Radiation Therapy

Repair of Radiation Damage

A critical determinant of a cell population’s sensitivity to radiation is the ability of cells to repair DNA damage caused by radiation. One Gy of radiation from photons causes approximately 2500 base damages, 1000 single-strand breaks, and 40 double-strand breaks in DNA in each cell.⁴ Most of this damage is repaired by cells within 6 to 24 hours; the double-strand breaks are the most lethal because they may lead to severe chromosomal aberrations. A given dose of radiation is preferentially cytotoxic to proliferating cells, including tumor cells and renewing cell populations (e.g., epithelial stem cells), although slowly dividing and nondividing cells (e.g., bone and cells of the nervous system) are also affected by radiation.

Cell Cycle Effects

The period of the cell cycle in which DNA undergoes synthesis is known as S-phase. Before and after S-phase are periods without overt activity by the DNA; these periods are called G₁ phase and G₂ phase. G₂ phase is followed by mitosis. Cells are distributed throughout the cell cycle in a tumor or tissue at a given time. The individual cell sensitivity to irradiation varies, depending on the phase of the cell cycle at the time of irradiation. Cells in late S-phase are most resistant to irradiation, and cells in late G₂ or mitosis are most sensitive.

Oxygen Effects

Because of their rapid growth and abnormal vasculature, tumors often become partially hypoxic. This results in upregulation of hypoxia-inducible proteins that may prepare the tumor cells to handle stresses. Oxygen is also a critical factor in the response to irradiation because reactive oxygen species (ROS) generate much of the damage from radiation. As a result, normoxic cells are up to threefold more sensitive to radiation than hypoxic cells.

Relative Biologic Effectiveness

Although this chapter primarily discusses the effects of photons (x-rays and gamma rays) and electrons, there are many other forms of radiation that can be used in oncology, including protons and neutrons. The biologic effects of 1 Gy of electrons are the same as 1 Gy of photons, but 1 Gy of protons or neutrons may cause substantially more damage than 1 Gy of photons or electrons. This difference is known as the relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) of the type of radiation.

Time, Dose, and Fractionation

Early radiation oncologists found that higher total doses could be given if the doses were divided into smaller fractions. They observed that tumor response was improved, and less injury of normal tissue occurred. In veterinary medicine, standard fractionation denotes a regimen delivering 2.7 to 4 Gy per fraction, 3 to 5 times per week to a total dose of 42 to 57 Gy, although several other regimens are currently being used or investigated. Hyperfractionation refers to schedules in which the dose per fraction is reduced and the total dose is increased. Accelerated fractionation describes a treatment regimen in which the overall time of treatment is reduced, but the dose per fraction and total dose are unchanged. Hypofractionation describes the administration of high doses per fraction given in a small number of fractions to a lower total dose. The response of tumor and normal tissues between fractions throughout the course of radiation therapy has been described by Withers⁵ as the “four Rs” of radiation therapy: repair of DNA damage, redistribution of cells in the cell cycle, reoxygenation of tumor cells, and repopulation of tumor and normal tissues.

Division of the total radiation dose into fractions is important for a number of reasons. The first reason is to exploit potential differences in repair capabilities between tumors and normal tissues. Slowly dividing cells are somewhat less sensitive to small doses of radiation than more rapidly dividing cells; however, they appear to become relatively more sensitive if radiation is delivered in larger doses per fraction. If smaller doses per fraction are used, normal tissues with slowly dividing cells can be spared relative to tumor tissues with rapidly dividing cells.

Other events that occur between radiation fractions are cell cycle redistribution and reoxygenation. When a fraction of radiation therapy is administered, many of the cells in the sensitive portions of the cell cycle are killed. During the interval between fractions, cells from the late S-phase, which are more likely to be alive than other cells, progress to more sensitive parts of the cell cycle. This is known as redistribution. Reoxygenation also occurs during the interval between radiation fractions when many of the hypoxic tumor cells become aerobic and thus more sensitive to irradiation.

The length of time over which radiation therapy is administered is important, primarily because of tumor repopulation but also because of rapidly proliferating normal tissues, such as mucosa and skin. Tumor cells that have not been destroyed by irradiation continue to replicate during the course of therapy. This process is exacerbated by a phenomenon known as accelerated repopulation. Some have suggested that after approximately 4 weeks of therapy, tumors repopulate more rapidly than initially.⁶ The reason for this is not clear, but the phenomenon could be related to (1) a reduction in the cell cycle time, (2) an increase in the number of tumor cells that are actively dividing, or (3) a reduction in the number of tumor cells that normally die (cell loss factor). Regardless of the cause, when treatment lasts longer than 4 weeks, repopulation may affect the outcome unless total dose is increased to account for this phenomenon. Repopulation may have a greater impact on rapidly dividing tumors than on slowly dividing tumors.

Repopulation of proliferating (also known as acutely responding) normal tissues is also affected by time. The same total dose of radiation administered over a short period results in somewhat more severe acute effects than if administered over a longer course. Nonproliferating (late-responding) normal tissues are not significantly affected by the length of time over which therapy is administered. Fraction size and the interval between treatment fractions are more important in late-responding tissues. Fractions should be separated by at least 6 hours to allow repair of DNA damage to normal tissues. Cells of the brain and spinal cord may require additional time for complete repair, and the impact of multiple fractions per day on these late-responding tissues is not clearly understood.

The total dose administered to a patient should have a low probability for causing significant late normal tissue reactions in the region of therapy. However, the response of tissues also depends on the fraction size. For example, 48 Gy administered in 4 Gy fractions has a higher probability of causing late effects than 48 Gy administered in 3 Gy fractions (Figure 12-1). The probability of tumor control is not as affected because rapidly proliferating tissues, including tumors, are not as sensitive to the change in dose per fraction. The benefits of protocols that use small doses per fraction are clear: they allow a higher total dose to be administered without increasing the probability of damage to late-responding normal tissues.

The total dose tolerated depends on the specific normal tissues present in the irradiated field. For example, brain and spinal cord are less tolerant to the effects of irradiation than muscle or bone. Another factor that must be considered when selecting the appropriate dose is the volume of tissue in the field. Large volumes of normal tissues are more susceptible to damage from irradiation than smaller volumes.

Although time, dose and fractionation are still the underpinnings of SRT, the paradigm is different than for fractionated radiation therapy. SRT involves the use of high doses per fraction but overcomes the radiobiologic limitations with stereotactically verified positioning and treatment delivery techniques that leave a minimal volume of normal tissue in the high dose area. Stereotactic radiation therapy, by definition, requires (1) a tumor for targeting (not microscopic disease), (2) treatment planning and administration that will provide a dramatic dose drop-off between the tumor and the surrounding normal tissue structures, and (3) a method of stereotactically verifying patient positioning. The result is that normal late-responding tissue structures are spared through dose avoidance rather than by administering small doses per fraction. The normal tissue structures still receive dose, and the dose per fraction is higher than for traditional radiation therapy. However, the total dose to the normal structures is lower than what is typical for fractionated radiation therapy. Normal tissue tolerance data are just evolving for SRT, as is long-term follow-up. Estimates of tolerance have been based on limited clinical data, toxicity observation, and educated guessing.⁷ It is inappropriate to extrapolate dose constraints from fractionated protocols. An additional difference between SRT and fractionated radiation therapy is that with SRT, acutely responding normal tissues in the surrounding region such as skin, esophagus, and colon may be susceptible to consequential late effects. A consequential late effect is a late effect that develops from severe acute effects that may be associated with stem cell depletion. Dose constraints therefore must also be applied to these tissues. SRT treatment is generally delivered in 1 to 5 fractions over a period of 1 week or less for most tumors; therefore accelerated repopulation is unlikely to impact tumor control. Although historically stereotactic treatment was delivered in a single fraction (referred to as stereotactic radiosurgery), current technology allowing precise repositioning makes limited fractionation feasible. Even this minimal fractionation should allow higher total doses to be administered safely to late-responding tissues in the region and presumably take advantage of tumor reoxygenation and redistribution. However, biologic response following SRT has not been comprehensively evaluated. From a practical standpoint, SRT minimizes the number of anesthesia episodes to these older and sometimes debilitated patients and is also generally more convenient for the owner. Acute effects are minimal and tumor-associated signs such as discomfort or dysfunction often improve rapidly. Long-term tumor control and late effects need to be quantitated.

No perfect radiation therapy protocol exists, and all protocols commonly used in veterinary and human medicine have advantages and disadvantages. It is not within the scope of this chapter to prescribe specific radiation doses or fractionation schedules because many factors must be considered. Rather, referring veterinarians must know what to expect when sending patients to a radiation oncology center, and they should be able to explain some of the fundamental principles to clients. The radiation oncologist should inform the referring veterinarian and owner of the probabilities of late effects and tumor control and estimate the degree of acute effects expected with a specific protocol. The goal of radiation therapy is to destroy the reproductive capacity of the tumor without excessive damage to surrounding normal tissues. This goal is best achieved by dividing the total dose into a number of smaller fractions (fractionation) that are administered over a period of time or by applying stereotactic technology. Regardless of the approach, the relationship of these three parameters (time-dose-fractionation) must be carefully considered in the development of radiation treatment plans for successful therapy.

Acute and Late Effects

Reactions from radiation therapy are classified as acute (also called early) or late. Acute effects occur during or shortly after radiation therapy. Acute effects involve rapidly proliferating tissues, such as the oral mucosa, intestinal epithelium, and epithelial structures of the eyes and skin. Concurrent chemotherapy can exacerbate acute effects from radiation. These effects generally are self-limiting, and recovery is rapid. However, acute effects can be unpleasant for the patient and distressing to the owner, and in rare instances they can be life-threatening if the proper care is not given. The referring veterinarian often is called on to treat recently irradiated patients. Acute effects will heal without medical intervention in the vast majority of cases over the course of weeks or occasionally months. In veterinary patients, the most important provision to allow healing during this time is prevention of self-trauma of the radiation site by the patient. Therefore pain management plays an important role and should be addressed. Pain management for cancer patients is discussed in Chapter 15, Section A, of this text, and specific protocols have been published.⁸ Additional treatment is based on common sense, supportive care, and the knowledge that the signs will resolve with time.

Late effects involve more slowly proliferating tissues, such as bone, lung, heart, kidneys, and nervous system. The dose of radiation administered is limited by the tolerance of these normal tissue structures in the field. Late reactions can be difficult to treat; it is the radiation oncologist’s obligation to minimize the incidence of late effects with appropriate dose prescriptions and careful radiation planning and treatment. When late effects occur, they may be quite severe, resulting in fibrosis, necrosis, loss of function, or even death.⁹ Late effects occur from the loss of normal tissue stem cells with concurrent radiation-induced vascular changes and inflammation. These changes are multifactorial, but the cytokine transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) is believed to play a critical role in radiation fibrosis. Strategies attempted in human radiation oncology to mitigate late radiation effects include the use of antioxidants and free radical scavengers (superoxide dismutase, vitamin E, thiol radioprotectors), vascular-directed therapies (clopidogrel, statins, pentoxifylline), antiinflammatory agents (corticosteroids), inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors), and stem cell therapies.⁹ In veterinary patients, severe late reactions such as fibrosis and tissue necrosis should be managed under the guidance of or referred to a surgeon and/or radiation oncologist experienced in dealing with radiation injury.

Radiation-Induced Neoplasia

Ionizing radiation is a complete carcinogen, capable of initiating, promoting, and progressing cellular changes that lead to cancer. Therefore it is possible to see radiation-induced neoplasia develop in a radiation treatment field. It appears that orthovoltage radiation and radiation with high linear energy transfer (high-LET) such as neutrons result in carcinogenesis at a higher frequency than the megavoltage photons typically used in veterinary radiation therapy.¹⁰ Other factors that influence the risk of radiation carcinogenesis include the age of the patient (young patients are more likely to develop subsequent tumors) and the tissues irradiated. Certain tissues are also more prone to development of radiation-induced tumors, such as the thyroid gland. For a tumor to be considered radiation induced, the following criteria must be met^10,11:

The overall incidence of radiation-induced tumors in patients treated with radiotherapy is thought to be extremely low (<1% to 2% of patients treated).¹¹

Cell Survival After Irradiation

After a tissue or population of cells is exposed to any dose of radiation, a fraction of the cells will be killed. The proportion of remaining cells is known as the surviving fraction (S). The sensitivity of a tumor or tissue to radiation can be shown as a graph of the radiation dose (D) versus the surviving fraction (Figure 12-2).¹² The relationship between a dose of radiation and the surviving fraction of cells is commonly described by the linear quadratic equation:

where S is the surviving fraction at a dose (D).¹³ Alpha (α) and beta (β) are constants that vary according to the tissue with α corresponding to the cell death that increases linearly with dose and β corresponding to cell death that increases in proportion to the square of the dose (also known as the quadratic component). The α/β ratio is a useful number that is the dose in Gy when cell kill from the linear and quadratic components of the cell survival curve is equal. Cells with a higher α/β ratio have a more linear appearance when plotted on a log scale, and cells with a low α/β ratio have a parabolic shape. The α/β ratio is also an important description of the radiosensitivity of a cell. At low-dose fractions, tissues or cells with low α/β ratio are relatively radiation resistant compared to tissues or cells with high α/β ratio. It has been suggested that tissues and cells with low α/β ratios have a greater capacity for repair of sublethal radiation damage. Sublethal radiation damage is defined as damage that can become lethal if it interacts with additional damage. Sublethal damage repair is the reason that cell survival increases when a radiation dose is split into two fractions separated by a time interval.

Most early responding tissues and tumors have a high α/β ratio, whereas late-responding tissues have a low α/β ratio.¹³ There are some tumors that may have a low α/β ratio, which can influence the optimal radiation prescription in terms of total dose, time, and fractionation. Tumors that may have lower α/β ratios include melanoma, prostatic tumors, soft tissue sarcomas, transitional cell carcinoma, and osteosarcomas.^14-16

The concept of biologic effective dose (BED) is used to predict how changes in dose prescription may preferentially affect different cells or tissues based on their α/β ratio in the linear quadratic model of survival. The formula for BED is as follows:

where n is the number of fractions and d is the dose per fraction. If the α/β ratio of a tissue is known or can be estimated, one can calculate the BED for any dose prescription. It is possible to use this formula to assess how dosimetry changes or errors alter the effective dose of a protocol. It is important to note that there are several limitations to the use of this equation, including that it does not account for differences in the overall length of time of the radiation protocol or accelerated repopulation. There are other formulas that can be used to account for time. Also, the true α/β ratio of any cell or tissue is rarely known; therefore calculations made with this model involve making assumptions or predictions that may be incorrect. Nevertheless, this formula is a useful tool when considering hyperfractionating or hypofractionating a standard radiation protocol in order to create a new protocol that will have expected outcomes related to either tumor control or tissue complications. However, the validity of BED for SRT is unclear.

Alternative Mechanisms of Radiation Injury

In addition to direct radiation cytotoxicity, the extracellular matrix and local microenvironment also appear to play an important role in radiation response. Some evidence suggests that apoptosis of endothelial cells may precede damage to proliferating cells and cause some of the effects observed after radiation. Apoptosis of endothelium primarily occurs when high-dose fractions are administered and may play a more important role when hypofractionated and radiosurgical doses of radiation are delivered.

Chemical Modifiers of Radiation

Although rarely used clinically in veterinary medicine, many drugs can modify the cellular and tissue response to radiation. Radioprotectors (e.g., amifostine/WR-2721) are compounds that decrease the amount of radiation damage to targeted normal cells without providing similar protection to tumor cells. Radiosensitizers are chemicals that achieve greater tumor inactivation than would be expected from the additive effect of treatment with either radiation or the chemical alone. Mechanisms of action of radiation sensitizers include hypoxic cell sensitizers or cytotoxins and agents that damage or incorporate into DNA.

Palliative Radiation Therapy

Palliative radiation therapy is commonly used in human medicine, and its use in veterinary medicine has increased in recent years. Palliative radiation is generally hypofractionated compared to curative intent protocols, often administered in larger doses per fraction (6 to 10 Gy per fraction) in 1 to 4 total fractions once or twice weekly. Conversely, palliative therapy can be delivered in conventional doses or modestly hypofractionated daily or twice daily for a short but intense treatment regimen. The goal of palliative radiation therapy is not to provide long-term or definitive tumor control; rather, it is intended to relieve pain or improve function or quality of life in patients in which other factors (e.g., advanced metastatic disease) are likely to lead to early demise. Palliative radiation therapy has been used most often for metastatic or primary bone tumors, principally canine osteosarcoma (see Chapter 24). Palliative therapy is more convenient for the owner, and the cost is modest compared with curative radiation therapy because fewer fractions are administered. It is, however, important to remember that palliative radiation is not a substitute for curative-intent protocols despite the convenience. Some palliative therapy protocols may have an increased probability of causing late radiation effects but because they are prescribed to patients that have a poor long-term prognosis, these late effects may not have time to manifest. Curative-intent radiation protocols require strict adherence to radiation biologic principles; palliative radiation protocols, on the other hand, are far more flexible. As in human hospital settings, the protocols may vary dramatically from radiation center to radiation center.

Oral Tumors

Many oral tumors (see Chapter 22, Section A) are responsive to radiation therapy. The region is anatomically complex, and aggressive surgery often can leave functional and cosmetic abnormalities. For many oral tumors, combining surgery and radiation will provide the best outcomes; however, the optimal time to begin irradiation after surgery (or surgery after irradiation) has not been determined. If difficulty in obtaining primary wound healing appears likely, radiation can be delayed. However, the therapeutic gain from combining modalities will be lost if the tumor recurs in the interim. Initiating radiation therapy immediately after surgery does not appear to be a problem if the suture line is tension free and well vascularized. Mucosal flaps can be used successfully to close surgical defects in the oral cavity of patients that will receive postoperative radiotherapy, but complications are common.²⁷

Nasal Tumors

Nasal tumors (see Chapter 23, Section B) in dogs are difficult to control. Surgery, chemotherapy, cryosurgery, or immunotherapy alone does not appear to improve survival over no treatment.^51-56 Radiation therapy provides the best reported tumor control for canine nasal tumors and likely needs to be part of any curative-intent treatment regimen.

Brain Tumors and Pituitary Tumors

Brain tumors can be treated successfully with radiation therapy (see Chapter 30). In the treatment of brain tumors, surgery may be indicated to relieve life-threatening clinical signs. Although appropriate studies are still needed, for animals with less severe clinical signs, reported survival times after radiation for brain tumors in dogs are frequently comparable to surgery alone. Adjuvant radiation is indicated in patients with incomplete surgical resection; combined surgery and radiation may provide the best long-term control. Radiation therapy alone should be performed in dogs with cancer at surgically inaccessible sites or in locations in which surgical morbidity is high. SRT is being evaluated for treatment of a wide variety of brain tumors in dogs and cats.

Superficial Tumors of the Trunk and Extremities

Many tumors involving the trunk or extremities are amenable to treatment by radiation therapy. Combining radiation therapy with surgery enhances tumor control and improves the functional outcome better than surgery or radiation alone. For tumors in nonresectable locations, radiation alone may provide a good outcome depending on tumor type and volume. The surgeon and radiation oncologist should consult before therapeutic intervention is started to develop an overall treatment approach.

Hemangiopericytomas, fibrosarcomas, neurofibrosarcomas, myxosarcomas, and nerve sheath tumors are classified together as soft tissue sarcomas because of their similar biologic behavior (see Chapter 21). Metastases are uncommon with grade 1 and grade 2 sarcomas; therefore local tumor control is the primary concern. Soft tissue sarcomas are locally invasive, and tumor cells may extend far beyond the bulk of the tumor. Surgery alone is curative if the tumor can be removed completely.⁸² If surgical resection is attempted, the margins should be closely examined by a pathologist for evidence of tumor infiltration. If tumor cells extend out to the margin, radiation therapy should be recommended if further resection is not possible. If it is apparent that a tumor cannot be excised completely, treatment combining radiation and surgery can be beneficial. Radiation therapy can be administered first with the hope of converting an inoperable tumor into an operable one. This approach has the benefit of reducing the volume of normal tissues irradiated. As an alternative, surgical excision can be performed first as a cytoreductive procedure and then followed by radiation therapy to kill the residual subclinical disease. In one study, 48 dogs with soft tissue sarcomas were treated with surgical cytoreduction followed by radiation therapy; only 8 dogs (16%) developed tumor recurrence, and the 5-year survival rate was 78%.⁸³ In a different study, which involved 38 dogs with soft tissue sarcomas of the body and extremities, treatment with surgery followed by irradiation provided a median survival time of 2270 days.⁴⁵ In comparison, soft tissue sarcomas treated by narrow surgical excision alone have recurrence rates of 17% to 40%.^84-89

Soft tissue sarcomas can be treated with radiation therapy alone; however, tumor control is not as durable as with a combination of radiation therapy and surgery.⁴³ Radiation therapy alone is useful for tumors near the pads, where surgical options are limited. Pads in the irradiation field initially may slough; however, if appropriate fractionation schemes are used, the pads regrow and can function normally. Local hyperthermia has been used effectively with radiation therapy to improve local tumor control in canine soft tissue sarcomas.⁹⁰ Currently, no facilities are able to administer hyperthermia. Adjuvant chemotherapy has been considered for grade 3 soft tissue sarcomas because of the higher metastatic potential of these tumors; however, definitive evidence of improvement in local tumor control or survival is lacking.

Cutaneous mast cell tumors (grades 1 and 2) can be treated successfully with radiation therapy (see Chapter 20). The obvious advantage is that greater margins can be obtained with radiation than with surgery. The probability of control may be improved if surgical cytoreduction is performed first. In a study involving 37 dogs with grade 2 tumors treated with cytoreduction and radiation therapy, tumor control at 1 and 2 years exceeded 90%.⁹¹ In 56 dogs with incompletely resected mast cell tumors, the medium disease-free interval was 32.7 months.⁹² Radiotherapy also is indicated for cutaneous mast cell tumors with regional lymph node metastasis. In one study, 19 dogs with mast cell tumors and regional node involvement were treated with surgical cytoreduction of the primary site, radiation to the primary tumor and regional node, and prednisone.⁹³ The median disease-free survival time was 1240 days. Palliative radiation therapy is commonly used to treat locoregional mast cell tumors in dogs when systemic spread has occurred.

Vaccine-associated soft tissue sarcomas are a significant problem in cats (see Chapter 21). These tumors are challenging to control locally and seem unresponsive to aggressive radiation therapy or conservative surgery alone. In one study, 33 cats with histologically confirmed fibrosarcomas were treated with radiation therapy followed by surgery.⁹⁴ The median disease-free interval and the overall survival time were 398 and 600 days, respectively. In another study, 25 cats with subclinical disease after surgery were treated with radiation therapy alone (57 Gy delivered in 3 Gy fractions) and in some cases with adjuvant chemotherapy.⁹⁵ The overall median survival time was 701 days. Recurrence was seen in 7 cases (5 of 18 [27.8%] in the group treated with doxorubicin and 2 of 7 [28.6%] in the group not treated with doxorubicin). In the recurrence cases, one tumor developed outside the treatment field and the others arose in the area treated with radiation. Metastases to the lung or other sites were not seen in this group of cats. Similar findings were evident in 78 cats treated with surgical cytoreduction followed by radiation.⁹⁶ In this study, cats that underwent only one surgery before radiation had a lower recurrence rate than cats that had more than one surgery. The survival time and the disease-free interval shortened as the time between surgery and the start of radiation therapy lengthened. In a study of 79 cats treated with either preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy, packed cell volume (PCV) higher than 25 was associated with better outcome (median survival 760 days) than cats with PCV lower than 25 (306 days).⁹⁷

Cats with surgically nonresectable disease present a greater challenge. Escalation of the radiation dose by delivering the dose in smaller fractions probably is necessary for these patients. IMRT or SRT may be beneficial for obtaining adequate dose to the tumor because appropriate sparing of the lungs, viscera, and spinal cord is critical in these patients.

Bone Tumors

Although osteosarcomas are not considered highly radiation-responsive tumors, radiation may be considered as part of a multimodality therapy when surgical excision is not an option. (Radiation therapy for osteosarcoma is discussed at length in Chapter 24.) Radiation therapy can be combined with chemotherapy and surgery for limb-sparing protocols.^98,99 In a retrospective study of multimodality therapy for axial skeletal osteosarcoma, dogs that underwent curative-intent radiation protocols had a longer duration of tumor control (265 days) than those treated with a palliative regimen (79 days).¹⁰⁰ SRT is currently being evaluated as a limb-sparing alternative. In one study, stereotactic radiosurgery was performed on 11 dogs with appendicular osteosarcomas,²⁴ and although radiation dose varied and not all dogs received adjuvant chemotherapy, good limb function and tumor control were observed in some of the patients. Fifty dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma underwent treatment with SRT followed by chemotherapy. Sites included distal radius and proximal and distal humerus, femur, and tibia. All dogs had improved limb function with no clinical recurrences.²⁵ Fracture was observed in dogs with severely lytic lesions at or before 90 days.¹⁰¹ Criteria were established for patient selection, including evaluation of radiographs and CT scans, reducing fracture rate to less than 20% (personal communication, James Custis). Prophylactic stabilization is indicated in dogs with severely lytic lesions. The mechanism of the amelioration of pain caused by bony neoplasia is not completely understood. Relief of pain may occur almost immediately or may be delayed, sometimes as long as 2 weeks. Human studies have indicated that single, coarsely fractionated radiation may be comparable or superior to multifraction protocols using more conventional doses per fraction.¹⁰² In a recent study of 58 dogs, 8 Gy was administered on 2 consecutive days, providing onset of pain relief within 2 days in 91% of patients.¹⁰³ Commonly in veterinary medicine, 7 to 10 Gy fractions have been administered on days 0, 7, and 21.^104,105 In one study, 12 of 15 dogs with appendicular bone tumors treated with palliative radiation therapy had improved limb function, and the median survival time was 130 days.¹⁰⁵ In another study, dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma were given either 3 fractions of 10 Gy or 2 fractions of 8 Gy.¹⁰⁶ Seventy of the 95 dogs experienced pain relief, with a median duration of 73 days. No difference in response was found between the two treatment groups. Sometimes, localized pain recurs before metastatic disease becomes life limiting. Palliative radiation can be readministered as long as the owners understand that continued administration of large doses per fraction eventually leads to late effects.

Other Tumors

Radiation therapy is used for a variety of tumors in the thoracic and abdominal cavities (Table 12-1). The principles of patient selection for radiation therapy with tumors in these regions are the same as for any other region. Radiation therapy should be considered for any tumor that cannot be excised completely. In one study, dogs with thyroid carcinomas treated with 48 Gy delivered in 4 Gy fractions had PFS rates of 80% at 1 year and 72% at 3 years.¹¹⁹ Thymomas are radiation responsive in human patients.¹²⁰ In a study of seven cats with thymoma that were treated with radiation therapy, the median survival time was close to 2 years (see Chapter 33, Section B).

Palliative radiation therapy can be useful for tumors that may be causing airway, bowel, or urinary tract obstruction or neurologic dysfunction. Mediastinal lymphoma often responds rapidly to irradiation. Relief from respiratory distress can be achieved within hours of a single dose of radiation.

Eighteen dogs with primary disease of the urinary bladder (7), urethra (1), or prostate (10) were treated with IMRT assisted by image guidance to verify tumor position (personal communication, Michael Nolan). The majority of patients were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In all dogs, the radiation dose ranged from 54 to 58 Gy, delivered in 20 daily fractions. Acute and late tissue toxicity was limited, and treatment was well tolerated. Overall median survival time was 654 days. Location of primary tumor had no demonstrable effect on either local tumor control or survival.

Perianal adenocarcinomas and anal sac adenocarcinomas (see Chapter 22, Section H) can be difficult to control locally with surgery alone and are likely to spread to regional lymph nodes. One hundred and thirteen dogs with carcinomas of the apocrine gland were treated with surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or multimodal treatment. Overall median survival was 544 days. Dogs treated with chemotherapy alone had significantly shorter survival than those receiving other treatments, whereas the addition of surgery was beneficial.¹²¹ Late effects from radiation therapy to the pelvic region can occur and be clinically significant.¹²² This can be addressed by administering the radiation in smaller doses per fraction. Perianal gland tumors are generally slow to disseminate systemically, so full-course treatment of involved regional nodes may be warranted. Intraoperative therapy as a boost to external-beam radiation therapy may also be useful in the treatment of the regional nodes or associated tumor bed following excision.

Mucositis also can occur whenever any portion of the alimentary system receives radiation therapy. Colitis is a common acute effect during radiation therapy for bladder or colorectal tumors. Severe large bowel diarrhea may be seen. Anusitis from irradiation is worsened by the diarrhea, making the patient quite uncomfortable. High-bulk diets are recommended, along with good hygiene in the region. Steroid enemas seem beneficial in some patients with colitis.¹²³

1. Pommer, A. X-ray therapy in veterinary medicine. In: Brandly CA, Jungher EL, eds. Advances in veterinary science. New York: Academic Press, 1958.

2. DeVita, VTJr. Progress in cancer management. Keynote address. Cancer. 1983;51:2401–2409.

3. Farrelly, J, McEntee, MC, A survey of veterinary radiation facilities in the United States during 2010. In 2011 Annual Meeting of the American College of Veterinary Radiology 2011. [Albuquerque, New Mexico].

4. Ward, JF. DNA damage produced by ionizing radiation in mammalian cells: identities, mechanisms of formation, and reparability. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 1988;35:95–125.

5. Withers, HR. The four R’s of radiotherapy. In: Lett J, Adler H, eds. Advances in radiation biology. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

6. Schmidt-Ullrich, RK, Contessa, JN, Dent, P, et al. Molecular mechanisms of radiation-induced accelerated repopulation. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1999;7:321–330.

7. Benedict, SH, Yenice, KM, Followill, D, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys. 2010;37:4078–4101.

8. Carsten, RE, Hellyer, PW, Bachand, AM, et al. Correlations between acute radiation scores and pain scores in canine radiation patients with cancer of the forelimb. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2008;35:355–362.

9. Stewart, FA, Dorr, W. Milestones in normal tissue radiation biology over the past 50 years: from clonogenic cell survival to cytokine networks and back to stem cell recovery. Int J Radiat Biol. 2009;85:574–586.

10. Halperin, EC, Perez, CA, Brady, LW. The discipline of radiation oncology. In Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW, eds.: Perez and Brady’s principles and practice of radiation oncology, ed 5, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Willams & Wilkins, 2008.

11. Hall, EJ, Wuu, CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:83–88.

12. Wilson, PF, Bedford, JS. Radiobiological principles. In Hoppe RT, Phillips TL, Roach M, III., eds.: Leibel and Phillips textbook of radiation oncology, ed 3, St. Louis: Elsevier, 2010.

13. Fowler, JF. The linear-quadratic formula and progress in fractionated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 1989;62:679–694.

14. van den Aardweg, GJMJ, Kilic, E, de Klein, N, et al. Dose fractionation effects in primary and metastatic human uveal melanoma cell lines. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4660–4664.

15. Fitzpatrick, CL, Farese, JP, Milner, RJ, et al. Intrinsic radiosensitivity and repair of sublethal radiation-induced damage in canine osteosarcoma cell lines. Am J Vet Res. 2008;69:1197–1202.

16. Parfitt, SL, Milner, RJ, Salute, ME, et al. Radiosensitivity and capacity for radiation-induced sublethal damage repair of canine transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) cell lines. Vet Comp Oncol. 2011;9:232–240.

17. Hunley, DW, Mauldin, GN, Shiomitsu, K, et al. Clinical outcome in dogs with nasal tumors treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Can Vet J. 2010;51:293–300.

18. Yang, JN, Mackie, TR, Reckwerdt, P, et al. An investigation of tomotherapy beam delivery. Med Phys. 1997;24:425–436.

19. Forrest, LJ, Mackie, TR, Ruchala, K, et al. The utility of megavoltage computed tomography images from a helical tomotherapy system for setup verification purposes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1639–1644.

20. Leksell, L. The stereotaxic method and radiosurgery of the brain. Acta Chir Scand. 1951;102:316–319.

21. Adler, JR, Jr., Chang, SD, Murphy, MJ, et al. The Cyberknife: a frameless robotic system for radiosurgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1997;69:124–128.

22. Nieset, JR, Harmon, JF, LaRue, SM. Characterization of canine bladder variations to optimize fractionated radiation therapy protocols using cone-beam computed tomography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2009;51(2):235.

23. Lester, NV, Hopkins, AL, Bova, FJ, et al. Radiosurgery using a stereotactic headframe system for irradiation of brain tumors in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;219:1562–1567.

24. Farese, JP, Milner, R, Thompson, MS, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of osteosarcomas involving the distal portions of the limbs in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004;225:1567–1572.

25. Ryan, SD, Ehrhart, NE, Worley, D, et al. Stereotactic radiation therapy for appendicular bone tumors. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010;51(2):234.

26. Lunn, KF, LaRue, SM. Endocrine function in cats after stereotactic radiosurgery treatment for acromegally. J Vet Intern Med. 2009;23:698.

27. Seguin, B, McDonald, DE, Kent, MS, et al. Tolerance of cutaneous or mucosal flaps placed into a radiation therapy field in dogs. Vet Surg. 2005;34:214–222.

28. Thrall, DE. Orthovoltage radiotherapy of acanthomatous epulides in 39 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1984;184:826–829. [7].

29. Theon, AP, Rodriguez, C, Griffey, S, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors and patterns of failure in dogs with periodontal tumors treated with megavoltage irradiation. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997;210:785–788.

30. McEntee, MC, Page, RL, Theon, A, et al. Malignant tumor formation in dogs previously irradiated for acanthomatous epulis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2004;45:357–361.

31. Evans, SM, Shofer, F. Canine oral nontonsillar squamous cell carcinomas: Prognostic factors for recurrence and survival following orthovoltage radiation therapy. Vet Radiol. 1988;29:133–137.

32. Gillette, EL, McChesney, SL, Dewhirst, MW, et al. Response of canine oral carcinomas to heat and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1987;13:1861–1867.

33. Theon, AP, Rodriquez, C, Madewell, BR. Analysis of prognostic factors and patterns of failure in dogs with malignant oral tumors treated with megavoltage irradiation. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997;210:778–784.

34. LaDueMiller, T, Price, GS, Page, RL, et al. Radiotherapy of canine non-tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1996;37:74–77.

35. Postorino-Reeves, NC, Turrel, JM, Withrow, SJ. Oral squamous cell carcinoma in the cat. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1993;29:1–4.

36. Evans, SM, LaCreta, F, Helfand, S, et al. Technique, pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy of intratumoral etanidazole and radiotherapy for treatment of spontaneous feline oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20:703–708.

37. Ogilvie, GK, Moore, AS, Obradovich, JE. Toxicoses and efficacy associated with administration of mitoxantrone to cats with malignant tumors. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993;202:1839–1844.

38. Hutson, CA, Willauer, CC, Walder, EJ, et al. Treatment of mandibular squamous cell carcinoma in cats by use of mandibulectomy and radiotherapy: seven cases (1987–1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992;201:777–781.

39. Bregazzi, VS, LaRue, SM, Powers, BE, et al. Response of feline oral squamous cell carcinoma to palliative radiation therapy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2001;42:77–79.

40. Jones, PD, de Lorimier, LP, Kitchell, BE, et al. Gemcitabine as a radiosensitizer for nonresectable feline oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2003;39:463–467.

41. Fidel, JL, Sellon, RK, Houston, RK, et al. A nine-day accelerated radiation protocol for feline squamous cell carcinoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2007;48:482–485.

42. Ciekot, PA, Powers, BE, Withrow, SJ, et al. Histologically low-grade, yet biologically high-grade, fibrosarcomas of the mandible and maxilla in dogs: 25 cases (1982–1991). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994;204:610–615. [4].

43. McChesney, SL, Withrow, SJ, Gillette, EL, et al. Radiotherapy of soft tissue sarcomas in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1989;194:60–63. [1].

44. Gillette, SM, Dewhirst, MW, Gillette, EL, et al. Response of canine soft tissue sarcomas to radiation or radiation plus hyperthermia: a randomized phase II study. Int J Hyperthermia. 1992;8:309–320.

45. Forrest, LJ, Chun, R, Adams, WM, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for canine soft tissue sarcoma. J Vet Intern Med. 2000;14:578–582.

46. Todoroff, RJ, Brodey, RS. Oral and pharyngeal neoplasia in the dog: a retrospective survey of 361 cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1979;175:567–571.

47. Proulx, DR, Ruslander, DM, Dodge, RK, et al. A retrospective analysis of 140 dogs with oral melanoma treated with external beam radiation. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2003;44:352–359.

48. Freeman, KP, Hahn, KA, Harris, FD, et al. Treatment of dogs with oral melanoma by hypofractionated radiation therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy (1987–1997). J Vet Intern Med. 2003;17:96–101.

49. Farrelly, J, Denman, DL, Hohenhaus, AE, et al. Hypofractionated radiation therapy of oral melanoma in five cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2004;45:91–93.

50. Bentzen, SM, Overgaard, J, Thames, HD, et al. Clinical radiobiology of malignant melanoma. Radiother Oncol. 1989;16:169–182.

51. Hahn, KA, Knapp, DW, Richardson, RC, et al. Clinical response of nasal adenocarcinoma to cisplatin chemotherapy in 11 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992;200:355–357.

52. Henry, CJ, Brewer, WG, Jr., Tyler, JW, et al. Survival in dogs with nasal adenocarcinoma: 64 cases (1981–1995). J Vet Intern Med. 1998;12:436–439.

53. Holmberg, DL, Fries, C, Cockshutt, J, et al. Ventral rhinotomy in the dog and cat. Vet Surg. 1989;18:446–449.

54. Langova, V, Mutsaers, AJ, Phillips, B, et al. Treatment of eight dogs with nasal tumours with alternating doses of doxorubicin and carboplatin in conjunction with oral piroxicam. Aust Vet J. 2004;82:676–680.

55. MacEwen, G, Withrow, SJ, Patnaik, AK. Nasal tumors in the dog: retrospective evaluation of diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1977;170:45–48.

56. MacMillan, R, Withrow, SJ, Gillette, EL. Surgery and regional irradiation for treatment of canine tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma: retrospective review of eight cases. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1982;18:311–314.

57. McEntee, MC, Page, RL, Heidner, GL, et al. A retrospective study of 27 dogs with intranasal neoplasms treated with cobalt radiation. Vet Radiol. 1991;32:135–139. [3].

58. Nadeau, M, Kitchell, BE, Rooks, RL, et al. Cobalt radiation with or without low-dose cisplatin for treatment of canine naso-sinus carcinomas. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2004;45:362–367.

59. Theon, AP, Madewell, BR, Harb, MF, et al. Megavoltage irradiation of neoplasms of the nasal and paranasal cavities in 77 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993;202:1469–1475.

60. Adams, WM, Withrow, SJ, Walshaw, R, et al. Radiotherapy of malignant nasal tumors in 67 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1987;191:311–315. [3].

61. Adams, WM, Bjorling, DE, McAnulty, JE, et al. Outcome of accelerated radiotherapy alone or accelerated radiotherapy followed by exenteration of the nasal cavity in dogs with intranasal neoplasia: 53 cases (1990–2002). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005;227:936–941.

62. Lana, SE, Dernell, WS, LaRue, SM, et al. Slow release cisplatin combined with radiation for the treatment of canine nasal tumors. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1997;38:474–478.

63. Lana, SE, Dernell, WS, Lafferty, MH, et al. Use of radiation and a slow-release cisplatin formulation for treatment of canine nasal tumors. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2004;45:577–581.

64. Lawrence, JA, Forrest, LJ, Turek, MM, et al. Proof of principle of ocular sparing in dogs with sinonasal tumors treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010;51:561–570.

65. Custis, JT, Harmon, JF, Ryan, SD, et al, Canine nasal tumors: A stereotactic radiation therapy approach. Presented at the ACVIM, Denver, June 16 2011.

66. Straw, RC, Withrow, SJ, Gillette, EL, et al. Use of radiotherapy for the treatment of intranasal tumors in cats: six cases (1980–1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1986;189:927–929. [8].

67. Theon, AP, Peaston, AE, Madewell, BR, et al. Irradiation of nonlymphoproliferative neoplasms of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses in 16 cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994;204:78–83.

68. Bommarito, DA, Kent, MS, Selting, KA, et al. Reirradiation of recurrent canine nasal tumors. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011;52:207–212.

69. Bley, CR, Sumova, A, Roos, M, et al. Irradiation of brain tumors in dogs with neurologic disease. J Vet Intern Med. 2005;6:849–854.

70. Hammond, GM, Gordon, IK, Theon, AP, et al. Evaluation of strontium Sr 90 for the treatment of superficial squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal planum in cats: 49 cases (1990–2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007;231:736–741.

71. Roberts, SM, Lavach, JD, Severin, GA, et al. Ophthalmic complications following megavoltage irradiation of the nasal and paranasal cavities in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1987;190:43–47. [1].

72. Ching, SV, Gillette, SM, Powers, BE, et al. Radiation-induced ocular injury in the dog: a histological study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;19:321–328.

73. Evans, SM, Dayrell-Hart, B, Powlis, W, et al. Radiation therapy of canine brain masses. J Vet Intern Med. 1993;7:216–219.

74. Theon, AP, LeCouteur, RA, Carr, EA, et al. Influence of tumor cell proliferation and sex-hormone receptors on effectiveness of radiation therapy for dogs with incompletely resected meningiomas. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000:701–707. [216].

75. Turrel, JM, Fike, JR, LeCouteur, RA, et al. Radiotherapy of brain tumors in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1984;184:82–86.

76. Dow, SW, LeCouteur, RA, Rosychuk, RAW, et al. Response of dogs with functional pituitary macroadenomas and macrocarcinomas to radiation. J Small Anim Pract. 1990;31:287–294.

77. Theon, AP, Feldman, EC. Megavoltage irradiation of pituitary macrotumors in dogs with neurologic signs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1998;213:225–231.

78. Mayer, MN, Greco, DS, LaRue, SM. Outcomes of pituitary tumor irradiation in eight cats. J Vet Intern Med. 2006;20:1151–1154.

79. Leibel, SA, Sheline, GE. Tolerance of the central and peripheral nervous system in therapeutic irradiation. In: Lett JT, Altman KI, eds. Advances in Radiation Biology. New York: Academic Press, 1987.

80. Graeb, DA, Steinbok, P, Robertson, WD. Transient early computed tomographic changes mimicking tumor progression after brain tumor irradiation. Radiology. 1982;144:813–817.

81. Brearley, MJ. Hypofractionated radiation therapy of brain masses in dogs: a retrospective analysis of survival in 83 cases (1991–1996). J Vet Intern Med. 1999;13(5):408–412.

82. Kuntz, CA, Dernell, WS, Powers, BE, et al. Prognostic factors for surgical treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas in dogs: 75 cases (1986–1996). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997;211:1147–1151.

83. McKnight, JA, Mauldin, GN, McEntee, MC, et al. Radiation treatment for incompletely resected soft-tissue sarcomas in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000;217:205–210.

84. Bostock, DE, Dye, MT. Prognosis after surgical excision of canine fibrous connective tissue sarcomas. Vet Pathol. 1980;17:581–588.

85. Graves, GM, Bjorling, DE, Mahaffey, E. Canine hemangiopericytoma: 23 cases (1967–1984). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1988;192:99–102.

86. Ettinger, SN, Scase, TJ, Oberthaler, KT, et al. Association of argyrophilic nucleolar organizing regions, Ki-67, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen scores with histologic grade and survival in dogs with soft tissue sarcomas: 60 cases (1996–2002). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006;228:1053–1062.

87. Stefanello, D, Morello, E, Roccabianca, P, et al. Marginal excision of low-grade spindle cell sarcoma of canine extremities: 35 dogs (1996–2006). Vet Surg. 2008;37:461–465.

88. McSporran, KD. Histologic grade predicts recurrence for marginally excised canine subcutaneous soft tissue sarcomas. Vet Pathol. 2009;46:928–933.

89. Chase, D, Bray, J, Ide, A, et al. Outcome following removal of canine spindle cell tumours in first opinion practice: 104 cases. J Small Anim Pract. 2009;50:568–574.

90. Thrall, DE, LaRue, SM, Yu, D, et al. Thermal dose is related to duration of local control in canine sarcomas treated with thermoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5206–5214.

91. Frimberger, AE, Moore, AS, LaRue, SM, et al. Radiotherapy of incompletely resected, moderately differentiated mast cell tumors in the dog: 37 cases (1989–1993). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1997;33:320–324.

92. Ladue, T, Price, GS, Dodge, R, et al. Radiation therapy for incompletely resected canine mast cell tumors. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1998;39:57–62.

93. Chaffin, K, Thrall, DE. Results of radiation therapy in 19 dogs with cutaneous mast cell tumor and regional lymph node metastasis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2002;43:392–395.

94. Cronin, K, Page, RL, Spodnick, G, et al. Radiation therapy and surgery for fibrosarcoma in 33 cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1998;39:51–56.

95. Bregazzi, VS, LaRue, SM, McNiel, E, et al. Treatment with a combination of doxorubicin, surgery, and radiation versus surgery and radiation alone for cats with vaccine-associated sarcomas: 25 cases (1995–2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;218:547–550.

96. Cohen, M, Wright, JC, Brawner, WR, et al. Use of surgery and electron beam irradiation, with or without chemotherapy, for treatment of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats: 78 cases (1996–2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;219:1582–1589.

97. Mayer, MN, Treuil, PL, LaRue, SM. Radiotherapy and surgery for feline soft tissue sarcoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2009;50:669–672.

98. LaRue, SM, Withrow, SJ, Powers, BE, et al. Limb-sparing treatment for osteosarcoma in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1989;195:1734–1744.

99. Thrall, DE, Dewhirst, MW, Page, RL, et al. A comparison of temperatures in canine solid tumours during local and whole-body hyperthermia administered alone and simultaneously. Int J Hyperthermia. 1990;6:305–317.

100. Dickerson, ME, Page, RL, LaDue, TA, et al. Retrospective analysis of axial skeleton osteosarcoma in 22 large-breed dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2001;15:120–124.

101. Custis, JT, Ryan, SD, Valdes-Martinez, A, et al. Identifying factors predictive of osteosarcoma related pathologic fracture following stereotactic radiation therapy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2009;51(2):234.

102. Steenland, E, Leer, JW, van Houwelingen, H, et al. The effect of a single fraction compared to multiple fractions on painful bone metastases: a global analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study. Radiother Oncol. 1999;52:101–109.

103. Knapp-Hoch, HM, Fidel, JL, Sellon, RK, et al. An expedited palliative radiation protocol for lytic or proliferative lesions of appendicular bone in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2009;45:24–32.

104. Dernell, WS, Van Vechten, BJ, Straw, RC, et al. Outcome following treatment of vertebral tumors in 20 dogs (1986–1995). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2000;36:245–251.

105. McEntee, MC, Page, RL, Novotney, CA, et al. Palliative radiotherapy for canine appendicular osteosarcoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1993;34:367–370.

106. Ramirez, O, III., Dodge, RK, Page, RL, et al. Palliative radiotherapy of appendicular osteosarcoma in 95 dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1999;40:517–522.

107. Kent, MS, Bommarito, D, Feldman, E, et al. Survival, neurologic response, and prognostic factors in dogs with pituitary masses treated with radiation therapy and untreated dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2007;21:1027–1033.

108. Sellon, RK, Fidel, J, Houston, R, et al. Linear-accelerator-based modified radiosurgical treatment of pituitary tumors in cats: 11 cases (1997–2008). J Vet Intern Med. 2009;23:1038–1044.

109. Allan, GS, Gillette, EL. Response of canine mast cell tumors to radiaton. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1979;63(3):691–694.

110. Turrel, JM. Prognostic factors for radiation treatment of mast cell tumor in 85 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1988;193:936–940.

111. Theon, AP, Barthez, PY, Madewell, BR, et al. Radiation therapy of ceruminous gland carcinomas in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994;205:566–569.

112. Kobayashi, T, Hauck, ML, Dodge, R, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy for vaccine associated sarcoma in 92 cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2002;43:473–479.

113. Eckstein, C, Guscetti, F, Roos, M, et al. A retrospective analysis of radiation therapy for the treatment of feline vaccine-associated sarcoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2009;7:54–68.

114. Elmslie, RE, Ogilvie, GK, Gillette, EL, et al. Radiotherapy with and without chemotherapy for localized lymphoma in 10 cats. Vet Radiol. 1991;32:277–280.

115. North, SM, Meleo, KA, Mooney, S, et al, Radiation therapy in the treatment of nasal lymphoma in cats. Proceedings of the Veterinary Cancer Society 14th Annual Conference Townsend, Tennessee, 21 1994.

116. Gillette, EL, McChesney, SL, Dewhirst, MW, et al. Response of canine oral carcinomas to heat and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1987;13:1861–1867.

117. Bateman, KE, Catton, PA, Pennock, PW, et al. 0-7-21 Radiation therapy for the treatment of canine oral melanoma. J Vet Intern Med. 1994;8:267–272.

118. Blackwood, L, Dobson, JM. Radiotherapy of oral malignant melanomas in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996;209:98–102.

119. Theon, AP, Marks, SL, Feldman, ES, et al. Prognostic factors and patterns of treatment failure in dogs with unresectable differentiated thyroid carcinomas treated with megavoltage irradiation.[see comment]. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000;216:1775–1779.

120. Ohara, K, Tatsuzaki, H, Fuji, H, et al. Radioresponse of thymomas verified with histologic response. Acta Oncologica. 1998;37:471–474.

121. Williams, LE, Gliatto, JM, Dodge, RK, et al. Carcinoma of the apocrine glands of the anal sac in dogs: 113 cases (1985–1995). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003;223:825–831.

122. Anderson, CR, McNiel, EA, Gillette, EL, et al. Late complications of pelvic irradiation in 16 dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2002;43:187–192.

123. Fuccio, L, Guido, A, Laterza, L, et al. Randomised clinical trial: preventive treatment with topical rectal beclomethasone dipropionate reduces post-radiation risk of bleeding in patients irradiated for prostate cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:628–637.

124. Fertil, B, Malaise, E. Intrinsic radiosensitivity of human cell lines is correlated with radioresponsiveness of human tumors: Analysis of 101 published survival curves. Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys. 1985;11(9):1699–1707.

125. Bump, EA, Braunhut, SJ, Palayoor, ST, et al. Novel concepts in modification of radiation sensitivity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;29:249–253.

126. Vose, JM. Current approaches to the management of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Semin Oncol. 1998;25:483–491.

127. Yahalom, J. Radiation therapy in the treatment of lymphoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11:370–374.

128. Fidias, P, Spiro, I, Sobczak, ML, et al. Long-term results of combined modality therapy in primary bone lymphomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:1213–1218.

129. Giger, U, Evans, SM, Hendrick, MJ, et al. Orthovoltage radiotherapy of primary lymphoma of bone in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1989;195:627–630.

130. Kirova, YM, Piedbois, Y, Haddad, E, et al. Radiotherapy in the management of mycosis fungoides: indications, results, prognosis. Twenty years experience. Radiother Oncol. 1999;51:147–151.

131. Kirova, YM, Piedbois, Y, Le Bourgeois, JP. Radiotherapy in the management of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Our experience in 25 cases. Radiother Oncol. 1999;52:15–18.

132. Meleo, KA. The role of radiotherapy in the treatment of lymphoma and thymoma. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1997;27(1):115–129.

133. Williams, LE, Johnson, JL, Hauck, ML, et al. Chemotherapy followed by half-body radiation therapy for canine lymphoma. J Vet Intern Med. 2004;18:703–709.

134. Gustafson, NR, Lana, SE, Mayer, MN, et al. A preliminary assessment of whole-body radiotherapy interposed within a chemotherapy protocol for canine lymphoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2005;2:125–131.

135. Escobar, C, Grindem, C, Neel, JA, et al. Hematologic changes after total body irradiation and autologous transplantation of hematopoietic peripheral blood progenitor cells in dogs with lymphoma. Vet Pathol. 2012;49(2):341–343.