically Effective Dose, JF Fowler 2010, but in the current context where we are studying tumor initiation and promotion (for which our mice give indirect evidence) use of BED would require an overhaul of this concept that is beyond the scope of this work.

Was there any testing for multicollinearity in the Cox models?

Yes, we used the vif function from the car package to check for multicollinearity. We made this more explicit by adding the following text to the methods section.

“We checked for multicollinearity in our models using the vif function from the car package in R. As expected, there was multicollinearity with the interaction term, however it was not an issue in our model because the standard error in our models was not overly inflated. Additionally, sensitivity analyses show consistent results across different models.”

The authors state “In Survival Analysis for JM8 mice, dose rates are treated as categorical variables.” Why not try some continuous response to dose rate/dose which is biologically meaningful?

The dataset JM8 comes from an experiment where the dose rates and dose per fraction were fixed and the mice were treated once a week until death and therefore do not satisfy the conditions that would have allowed it to be included in the main analyses (e.g. please note the manner in which JM8 was mentioned in S2 Table “Experimental design – separate analysis required”). Therefore, the mice that lived longest received higher doses within each dose rate study group.

We now add the following text to the Methods section in order to make this experimental setup more clear

“One of the Janus experiments excluded from the main analysis is the experiment JM8 where animals received once a week a 45 minutes sham fraction or a fraction of gamma rays (dose rates of 0.15, 0.37, or 0.68 cGy/min), or neutrons (dose rates 0.014, 0.035 or 0.056 cGy/min). Because irradiations continued until the death of the animals, it was impossible to evaluate discrete total doses in this study.”

The authors state “Because the greatest number of fractions a neutron irradiated mouse received was only 60 fractions, we also excluded all animals with more than 60 sham irradiation fractions from this work.” Would it make a difference not to exclude them?

In our companion publication (reference 14: Zander A, Paunesku T, Woloschak GE. Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in gamma irradiated B6CF1 mice. PloS one. 2020;15(8):e0231510.) we give extensive analyses of the control mice dataset. To recapitulate – we have found that 5 fractions per week, 60 weeks sham irradiations (300 sham fractions in all) caused stress to animals that causing them to die significantly earlier than other control mice, and excluded all 300 fractions work from the gamma radiation paper (14).

In order to be conservative while working on this paper, we limited our control dataset to the same maximum number of sham fractions as was received by the neutron irradiated mice.

The authors state “we used Kaplan Meier survival curves to validate the proportional hazards assumption in our model (S1 Fig E)”. It is not clear from this figure panel how the validation was done.

We updated this section to try to clarify this issue.

“Finally, we used Kaplan Meier survival curves to validate the proportional hazards assumption in our model and found non-overlapping survival curves between mice that received acute and fractionated exposures.”

What are “nuanced variables” that the authors refer to?

We are referring to variables that do not have proportional hazards. Thank you for pointing out this vague description, we updated the text:

“Cox PH models enabled us to include interactions between variables, incorporate quantitative and categorical variables, and stratify by variables that do not have proportional hazards (34). “

The authors state “lung tumors were more common after fractionated exposures”. Perhaps this represents an inverse dose rate / protraction effect, which is known for lung cancers induced by prolonged high-LET radiation.

Thank you for this suggestion. To emphasize different findings in this field of research we have added more to the discussion as follows:

“Fractionation decreased the death hazard in neutron irradiated mice (Fig 1D and Table 1). Some effects of fractionation on neutron exposures were noted previously (9, 17, 20, 28, 45), albeit with mixed conclusions, possibly related to the time between fractions. For example, in female BALB/c mice lung adenocarcinoma incidence was increased by as much as two-fold when animals where exposed to fractionated fission neutrons with 24 h between fractions (46). On the other hand, a study by De Majo (31) that included a one-day-5 fractions fractionation schedule, found no significant differences were found for lung cancer incidence in BC3F1 mice. In a study examining lung cancer risk using the Janus dataset, Heidenreich et al. found that fractionation slightly reduced the relative risk of mice exposed to less than 0.3Gy, but had a detrimental effect at higher total doses (47).”

Lines 403-404: formatting issue

We have fixed this issue, thank you.

At this time, we hope that the manuscript is completely corrected and that it will meet the expectations of the reviewers.

Sincerely-

Gayle

Gayle E Woloschak, Ph. D., FASTRO, Professor

Departments of Radiation Oncology, Radiology, and Cell and Molecular Biology

Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center

Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University

300 E. Superior St., Tarry 4-760

Chicago, IL 60611

312-503-4322

g-woloschak@northwestern.edu

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nobuyuki Hamada

3 Feb 2021

Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice

PONE-D-20-08070R1

Dear Dr. Woloschak,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nobuyuki Hamada

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors adequately and appropriately addressed all my questions from the previous review. The paper is now good for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Rodolfo Negri

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Nobuyuki Hamada

9 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-08070R1

Analyses of cancer incidence and other morbidities in neutron irradiated B6CF1 mice

Dear Dr. Woloschak:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nobuyuki Hamada

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES