Darwin A. Garcia

Supplementary Data S2: derivation of modified biologically effective dose model.

Supplementary Figure S2 demonstrates agreement between AUC computed from simulated and measured profiles.

Ataxia Telangiectasia–mutated (ATM) inhibitors are being developed as radiosensitizers to improve the antitumor effects of radiotherapy, but ATM inhibition can also radiosensitize normal tissues. Therefore, understanding the elevated risk of normal tissue toxicities is critical for radiosensitizer development. This study focused on modeling the relationship between acute mucosal toxicity, radiation dose, fractionation schedule, and radiosensitizer exposure. The ATM inhibitor WSD0628 was combined with single or fractionated doses of radiation delivered to the oral cavity or esophagus of Friend Leukemia virus B (FVB) mice. The potentiation by WSD0628 was quantified by a sensitizer enhancement ratio (SER), which describes the changes in radiation tolerance for radiation combined with WSD0628 relative to radiation-only regimens. WSD0628 profoundly enhanced radiation-induced acute oral and esophageal toxicities. For oral mucosal toxicity, the enhancement by WSD0628 with 3 fractions of radiation resulted in an SER ranging from 1.3 (0.25 mg/kg) to 3.1 (7.5 mg/kg). For the 7.5 mg/kg combination, the SER increased with increasing number of fractions from 2.2 (1 fraction) to 4.3 (7 fractions) for oral toxicity and from 2.2 (1 fraction) to 3.6 (3 fractions) for esophageal toxicity, which reflects a loss of the normal tissue sparing benefit of fractionated radiation. These findings were used to develop a modified biologically effective dose model to determine alternative radiation schedules with or without WSD0628 that result in similar levels of toxicity. Successful radiosensitizer dose escalation to a maximally effective therapeutic dose will require careful deliberation of tumor site and reduction of radiation dose volume limits for organs at risk.

Supplementary Figure S1 includes repeats of immunofluorescence images and an example of H&E staining from untreated oral mucosa.

Supplementary Table S1: treatment groups, doses, and sample sizes for oral mucosal and esophageal toxicity dose-response studies.

Supplementary Data S1: the positioning reproducibility was determined for esophagus irradiations.

Supplementary Figure S3 shows effect of irradiating different lengths of esophagus. Additionally, higher magnitude images of esophageal H&E images.

Ataxia Telangiectasia–mutated (ATM) inhibitors are being developed as radiosensitizers to improve the antitumor effects of radiotherapy, but ATM inhibition can also radiosensitize normal tissues. Therefore, understanding the elevated risk of normal tissue toxicities is critical for radiosensitizer development. This study focused on modeling the relationship between acute mucosal toxicity, radiation dose, fractionation schedule, and radiosensitizer exposure. The ATM inhibitor WSD0628 was combined with single or fractionated doses of radiation delivered to the oral cavity or esophagus of Friend Leukemia virus B (FVB) mice. The potentiation by WSD0628 was quantified by a sensitizer enhancement ratio (SER), which describes the changes in radiation tolerance for radiation combined with WSD0628 relative to radiation-only regimens. WSD0628 profoundly enhanced radiation-induced acute oral and esophageal toxicities. For oral mucosal toxicity, the enhancement by WSD0628 with 3 fractions of radiation resulted in an SER ranging from 1.3 (0.25 mg/kg) to 3.1 (7.5 mg/kg). For the 7.5 mg/kg combination, the SER increased with increasing number of fractions from 2.2 (1 fraction) to 4.3 (7 fractions) for oral toxicity and from 2.2 (1 fraction) to 3.6 (3 fractions) for esophageal toxicity, which reflects a loss of the normal tissue sparing benefit of fractionated radiation. These findings were used to develop a modified biologically effective dose model to determine alternative radiation schedules with or without WSD0628 that result in similar levels of toxicity. Successful radiosensitizer dose escalation to a maximally effective therapeutic dose will require careful deliberation of tumor site and reduction of radiation dose volume limits for organs at risk.