Enhancement of radiosensitization by metal-based nanoparticles in cancer radiation therapy

Xiang-Yu Su, Pei-Dang Liu, Hao Wu, Ning Gu

1Department of Oncology, Zhongda Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China;

2Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Biomaterials and Devices, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China

Enhancement of radiosensitization by metal-based nanoparticles in cancer radiation therapy

Xiang-Yu Su1,2, Pei-Dang Liu2, Hao Wu2, Ning Gu2

1Department of Oncology, Zhongda Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China;

2Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Biomaterials and Devices, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China

Radiation therapy performs an important function in cancer treatment. However, resistance of tumor cells to radiation therapy still remains a serious concern, so the study of radiosensitizers has emerged as a persistent hotspot in radiation oncology. Along with the rapid advancement of nanotechnology in recent years, the potential value of nanoparticles as novel radiosensitizers has been discovered.is review summarizes the latest experimental fi ndings both in vitro and in vivo and aempts to highlight the underlying mechanisms of response in nanoparticle radiosensitization.

Nanoparticles; radiation tolerance; cancer; radiotherapy

Introduction

Cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality among humans, with more than 760 million deaths every year1. Although radiation therapy plays an important role in cancer treatment, the resistance of tumor cells to radiation therapy still remains a serious concern. Therefore, the study of radiosensitizers has emerged as a persistent hotspot in radiation oncology2. Nanotechnology has provided new and powerful tools for imaging, diagnosing, and treating cancer3. In cancer radiotherapy, the concept of high-Z material radiation dose enhancement has been known for several decades4. Nanoparticles, especially noble metal nanoparticles, may be useful in enhancing the efficacy of radiotherapy because of their unique physical and chemical properties5. To date, several different nanoparticles have been applied as potential tumor-selective radiosensitizers. In this study, we will focus on the in vitro and in vivo experimental findings as well as the underlying mechanisms of response in metal-based nanoparticle radiosensitization.

Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) and radiosensitization

In recent years, GNPs have been widely used and analyzed in radiation therapy because of their extremely small size, good biocompatibility, and ease in chemical modi fi cation.e number of reports on GNP radiosensitization has rapidly increased6.

Monte Carlo (MC) calculations

MC calculations facilitate the accurate estimation of the dose enhancement effect caused by GNPs7. In a preliminary study, Cho8evaluated the dose enhancement effect of GNPs with both kilovoltage (Ir-192 and 140 kV) and megavoltage (4 and 6 MV) photons. The dose enhancement over the tumor volume considered for the 140 kVp X-ray case can be at least a factor of 2 at an achievable gold (Au) concentration of 7 mg Au/g tumor, assuming that no Au is outside the tumor. The tumor dose enhancement for cases involving the 4 and 6 MV photon beams based on the same assumption ranged from approximately 1% to 7%, depending on the amount of Au within the tumor and the photon beam qualities. For the Ir-192 case, the dose enhancement ratio of 5% to 31% depending on the radial distance and Au concentration has been reported. In another study by Cho9, the feasibility of GNPs interacting with low energy photons was investigated using MC calculations. Brachytherapy sources ofI-125, 50 kVp X-rays, and Yb-169 were used to calculate the macroscopic dose enhancement factor (MDEF), which is a ratio of the average dose in the tumor region with and without the presence of GNPs during tumor irradiation. For a tumor loaded with 18 mg Au/g, respective MDEFs of 116%, 92%, and 108% were reported for I-125, 50 kVp, and Yb-169, respectively, at the distance of 1.0 cm from the center of the source. However, at 7 mg Au/g, the corresponding MDEFs decreased to 68%, 57%, and 44%. These data suggest that even at low-energy radiation brachytherapy, GNPs could also serve as radiation sensitizers.

Limited studies have shown that MC calculations contribute little benefit at the MV energies. Lechtman10used MC calculations to explore the e ff ects of di ff erent irradiation energies to define the optimal clinical use of GNPs. Photon sources included brachytherapy seeds Pd-103 and I-125, high dose rate sources Yb-169 and Ir-192, and external beam sources 300 kVp and 6 MV.e results indicated that doubling of the prescribed dose in a tumor can be achieved if the amount of GNPs required is approximately 300 times greater for the 6 MV source compared with lower energy brachytherapy sources.us, therapeutic uses of GNPs in radiosensitization with a 6 MV photon source may be not clinically feasible.

Most studies have attributed GNP radiosensitization to increased photoelectric photon absorption by high-Z materials at kilovoltage photon energies. However, if sensitization occurs by this physical mechanism, effects would not be predicted to occur at clinically relevant megavoltage energies dominated by Compton interactions11. From the mechanism’s point of view, GNPs will create additional short-range secondary electrons once activated by high-energy electron beams. Therefore, the enhancement of radiosensitivity is due to the production of these low-energy electrons caused by the increased absorption of ionizing radiation energy by the particles12.

In vitro studies

In vitro radiation enhancement of GNPs, which can be simulated and calculated by the MC method, has been extensively examined.

GNP size may be an important factor in increasing the radiation cytotoxicity. Chithrani13investigated the impact of GNP size, concentration, and radiation energy on in vitro radiosensitization in HeLa cells and found that 50 nm GNPs had beer radiosensitizing ability than 14 and 74 nm GNPs with 220 kVp X-rays (DEFs were 1.43, 1.2, and 1.25, respectively).e magnitude of radiosensitization was found to be dependent on GNP concentration with 50 nm GNPs and correlated with the number of intracellular nanoparticles, but not on the total amount of intracellular Au when different-sized nanoparticles were considered.

Surface properties may also influence the radiosensitization of GNPs. Kong et al.14reported that the localized uptake and binding of GNPs at selected locations in cancer cells could be achieved by modifying the surface properties of GNPs. They developed two types of GNPs, Glu-GNPs and AET-GNPs, to enhance localized uptake and binding to the cancer cell. Di ff erent radiations, such as 200 kVp X-rays and gamma rays, were applied to radiation therapy of the cells, with naked GNPs or functional GNPs. The results showed that radiotherapy in association with functional GNPs killed significantly more breast cancer cells compared with the naked GNPs. In this study, the naked GNPs were neutral and passively bound to cells. However, the biomolecule-modi fi ed GNPs could selectively target locations at the subcellular level.e active and speci fi c binding signi fi cantly increased the local concentration of functional GNPs, and subsequently enhanced the cytotoxicity of radiation. Liu et al.15also con fi rmed that PEG-GNPs could enhance the cell radiation therapeutic sensitivity in murine breast cancer EMT-6 cells and colon carcinoma CT26 cells. The percentage of surviving cells aer irradiation decreased by approximately 2% to 45%. Zhang et al. recently examined HeLa cancer cells using GSH-GNPs or BSA-GNPs irradiated under gamma-rays from137Cs (photon energy 662 keV). The sensitization enhancement ratio (SER) of GSH-GNPs was 1.30, which was higher than that of BSAGNPs (1.21) for all radiation doses.e radiation enhancement effects of GSH- and BSA-GNPs may have been caused by the enhanced DNA damage induced by the photoelectric effect and Compton scaering of the heavy metal. In addition, GSHGNPs showed stronger radiation enhancement than BSA-GNPs, which could be attributed to the improved cell uptake of the hydrodynamically smaller GSH-GNPs (2.4 nm) relative to that of the BSA-GNPs (6 nm)16.

Radiosensitization was lower at megavoltage energies but was considerably greater than those predicted by MC simulations. McMahon et al.17demonstrated that GNPs also had radiosensitization e ff ect on MDA-MB-231 cells at 6 or 15 MV X-ray energies. Clonogenic cell survival assay was used to determine the enhancement of radiosensitivity by GNPs.e SERs were found to be 1.24 and 1.18 for 6 and 15 MV irradiations, respectively. Previous studies have confirmed that greater uptake of GNPs by cells may induce increased radiation effect. A recent study18has shown that Glu-GNPs combined with radiation induced signi fi cant growth inhibition in triple-negative breast cancer cell lines (MDAMB-231) compared with radiation alone at 6 MV X-ray, and 49 nm Glu-GNPs induced stronger radiosensitivity than 16 nm Glu-GNPs with corresponding SERs of 1.86 and 1.49. Notably,GNP sensitization may be cell-specific. In MDA-MB-231 cells, SERs of 1.41, 1.29, and 1.16 were achieved using 160 kVp, 6 MV, and 15 MV X-ray energies, respectively. However, no significant effect was observed in DU145 human prostate cancer cells in the presence of kV or MV energies (SER: 0.97 to 1.08), despite GNPs uptake occurring in these cell lines19. Several studies have con fi rmed that GNPs radiosensitization is substantially greater than MC simulation at megavoltage energies. However, the radiation damage to the cells lining the vasculature should be considered in the complex structure of tumors involving microvasculature. Rahman et al.20recently evaluated endothelial dose enhancement factor (EDEF) to bovine aortic endothelial cells (BAECs) using 80 and 150 kV X-ray energies as well as 6 and 12 MeV electrons.e EDEF is de fi ned to be the ratio of the dose given to the control cell culture (i.e., without GNPs) that produces 90% survival divided by the dose given to the cells treated with GNPs that produces 90% survival.ey observed EDEFs of 24.6, 2.2, 4.0, and 4.1 for 80 kV X-rays, 150 kV X-rays, 6 MeV electrons, and 12 MeV electrons at 1 mM GNPs concentration, respectively.e results clearly showed that GNPs e ff ectively enhanced the radiation e ff ects on BAECs in conjunction with irradiation by kilo-voltage-energy-range X-ray beams. Slightly less radiation dose enhancement was observed when using high-energy (megavoltage range) electron beams.

In vivo studies

In the pioneering vivo study of Hainfeld et al.21, in combination with 250 kVp X-ray, the 1.9 nm GNPs were injected intravenously into mammary tumor-bearing mice. Results showed 86% one-year survival using the new method compared with the 20% for X-rays alone. In the following study, they also found that GNPs still had significant radiosensitization on tumor resistant cells22. Interestingly, significant in vivo tumor growth delay and increased survival were observed in a mouse model with B16F10 murine melanoma23despite the low radiosensitization effect of citrate-coated GNPs found in vitro clonogenic assays, with GNPs achieving DEFs of 1.08. The median survival time was 20 d for non-irradiated mice, 55 d for 6 MV radiation only, and 65 days for GNP radiation groups. The authors implied that using multiple fractions may induce more apoptotic cells and thereby improve the therapeutic ratio and survival of tumorbearing mice in the combination therapy of GNPs and radiation. Previous in vitro studies have shown that 50 nm GNPs had stronger radiation sensitivity than 14 and 74 nm GNPs. However, in vivo radiosensitization studies of 4.8, 12.1, 27.3, and 46.6 nm PEG-coated GNPs showed that 12.1 nm GNPs had the strongest sensitization e ff ects24. More recently, intravenously injected GNPs for X-ray imaging and radiotherapy enhancement of intracerebral malignant gliomas were tested. Mice treated with GNPs and radiation (30 Gy) demonstrated 50% long-term (＞1 year) tumorfree survival, whereas all mice treated with radiation only died25.

Mechanism of GNP radiosensitization

The underlying mechanisms of GNPs as radiosensitizers in cancer radiotherapy have been reported recently. The role of double strand breaks (DSB) to the DNA is critical to the response of cancer cells to radiation26. Previous studies have shown that γ-H2AX expression is a sensitive DSB indicator. Ngwa et al.27observed that for the 28 keV beam (I-125 brachytherapy seeds), the average number of γ-H2AX foci per cell was evidently higher for HeLa cells treated by GNPs plus radiation. For higher energies, Xu et al.28successfully prepared Au nanorods and utilized them for radiation with 6 MV X-ray in A375 melanoma cells. The addition of GNPs enhanced the radiosensitivity of A375 cells with a SER of 1.14 and increased more radiation-induced DSBs by γ-H2AX expression. By contrast, no evidence of GNPs increasing radiation-induced DSBs was found by Jain et al.19. Ionizing radiation is known to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as HO·, O2·–, and H2O2, through the radiolysis of H2O molecules.ese ROS have a strong destructive e ff ect on the DNA because of their unpaired electron29. Moreover, Geng et al.30showed that Glu-GNPs enhanced the production of intracellular ROS when irradiated with 90 kVp or 6 MV X-rays in SKOV-3 human ovarian cancer cells.ese results indicate that increased ROS formation when radiation interacts with GNPs may be one of the mechanisms that mediate GNP radiosensitization. Another possible mechanism for GNP-mediated radiosensitization is that GNPs induce cell apoptosis and regulate cell cycle. Xu et al.28found that irradiation with GNPs on A375 melanoma cells induced a range of cell line-specific responses, including decreased clonogenic survival and increased apoptosis. Roa et al.31observed that GNPs accelerated the G1/S phase of the cell cycle and arrested DU-145 cancer cells in the G2/M phase, con fi rming how GNPs a ff ect the regulation of the cell cycle to sensitize DU-145 cancer cells to radiotherapy. Furthermore, Roa et al.31explored the mechanism of Glu-GNPs mediated cell cycle changes and found that G2/M arrest was accompanied by the downregulation of p53 and cyclin A expression and the upregulation of cyclin B1 and cyclin E.

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and radiosensitization

Accumulated studies have confirmed that AgNPs, an integral component of metal nanomaterials, had obvious anti-tumorcapabilities in vitro. Given the similar physicochemical properties with GNPs, AgNPs have aracted much interest in radiotherapy.

In vitro studies

Xu et al.32tested the radiosensitization effects of AgNPs with di ff erent sizes (20, 50, and 100 nm) in glioma cells (rat C6 glioma cells, human U251 and SHG-44 glioma cells) and demonstrated that AgNPs could function to enhance radiation-induced necrosis of glioma cells. They found that both 20 and 50 nm AgNPs signi fi cantly enhanced radiation sensitivity of U251 cells, with 20 nm particles performing beer than 50 nm ones, while the e ff ect of 100 nm AgNPs was signi fi cantly weaker. A similar particle size-dependent radiation sensitization effect was also observed for C6 and SHG-44 cells.enceforth, several similar studies proved that AgNPs had radiation sensitization e ff ect on MGC803 gastric cells33, U231 breast cancer cells34, and A549 lung cancer cells35.

In vivo studies

Whether the in vitro findings could be applied in vivo remain unclear because of the disparity of microenvironments and condition controllabilities. Liu et al.36treated C6 glioma-bearing rats with a single dose of 10 Gy using 6 MV X-rays radiation alone or in combination with intratumoral administration of AgNPs.e mean survival times were 100.5 and 98 d, the corresponding percent increase in life spans were 513.2% and 497.7%, and the cure rates were 41.7% and 38.5% at 200 d for the 10 or 20 μg AgNPs and radiation combination groups, respectively. By contrast, the mean survival times for irradiated controls, 10 and 20 μg AgNPs alone and untreated controls were 24.5, 16.1, 19.4, and 16.4 d, respectively. Finally, the results showed the therapeutic e ffi cacy of AgNPs in combination with radiotherapy without apparent systemic toxicity, thus suggesting the clinical potential of AgNPs in improving the outcome of malignant glioma radiotherapy.erefore, the fi ndings from this study will be critical for successful translation of this approach in clinic.

Mechanism of AgNPs radiosensitization

The anti-tumor capability of AgNPs has been primarily attributed to inducing apoptosis, activating the oxidative stress, and influencing membrane fluidity37-39. Currently, the mechanisms of AgNPs radiosensitization are not fully determined. Therefore, several studies have proposed that the mechanism of radiosensitization by AgNPs may be related to the release of Ag+cation from the Ag nanostructures inside cells. Ag+cation has the ability to capture electron and thus functions as an oxidative agent, which could further reduce the ATP content of the cell and increase production of ROS. Liu et al. found that when gliomas were treated with AgNPs followed by radiotherapy, a cooperative antiproliferative and proapoptotic e ff ect was obtained36.

Other metal nanomaterials and radiosensitization

Using GNPs and AgNPs as radiosensitizers have been con fi rmed by several experimental and MC simulation studies. However, scientists showed great interest in radiosensitization caused by other nanomaterials. Germanium (Ge) is a naturally occurring metalloid with semiconductor properties40. Lin et al.41demonstrated that nanoGe can enhance the radiosensitivity of Chinese hamster ovary K1 cells.ey found that nanoGe caused a higher level of DNA damage by the comet assay and caused cell cycle arrest at G2/M phase. Given that the atomic number of platinum is similar to that of Au, Porcel et al.42proposed a new strategy based on the combination of platinum nanoparticles with irradiation by fast ions effectively used in hadron therapy. They observed that platinum nanoparticles strongly enhanced lethal damage in DNA, with an e ffi ciency factor close to 2 for DSB.e authors supposed that the enhanced sensitization of platinum nanoparticles was due to reinforcing the energy deposition in the close vicinity of the metal. Considered as one of the least toxic heavy metals, bismuth has been widely used in industry as well as in biological and medical sciences43. Recently, bismuth nanoparticles have drawn great attention for application in biological sciences such as bioimaging, biosensing, biomolecular detection, and X-ray radiosensitizing. Hossain et al.44found that bismuth nanoparticles showed higher dose enhancements than Au and platinum nanoparticles for a given nanoparticle size, concentration, and location. At 350 mg/g, bismuth nanoparticles provided 1.25 and 1.29 times higher dose enhancements than GNPs and platinum nanoparticles respectively when irradiated by a 50 kVp source. Correspondingly, Auger electrons from bismuth nanoparticles provided 2 to 2.4 times higher enhancement than the other two kinds of nanoparticles. Hence, the highest DEFs may be achieved for nanoparticles located closest to the nucleus, where energy depositions from short range Auger electrons were the maximum.

Conclusion

With the rapid development of nanotechnology in the biomedical field, nanomaterials have been widely used in the diagnosis and treatment for disease. Numerous pre-clinical studies invitro and in vivo have proved the potential value of metal-based nanomaterials as radiosensitizers in cancer treatment. Various studies have indicated that radiosensitizing ability could be in fl uenced by nanomaterial size, concentration, surface coating, and the radiation energy. Further systematic and comparative studies are needed to achieve the best in vivo radiosensitization effect. In addition, although the exact molecular mechanisms of radiosensitization are elusive, the role of autophagy (programmed cell death type II) in this effect should be considered. Finally, several other issues, such as nanomaterial metabolism in vivo, biodistribution, and cumulative toxicity (biosecurity) in vivo still remain unaddressed. In the future, we believe that all these problems will eventually be resolved by the development of nanomedicinal technology.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (Grants No. 2013CB933904 and 2011CB933500).

Con fl ict of interest statement

No potential con fl icts of interest are disclosed.

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.

2. Tak JK, Lee JH, Park JW. Resveratrol and piperine enhance radiosensitivity of tumor cells. BMB Rep 2012;45:242-246.

3. Sanvicens N, Marco MP. Multifunctional nanoparticles--properties and prospects for their use in human medicine. Trends Biotechnol 2008;26:425-433.

4. Kobayashi K, Usami N, Porcel E, Lacombe S, Le Sech C. Enhancement of radiation e ff ect by heavy elements. Mutat Res 2010;704:123-131.

5. Conde J, Doria G, Baptista P. Noble metal nanoparticles applications in cancer. J Drug Deliv 2012;2012:751075.

6. Mesbahi A. A review on gold nanoparticles radiosensitization e ff ect in radiation therapy of cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2010;15:176-180. eCollection 2010.

7. Spezi E, Lewis DG, Smith CW. Monte Carlo simulation and dosimetric veri fi cation of radiotherapy beam modi fi ers. Phys Med Biol 2001;46:3007-3029.

8. Cho SH. Estimation of tumour dose enhancement due to gold nanoparticles during typical radiation treatments: a preliminary Monte Carlo study. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:N163-N173.

9. Cho SH, Jones BL, Krishnan S.e dosimetric feasibility of gold nanoparticle-aided radiation therapy (GNRT) via brachytherapy using low-energy gamma-/x-ray sources. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:4889-4905.

11. Jain S, Hirst DG, O’Sullivan JM. Gold nanoparticles as novel agents for cancer therapy. Br J Radiol 2012;85:101-113.

12. Zheng Y, Hunting DJ, Ayoe P, Sanche L. Radiosensitization of DNA by gold nanoparticles irradiated with high-energy electrons. Radiat Res 2008;169:19-27.

13. Chithrani DB, Jelveh S, Jalali F, van Prooijen M, Allen C, Bristow RG, et al. Gold nanoparticles as radiation sensitizers in cancer therapy. Radiat Res 2010;173:719-728.

14. Kong T, Zeng J, Wang X, Yang X, Yang J, McQuarrie S, et al. Enhancement of radiation cytotoxicity in breast-cancer cells by localized attachment of gold nanoparticles. Small 2008;4:1537-1543.

15. Liu CJ, Wang CH, Chen ST, Chen HH, Leng WH, Chien CC, et al. Enhancement of cell radiation sensitivity by pegylated gold nanoparticles. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:931-945.

16. Zhang XD, Chen J, Luo Z, Wu D, Shen X, Song SS, et al. Enhanced tumor accumulation of sub-2 nm gold nanoclusters for cancer radiation therapy. Adv Healthc Mater 2014;3:133-141.

17. McMahon SJ, Hyland WB, Muir MF, Coulter JA, Jain S, Buerworth KT, et al. Nanodosimetric e ff ects of gold nanoparticles in megavoltage radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2011;100:412-416.

18. Wang C, Jiang Y, Li X, Hu L.ioglucose-bound gold nanoparticles increase the radiosensitivity of a triple-negative breast cancer cell line (MDA-MB-231). Breast Cancer 2013. [Epub ahead of print].

19. Jain S, Coulter JA, Hounsell AR, Buerworth KT, McMahon SJ, Hyland WB, et al. Cell-speci fi c radiosensitization by gold nanoparticles at megavoltage radiation energies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:531-539.

20. Rahman WN, Bishara N, Ackerly T, He CF, Jackson P, Wong C, et al. Enhancement of radiation e ff ects by gold nanoparticles for super fi cial radiation therapy. Nanomedicine 2009;5:136-142.

21. Hainfeld JF, Slatkin DN, Smilowitz HM.e use of gold nanoparticles to enhance radiotherapy in mice. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:N309-N315.

22. Hainfeld JF, Dilmanian FA, Zhong Z, Slatkin DN, Kalef-Ezra JA, Smilowitz HM. Gold nanoparticles enhance the radiation therapy of a murine squamous cell carcinoma. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:3045-3059.

23. Chang MY, Shiau AL, Chen YH, Chang CJ, Chen HH, Wu CL.Increased apoptotic potential and dose-enhancing e ff ect of gold nanoparticles in combination with single-dose clinical electron beams on tumor-bearing mice. Cancer Sci 2008;99:1479-1484.

24. Zhang XD, Wu D, Shen X, Chen J, Sun YM, Liu PX, et al. Sizedependent radiosensitization of PEG-coated gold nanoparticles for cancer radiation therapy. Biomaterials 2012;33:6408-6419.

25. Hainfeld JF, Smilowitz HM, O’Connor MJ, Dilmanian FA, Slatkin DN. Gold nanoparticle imaging and radiotherapy of brain tumors in mice. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2013;8:1601-1609.

26. Bhogal N, Jalali F, Bristow RG. Microscopic imaging of DNA repair foci in irradiated normal tissues. Int J Radiat Biol 2009;85:732-746.

27. Ngwa W, Korideck H, Kassis AI, Kumar R, Sridhar S, Makrigiorgos GM, et al. In vitro radiosensitization by gold nanoparticles during continuous low-dose-rate gamma irradiation with I-125 brachytherapy seeds. Nanomedicine 2013;9:25-27.

28. Xu W, Teng L, Pang B, Li P, Zhou C, Huang P, et al.e Radiosensitization Of Melanoma Cells By Gold Nanorods Irradiated With MV X-Ray. Nano Biomed Eng 2012;4:6-11.

29. Chompoosor A, Saha K, Ghosh PS, Macarthy DJ, Miranda OR, Zhu ZJ, et al.e role of surface functionality on acute cytotoxicity, ROS generation and DNA damage by cationic gold nanoparticles. Small. 2010;6:2246-2249.

30. Geng F, Song K, Xing JZ, Yuan C, Yan S, Yang Q, et al.io-glucose bound gold nanoparticles enhance radio-cytotoxic targeting of ovarian cancer. Nanotechnology 2011;22:285101.

31. Roa W, Zhang X, Guo L, Shaw A, Hu X, Xiong Y, et al. Gold nanoparticle sensitize radiotherapy of prostate cancer cells by regulation of the cell cycle. Nanotechnology 2009;20:375101.

32. Xu R, Ma J, Sun X, Chen Z, Jiang X, Guo Z, et al. Ag nanoparticles sensitize IR-induced killing of cancer cells. Cell Res 2009;19:1031-1034.

33. Huang P, Yang DP, Zhang C, Lin J, He M, Bao L, et al. Proteindirected one-pot synthesis of Ag microspheres with good biocompatibility and enhancement of radiation e ff ects on gastric cancer cells. Nanoscale 2011;3:3623-3626.

34. Lu R, Yang D, Cui D, Wang Z, Guo L. Egg white-mediated green synthesis of silver nanoparticles with excellent biocompatibility and enhanced radiation e ff ects on cancer cells. Int J Nanomedicine 2012;7:2101-2107.

35. Ma J, Xu R, Sun J, Zhao D, Tong J, Sun X. Nanoparticle surface and nanocore properties determine the e ff ect on radiosensitivity of cancer cells upon ionizing radiation treatment. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2013;13:1472-1475.

36. Liu P, Huang Z, Chen Z, Xu R, Wu H, Zang F, et al. Silver nanoparticles: a novel radiation sensitizer for glioma? Nanoscale 2013;5:11829-11836.

37. Franco-Molina MA, Mendoza-Gamboa E, Sierra-Rivera CA, Gómez-Flores, Zapata-Benavides P, Castillo-Tello P, et al. Antitumor activity of colloidal silver on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2010;29:148.

38. Asharani PV, Hande MP, Valiyaveeil S. Anti-proliferative activity of silver nanoparticles. BMC Cell Biol 2009;10:65.

39. Shvedova AA, Castranova V, Kisin ER, Schwegler-Berry D, Murray AR, Gandelsman VZ, et al. Exposure to carbon nanotube material: assessment of nanotube cytotoxicity using human keratinocyte cells. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2003;66:1909-1926.

40. Chiu SJ, Lee MY, Chou WG, Lin LY. Germanium oxide enhances the radiosensitivity of cells. Radiat Res 2003;159:391-400.

41. Lin MH, Hsu TS, Yang PM, Tsai MY, Perng TP, Lin LY. Comparison of organic and inorganic germanium compounds in cellular radiosensitivity and preparation of germanium nanoparticles as a radiosensitizer. Int J Radiat Biol 2009;85:214-226.

42. Porcel E, Liehn S, Remita H, Usami N, Kobayashi K, Furusawa Y, et al. Platinum nanoparticles: a promising material for future cancer therapy? Nanotechnology 2010;21:85103.

43. Luo Y, Wang C, Qiao Y, Hossain M, Ma L, Su M. In vitro cytotoxicity of surface modi fi ed bismuth nanoparticles. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2012;23:2563-2573.

44. Hossain M, Su M. Nanoparticle location and material dependent dose enhancement in X-ray radiation therapy. J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces 2012;116:23047-23052.

Cite this article as:Su XY, Liu PD, Wu H, Gu N. Enhancement of radiosensitization by metal-based nanoparticles in cancer radiation therapy. Cancer Biol Med 2014;11:86-91. doi: 10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2014.02.003

Ning Gu

E-mail: guning@seu.edu.cn

Received January 27, 2014; accepted March 24, 2014. Available at www.cancerbiomed.org

Copyright © 2014 by Cancer Biology & Medicine