Radioprotectors & mitigators in radiation therapy: Harnessing diverse pathways for optimizing clinical outcomes.

Radiation therapy is an essential part of cancer treatment. It uses high doses of ionizing radiation to stop tumour growth. The aim is to maximise damage to tumour cells while minimising harm to normal cells. This can be achieved by improving dose precision or using radioprotectors that selectively protect healthy tissue. Radioprotectors, often antioxidants, are given before or during exposure. They have been developed as emergency treatments for nuclear events and as radiotherapy aids to improve the patient quality of life. Early studies focused on synthetic thiol-containing compounds 1 . The most effective, amifostine (WR-2721), protects various normal tissues, including oral mucosa, salivary glands, lungs, bone marrow, heart, intestines, kidneys and reduces toxic effects of chemotherapy, such as cisplatin-induced kidney and nerve damage and cyclophosphamide-related blood cell toxicity 2 . Another FDA-approved radioprotector, palifermin, a lab-made human keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) expressed by epithelial cells, promotes cell growth and repair, DNA recovery, and defence against reactive oxygen species 3 . Its anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory roles help reduce oral mucositis in patients undergoing total-body irradiation.

Mitigators, used after exposure, differ from radioprotectors. FDA-approved examples include filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim 4 . They block prolonged damage by halting cytokine activity, preventing or reducing toxicity. Therapeutic agents, like dexrazoxane, are used post-symptom onset of radiation-induced toxicity. Dexrazoxane reduces radiation- or chemo-induced heart damage by removing iron and stopping harmful free radicals, preventing long-term heart failure without affecting cancer treatment. Radioprotection strategies in oncology include physical [Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT), proton therapy], and pharmacological approaches (amifostine, palifermin). Memantine, for example, reduces neurocognitive decline by blocking overactive NMDA receptors 5 . These strategies individually or in combination aim to widen the therapeutic window.

Rationale for radioprotection in clinical oncology

The overarching goal of radiation therapy is to destroy tumour cells while sparing normal tissue, maximizing the therapeutic ratio, as shown in figure 1 . Tumour kill can be achieved by increasing radiation dose using conformal techniques like IMRT and stereotactic radiosurgery, or by leveraging the higher effectiveness of particle beam therapy. Tumour sensitivity can also be increased by combining radiation with chemotherapy, biological agents, hypoxic sensitizers, or anti-angiogenic agents. Protecting normal tissue involves avoiding exposure using IMRT or Image Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy IG-IMRT, or using compounds that are absorbed by healthy cells and reduce radiation damage without affecting tumours. Radiation effects are classified as acute (during or shortly after therapy) or intermediate to late (months to years). Acute toxicity mainly results from cell death, while later effects involve inflammation and fibrosis. These effects can occur with radiation alone or with chemotherapy, as shown in figure 1 , and often compromise quality of life. To improve outcomes, radiation toxicity must be minimised through a clear understanding of its causes.

Overview of radiation toxicities across organ includes common effects (dermatitis, mucositis) and organ-specific issues (heart, CNS, lung, liver, etc .). Acute effects are inflammatory; chronic effects impair function.

Tissue damage from radiation often involves shared pathways like oxidative stress, inflammation, blood vessel injury, and fibrosis. For example, in lung tissue ( Fig. 2 ), ionizing radiation in oxygen-rich environments creates reactive oxygen species (ROS) that break DNA strands 6 . Excessive DNA damage overwhelms repair systems. Signals from damaged DNA activate stress-response proteins, leading to mitochondrial changes, cytochrome c release, and activation of caspase-3, causing cell death 7 , 8 . Damaged or recovering cells release ROS and cytokines such as IL-1, TNFα, and TGFβ. These spread damage beyond the radiation volumes. Cytokines can trigger apoptosis 9 , 10 , autophagy and necrosis in nearby or distant cells. Damage severity depends on radiation dose and volume exposed. This mechanism is common across organs. In the brain, oxidative damage, barrier disruption, and inflammation lead to white matter loss and cognitive decline. In the heart, radiation causes blood vessel injury, inflammation, and fibrosis, which can lead to artery disease, pericarditis, or heart failure.

Pathways and molecular targets for the development of radioprotectors, mitigators, and therapeutic agents

The development of radioprotectors, mitigators, and therapeutic agents relies on understanding molecular pathways involved in cellular response to radiation (as illustrated in Fig. 3A and B ).

(i) Blocking nuclear DNA damage

DNA is a critical radiation target. Even one unrepaired double-strand break can trigger apoptosis. Ionizing radiation acts directly or indirectly through water radiolysis, producing ROS like hydroxyl radicals, superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroperoxyl radicals 11 . These ROS inflict oxidative damage to critical cellular components, including DNA, lipids, and proteins, contributing to genomic instability and cell death. In mitochondria, radiation disrupts the electron transport chain, causing electron leakage and more superoxide. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) converts superoxide to hydrogen peroxide, which is detoxified by catalase or glutathione peroxidise (GPx). If unchecked, hydrogen peroxide reacts with iron, forming highly reactive hydroxyl radicals that tilt the balance toward damage 12 .

Antioxidants that neutralise free radicals can prevent DNA damage. Genistein (from soy) scavenges radicals and enhances DNA repair. Curcumin, derived from turmeric, exhibits strong antioxidant properties by neutralizing hydroxyl radicals and reducing oxidative stress in normal tissues. Osmium compounds, including those derived from tulsi (Ocimum sanctum) , are known for their ability to counteract radiation-induced damage. Additionally, glutathione and cysteine derivatives, as thiol-based compounds, protect DNA by donating electrons to neutralize ROS 13 . Enzyme mimics like SOD mimics (superoxide dismutase mimetics) and GPx mimics (selenium-based compounds) act by catalyzing the breakdown of ROS, such as superoxide anions and hydrogen peroxide, into less harmful molecules, thereby enhancing the radioprotection of normal cells. Alternatively, compounds that induce cell cycle arrest or delay can provide cells with more time to repair DNA damage before progressing to mitosis 9 . CHK1 (Checkpoint Kinase) inhibitors disrupt cell checkpoints, increasing vulnerability to radiation, while CDK (Cyclin Dependent Kinase) inhibitors like palbociclib induce G1 arrest, enhancing radioprotection. G2/M arrest can sensitize cells by trapping them during less repair-friendly phases. By refining radiation delivery and combining with such agents, normal tissue damage can be minimised 14 .

(ii) Mitochondrial stabilization

Mitochondria are vulnerable to oxidative damage induced by radiation-generated ROS. Radiation damages mitochondria, opening the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP), disrupting membrane potential, and leading to cell death 15 . MPTP inhibitors like cyclosporin A and sanglifehrin A prevent mitochondrial destabilization. Inhibitors of cyclophilin D and p53 can further stabilize mitochondria. Since excessive p53 activation leads to apoptosis, its regulation is key. Agents like sodium orthovanadate block p53 signalling, reducing cell death in sensitive tissues 16 . 3,3′-Diselenodipropionic acid (DSePA) a selenium-based compound, offers strong radioprotection. It preserves glutathione and SOD, reduces liver damage, and improves survival in irradiated mice. At 2 mg/kg, DSePA improves gastrointestinal and spleen integrity and shows high lung absorption, enhancing protection in chest radiation 17 . Pharmacokinetic studies indicate that DSePA is absorbed effectively in lung tissues, enhancing its protective effects during thoracic irradiation scenarios 18 .

Radioprotectors activate MAPK, PI3K/Akt, NF-κB, and STAT3 pathways, inducing DNA repair genes (XRCC1, ATM, DNAPKCS), blocking apoptosis, and promoting survival via Bcl2, BclxL, and XIAP. Also shown are SAP kinase inhibition and mitochondrial stabilization.

(iii) Blocking caspase activation and poly ADP-ribosyl-polymerase (PARP) cleavage

Targets for blocking apoptotic signalling pathways to prevent cell death include ( i ) Bcl-2 family proteins (anti-apoptotic: Bcl-2, Bcl-xL) and ( ii ) Caspases 19 . Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL prevent mitochondrial membrane damage, blocking cytochrome c release. Inhibiting pro-apoptotic proteins like Bax and Bak enhances survival. Caspase inhibitors, such as Z-VAD-FMK, can block caspase activation and prevent apoptotic cell death induced by radiation 20 . ARP, a DNA repair enzyme, can worsen cell damage when overactivated by consuming too much NAD+ and ATP, leading to energy collapse and cell death 21 . Inhibiting Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) prevents this chain reaction, preserving energy and cell function. Blocking caspase activation and PARP cleavage helps maintain cell viability during radiation exposure.

(iv) Decreasing systemic cytokine-mediated cell death & immunomodulators

Inflammatory pathways activated by radiation involve NF-κB and TNF-α, which drive cytokine production. Suppressing these can reduce systemic damage. NF-κB activates genes for cytokines like TNF-α and interleukins. Blocking NF-κB reduces inflammation and limits chronic radiation effects like lung or heart injury. TNF-α, released by immune and blood vessel cells after radiation, promotes apoptosis and tissue damage. Inhibiting TNF-α or its receptors helps minimise these outcomes 22 . Additionally, chlorophyllin, a plant-derived antioxidant, has demonstrated radioprotective effects by reducing oxidative stress and modulating the inflammatory response, further limiting tissue injury and enhancing recovery.

Ionizing radiation (X, α, β, γ rays, neutrons, heavy ions) generates lipid peroxides, ceramides, and ROS, damaging DNA, membranes, and mitochondria, leading to cytochrome C-mediated apoptosis. Growth stimulating hormones (GSH) and antioxidants detoxify ROS. OH· forms via water radiolysis or Fenton’s reaction. Countermeasures target these pathways and activate pro-survival signals.

Radiation activates pro-survival transcription factors such as NF-κB, Akt, MAPK, and Nrf2, which promote genes tied to repair, growth, and detoxification. Their activation in normal tissue offers protective advantages. For example, in acute radiation injury, the agent CBLB502 activates NF-κB, triggering anti-apoptotic genes like c-IAP-1 and c-FLIP, helping cells survive. Importantly, this protection does not interfere with radiation’s tumour-killing effect. PI3K/Akt activation also protects cells by suppressing pro-apoptotic proteins like Bad and Bax and activating mTOR to promote DNA repair. Akt enhances survival under oxidative stress. STAT3 is another protective pathway. It regulates survival genes and works with NF-κB to amplify radioprotective responses. The TLR5 agonist CBLB502 activates both STAT3 and NF-κB, shielding normal cells while sparing tumour sensitivity. This dual-pathway support boosts cell defense and recovery. Small molecule activators like bardoxolone methyl and sulforaphane, along with Keap1 inhibitors, enhance Nrf2 activity, promoting DNA repair and reducing radiation-induced tissue injury. Nrf2 also synergizes with other pathways like NF-κB and MAPK to strengthen cellular defenses, maximizing radioprotection while maintaining redox balance 23 .

Differential effects on tumour vis-a-vis normal tissue: An essential prerequisite for an ideal radioprotectors

The challenge for developing an ideal radioprotector is to protect normal tissues from radiation damage without protecting the tumour cells, which need to stay vulnerable for effective cancer treatment. By taking advantage of physiological differences such as enzyme activity, proliferation rate, oxygenation levels, and DNA repair capacities between normal and malignant tissues, selectivity can be achieved through various modes of action.

For instance, amifostine, an FDA-approved radioprotector, is selectively targeted by the enzyme alkaline phosphatase, which is abundantly present in healthy tissues than in cancerous cells. Here, the active form of amifostine scavenges radiation-induced free radicals and also supports DNA repair. On the other hand, tumour cells frequently lack the enzyme activity required to change amifostine into its active form, which leaves tumour tissues with little to no protection. Compared to normal tissues that receive adequate oxygen, tumour tissues are less vulnerable to ROS-induced oxidative damage because they frequently reside in hypoxic environments. Amifostine and other radioprotectors work mainly by scavenging ROS, which are more prevalent in situations with higher oxygen levels. As a result, tumour cells, which are already less dependent on ROS-induced oxidative damage, continue to be vulnerable, whereas normal oxygenated tissues gain from the reduction of ROS-induced damage by the radioprotector. Tumour cells are especially susceptible to radiation-induced DNA damage because they frequently have compromised DNA repair mechanisms. Normal cells, on the other hand, usually have efficient repair systems. Radiation can efficiently target and kill cancer cells because of this differential response. Moreover, without improving the tumour’s ability to repair DNA damage, radioprotectors can increase the ability of healthy cells to repair radiation-induced damage by strengthening cellular antioxidant defences or DNA repair pathways. Apart from the aforementioned differential effects, HemaMax (Recombinant Human Interleukin 12), a promising radioprotective drug, reduces radiation damage to healthy tissues by utilizing the body’s immunological response 24 . IL-12 is essential for both haematopoiesis and immunological control. Especially in the hematopoietic system, i.e ., bone marrow, which is extremely vulnerable to radiation damage, HemaMax boosts the immune system and aids in regenerating damaged tissues. The preclinical studies have shown that HemaMax treatment leads to a considerable increase in the survival rates of animals irradiated with high absorbed doses by reducing the gastrointestinal and haematological syndromes. However, IL-12 does not directly protect malignant tissues, therefore tumour cells are not protected by this immune-mediated defence, which keeps the tumour vulnerable to radiation-induced damage 24 .

Classification of radioprotectors, mitigators, and therapeutic agents

Understanding the distinct roles of radioprotectors, mitigators, and therapeutic agents is essential for developing effective strategies in radiation medicine. Radioprotectors, such as amifostine, are designed to shield healthy tissues from radiation damage. Mitigators, like palifermin, aim to alleviate damage after exposure, reducing the severity of radiation-induced injuries. Therapeutic agents focus on promoting tissue repair and regeneration post-radiation exposure, enhancing recovery, and improving clinical outcomes in radiation therapy and emergency scenarios.

The figure shows DNA damage progression from femtoseconds to years. Early stages involve chemical radioprotectors (Amifostine, thiols, nitroxides); later stages involve mitigators (repair enzymes, MAPK activation). Late effects like fibrosis and organ damage are shown with treatments (antifibrotics, transplants).

Radiation protectors, mitigators, and therapeutic agents utilise diverse mechanisms to safeguard cellular integrity and mitigate damage, as depicted in table I 25 - 58 . Sulfhydryl compounds like amifostine function as cytoprotective agents by scavenging free radicals and enhancing DNA repair. Antioxidants such as vitamin E and glutathione neutralize ROS, preventing oxidative damage to cellular components. Targeted mitochondrial agents like Mn porphyrin-based SOD mimics stabilize mitochondrial membranes and mitigate oxidative stress 25 . Immunomodulators and plant extracts, including curcumin, enhance radioprotection by modulating inflammatory responses and upregulating cellular defences. Together, these compounds provide a multi-faceted approach to radiation-induced damage, leveraging mechanisms ranging from ROS scavenging to cytokine inhibition.

Radioprotectors in clinical oncology - amifostine and palifermin as lead agents in clinical studies

Decades-long research on radioprotectors and radiomitigators persists. Radical scavengers show potential as radioprotectors by reducing cellular damage from ionizing radiation, but clinical translation faces significant challenges. Toxicity at effective doses, narrow therapeutic windows, lack of specificity for normal tissues, and variable patient responses limit widespread adoption. High development costs, context-specific efficacy, and regulatory challenges further delay clinical integration. Nevertheless, radioprotectors and radiomitigators could enhance radiation therapy’s therapeutic index and improve cancer treatment outcomes by enabling higher radiation doses and reducing normal tissue damage.

Radioprotectors and radiomitigators remain under active investigation. Amifostine, extensively studied for radioprotection, was developed by the U.S. Army to mitigate ionizing radiation damage 59 . After decades of research, it became the first FDA-approved radioprotective drug, demonstrating selective protection of normal tissues against radiation and chemotherapy-induced damage. As a synthetic compound, amifostine contrasts with natural products gaining attention for radioprotective potential.

Amifostine

Amifostine, an inactive prodrug, is converted by alkaline phosphatase in normal endothelial cells into an active thiol metabolite that neutralizes reactive metabolites from platinum and alkylating agents. Its selective cytoprotection results from higher concentrations in healthy cells (⁓100-fold greater than in tumour cells) due to the tumour microenvironment and differential enzyme expression. Amifostine’s mechanisms include scavenging secondary radicals, donating electrons for chemical repair, stabilizing DNA repair, inhibiting cell-cycle progression, and inducing hypoxia, protecting normal tissues while preserving cancer treatment efficacy 59 . This multi-faceted mechanism of action allows amifostine to protect normal tissues from the damaging effects of radiation and chemotherapy while still allowing these treatments to target cancer cells.

The U.S. FDA approved intravenous amifostine in 1996 to reduce renal toxicity from repeated cisplatin in advanced ovarian cancer and in 1999 to decrease moderate to severe xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy 59 . Indeed, amifostine holds promise for various oncologic contexts beyond its current FDA-approved indications. Ongoing research explores new administration schedules and routes to reduce side effects like nausea, vomiting, and hypotension, and to expand applications beyond current indications. However, toxicity and side effects limit its use in non-clinical radiological or nuclear scenarios, requiring further research for FDA approval in these contexts.

Palifermin

Palifermin, a recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) developed by Amgen, is a 140-residue protein produced using E. coli . Initial preclinical data demonstrated that Palifermin could reduce gastrointestinal injury and mortality resulting from a variety of toxic exposures 60 . These studies also showed that palifermin has protective effects on many epithelial tissues, particularly when administered prior to the toxic radiation exposure. Toxicology studies were conducted using animal models, including mice, rats, and monkeys. The endogenous form of palifermin is expressed in the kidneys of rats. The FDA approved palifermin in 2004 for reducing severe oral mucositis in haematological malignancy patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. However, the gain in radioprotection remains hampered with a low margin of tolerance 61 . In a phase II trial for head and neck cancer, palifermin reduced the incidence, severity, and duration of oral mucositis during concurrent chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiotherapy 62 . Extensive preclinical research, coupled with a burgeoning field of clinical investigation, has been dedicated to the development of agents like palifermin aimed at safeguarding normal tissues from the deleterious effects of irradiation.

Palifermin prevents and treats oral mucositis by binding to KGF receptors on buccal cells, stimulating epithelial cell proliferation, differentiation, and migration in the tongue and mouth. The KGF receptor is widely distributed across various tissues, with notable concentrations observed in regions such as the tongue, oesophagus, salivary gland, and other gastrointestinal tract organs.

Table II 62 - 75 shows clinical trials investigating the role of amifostine and palifermin for mitigating radiation-induced toxicities in cancer patients and stem cell transplantation, particularly for hematologic conditions. Their synergistic potential is under study, but further research is needed to clarify benefits and risks. Current evidence should guide their use. Radioprotection is essential in radiation therapy to minimise normal tissue damage. Amifostine and palifermin are FDA-approved radioprotectors used in clinical settings.

The use of amifostine in preventing chemotherapy-associated neutropenia has been inconsistent across studies. However, a notable large randomized trial published since 2002 demonstrated a significantly lower frequency of grades 3 to 4 neutropenia in the amifostine arm. A large randomized trial since 2002 showed reduced grade 3-4 neutropenia with amifostine, but no benefit for thrombocytopenia, leading to recommendations against its use for thrombocytopenia prevention in chemotherapy 76 . Amifostine also reduces cisplatin-associated nephrotoxicity in ovarian cancer and acute/late xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients undergoing fractionated radiotherapy.

Palifermin effectively prevents severe oral mucositis in hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) patients with hematologic malignancies, reducing its incidence, severity, and duration. Updated guidelines support palifermin’s use for mucositis prevention in HSCT. Some studies have also shown that palifermin is associated with a decrease in the use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and a subsequent reduction in severe mucositis. Additionally, it contributes to a decrease in the number of days requiring analgesics and antibiotics, further highlighting its prophylactic benefits. When comparing amifostine and palifermin, as portrayed in supplementary table I 77 - 99 , it’s important to note that they are used to prevent different types of toxicities.

Supplementary Table I

Radioprotectors in clinical oncology, specifically amifostine and palifermin, have shown promising results as both agents have demonstrated significant potential in radiation protection, with their therapeutic roles being well-documented and supported by clinical trials. The comparative analysis of the effectiveness of amifostine and palifermin further underscores their potential as lead agents in clinical studies. However, it is important to note that while these findings are encouraging, further research is necessary to fully understand the long-term effects and potential side effects of these agents. As we continue to advance in the field of oncology, the role of the above radioprotectors will undoubtedly become more crucial in improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

Final destination: Challenges in adoption in clinics and opportunities to overcome the challenges in bringing these agents to clinics

Incorporating new therapeutic approaches, such as radioprotectors, into clinical practice presents a host of challenges that necessitate strategic navigation. While radioprotectors hold promise in mitigating the adverse effects of radiation therapy and improving treatment outcomes, their adoption in clinics faces numerous hurdles, from concerns surrounding safety and efficacy to regulatory complexities and market dynamics; the path to integrating radioprotective agents into routine clinical care is fraught with obstacles. To ensure the successful translation of research innovations into real-world clinical applications, healthcare providers and researchers can work together to address various challenges in effectively utilizing these agents along with advanced and precision-based radiation therapies.

The figure shows how combining advanced techniques (proton therapy, CIRT, IMRT, SRS) with radioprotectors (amifostine, BIO 300, entolimod) improves tumour targeting, reduces toxicity, enhances radiosensitivity, and minimises side effects for better patient-centred care.

To expedite the translation of radioprotectors and mitigators, the Radiation Research Program and SBIR Development Center within the National Cancer Institute issued four requests for proposals (RFPs) from 2010 to 2013 100 . Through the SBIR programme, four contracts and 11 grants were funded for the development of novel radioprotectors. Overall, 50 per cent of the companies (6 out of 12) successfully advanced their investigational drugs into prospective clinical trials in cancer patients 100 . Therefore, their development and application in clinical settings are of great importance and continue to be the subject of ongoing research.

Many radioprotectors require intravenous administration, which is less convenient and more invasive compared to oral administration. This limits patient compliance and ease of use in outpatient settings. The interaction between radioprotectors and the tumour microenvironment, as well as the immune niche, is not well understood. Without robust data, clinicians are hesitant to adopt these agents widely. Additionally, contemporary radiotherapy practice involves using altered fractionation strategies like extreme hypofractionation (SRS and SBRT). These approaches are at a higher risk of causing severe toxicities. The role of radioprotectors in these settings is crucial, but their effectiveness in reducing toxicity in these high-risk scenarios is not well established. This uncertainty hampers their adoption in clinical protocols involving extreme fractionation schedules. Radioprotectors have not shown effectiveness in protecting against the most severe radiation-induced toxicities, particularly in serial organs such as the brain and spinal cord. These organs are highly sensitive to radiation, and damage can lead to serious and often irreversible complications. The inability of radioprotectors to mitigate these severe toxicities limits their perceived value in clinical practice. A few challenges are briefly described below for better understanding.

The integration of radioprotectors into clinical radiotherapy offers significant potential to mitigate normal tissue damage and enhance patient outcomes, yet their adoption faces substantial challenges, including safety concerns, limited efficacy in modern radiotherapy techniques, clinician skepticism, and regulatory and commercial barriers. These hurdles necessitate strategic approaches to facilitate the translation of radioprotective agents into routine clinical practice. Collaborative efforts among researchers, clinicians, regulatory agencies, and industry partners, supported by increased research funding, public-private partnerships, robust clinical trials, regulatory guidance, education, and market incentives, can address these challenges. Supplementary table II 101 - 111 summarizes key challenges in radioprotector use in cancer radiotherapy and corresponding strategies to overcome them, providing a framework for advancing their clinical integration.

Supplementary Table II

Radioprotective agents hold immense promise in improving the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy by minimizing normal tissue toxicity without compromising tumour control. By implementing these strategies and fostering collaboration among radiobiologists and clinical radiation oncologists, it is possible to overcome the challenges associated with translating radioprotectors and mitigators to clinics. Through collective efforts and commitment to advancing radiation safety and patient care, radioprotectors can become valuable platforms in enhancing the effectiveness and safety of radiation therapy for cancer patients. A key concern among clinicians is the potential for radioprotectors to inadvertently shield tumour tissue from radiation, thereby compromising treatment efficacy. However, clinical evidence supports that the use of radioprotectors such as amifostine does not compromise tumour control in patients undergoing radiotherapy. For example, a pivotal phase III randomized trial in head and neck cancer demonstrated that while amifostine significantly reduced acute and chronic xerostomia, there was no significant difference in local-regional control, disease-free survival, or overall survival between patients receiving amifostine and those who did not, indicating preservation of antitumourefficacy 104 . Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials further confirm that amifostine does not confer a tumour protective effect, as no significant differences were observed in complete or partial tumour response rates when compared to placebo or observation groups. Additionally, multiple clinical studies have concluded that amifostine does not reduce the efficacy of radiotherapy against tumours, although the statistical power of individual studies may limit the ability to detect very small differences in tumour control. These findings collectively provide reassurance that, when used appropriately, amifostine selectively protects normal tissues without shielding tumour cells from the effects of radiation.

Radioprotective agents through ongoing research, clinical validation, and responsible integration hold immense promise in improving the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy. By minimising normal tissue toxicity without compromising tumour control, they represent a critical step towards more effective, personalized, and patient centred cancer care.

Declaration

We declare that the images used in the figures are not adopted from any published source or literature.

Financial support & sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology for manuscript preparation

The authors confirm that there was no use of AI-assisted technology for assisting in the writing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

References

1. Checker R, Patwardhan RS, Jayakumar S, Maurya DK, Bandekar M, Sharma D, et al. Chemical and biological basis for development of novel radioprotective drugs for cancer therapy. Free Radic Res. 2021;55:595–625. doi: 10.1080/10715762.2021.1876854.

2. Santini V. Amifostine: chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic protective effects. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001;2:479–89. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2.3.479.

3. Lauritano D, Petruzzi M, Di Stasio D, Lucchese A. Clinical effectiveness of palifermin in prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a case-control study. Int J Oral Sci. 2014;6:27–30. doi: 10.1038/ijos.2013.93.

4. Obrador E, Salvador R, Villaescusa JI, Soriano JM, Estrela JM, Montoro A, et al. Radioprotection and radiomitigation: from the bench to clinical practice. Biomedicines. 2020;8:461. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines8110461.

5. Gondi V, Deshmukh S, Brown PD, Wefel JS, Armstrong TS, Tome WA, et al. Sustained preservation of cognition and prevention of patient-reported symptoms with hippocampal avoidance during whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases: final results of nrg oncology CC001. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023;117:571–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.030.

6. Chatterjee S, Sil PC. ROS-influenced regulatory cross-talk withwnt signaling pathway during perinatal development. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9:889719. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.889719.

7. Epperly MW, Sikora CA, DeFilippi SJ, Gretton JA, Zhan Q, Kufe DW, et al. Manganese superoxide dismutase (SOD2) inhibits radiation-induced apoptosis by stabilization of the mitochondrial membrane. Radiat Res. 2002;157:568–77. doi: 10.1667/0033-7587(2002)157[0568:msdsir]2.0.co;2.

8. Kagan VE, Tyurina YY, Bayir H, Chu CT, Kapralov AA, Vlasova II, et al. The “pro-apoptotic genies” get out of mitochondria: Oxidative lipidomics and redox activity of cytochrome c/cardiolipin complexes. Chem Biol Interact. 2006;163:15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2006.04.019.

9. Mittal M, Siddiqui MR, Tran K, Reddy SP, Malik AB. Reactive oxygen species in inflammation and tissue injury. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2014;20:1126–67. doi: 10.1089/ars.2012.5149.

10. Anscher MS, Kong FM, Andrews K, Clough R, Marks LB, Bentel G, et al. Plasma transforming growth factor β1 as a predictor of radiation pneumonitis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:1029–35. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00154-0.

11. Azzam EI, Jay-Gerin JP, Pain D. Ionizing radiation-induced metabolic oxidative stress and prolonged cell injury. Cancer Lett. 2012;327:48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2011.12.012.

12. Averbeck D, Rodriguez-Lafrasse C. Role of mitochondria in radiation responses: epigenetic, metabolic, and signaling impacts. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:11047. doi: 10.3390/ijms222011047.

13. Ulrich K, Jakob U. The role of thiols in antioxidant systems. Free Radic Biol Med. 2019;140:14–27. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2019.05.035.

14. Xie X, Zheng W, Chen T, Lin W, Liao Z, Liu J, et al. CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib amplifies the radiosensitivity to nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells via mediating apoptosis and suppressing DNA damage repair. Onco Targets Ther. 2019;12:11107–117. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S234221.

15. Marchenko ND, Moll UM. Mitochondrial death functions of p53. Mol Cell Oncol. 2014;1:e955995. doi: 10.1080/23723548.2014.955995.

16. Morita A, Wang B, Tanaka K, Katsube T, Murakami M, Shimokawa T, et al. Protective effects of p53 regulatory agents against high-LET radiation-induced injury in mice. Front Public Health. 2020;8:601124. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.601124.

17. Gandhi VV, Gandhi KA, Kumbhare LB, Goda JS, Gota V, Priyadarsini KI, et al. 3,3′-diselenodipropionic acid (DSePA) induces reductive stress in A549 cells triggering p53-independent apoptosis: a novel mechanism for diselenides. Free Radic Biol Med. 2021;175:1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2021.08.017.

18. Kunwar A, Priyadarsini KI, Jain VK. 3,3′-diselenodipropionic acid (DSePA): a redox active multifunctional molecule of biological relevance. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj. 2021;1865:129768. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2020.129768.

19. D’Aguanno S, Del Bufalo D. Inhibition of anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 proteins in preclinical and clinical studies: Current overview in cancer. Cells. 2020;9:1287. doi: 10.3390/cells9051287.

20. Moretti L, Kwang WK, Dae KJ, Willey CD, Lu B. Radiosensitization of solid tumors by Z-VAD, a pan-caspase inhibitor. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8:1270–9. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0893.

21. Li WH, Wang F, Song GY, Yu QH, Du RP, Xu P. PARP-1: a critical regulator in radioprotection and radiotherapy-mechanisms, challenges, and therapeutic opportunities. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1198948. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1198948.

22. Gajdács M, Behzadi P. Introductory chapter: Cytokines - The diamonds and pearls of biological systems. In: Behzadi P, editor. Cytokines. Intech Open; 2020.

23. Ngo V, Duennwald ML. Nrf2 and oxidative stress: A general overview of mechanisms and implications in human disease. Antioxidants. 2022;11:2345. doi: 10.3390/antiox11122345.

24. Basile LA, Ellefson D, Gluzman-Poltorak Z, Junes-Gill K, Mar V, Mendonca S, et al. HemaMaxTM, a recombinant human interleukin-12, is a potent mitigator of acute radiation injury in mice and non-human primates. PLoS One. 2012;7:e30434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030434.

25. Batinic-Haberle I, Tovmasyan A, Spasojevic I. Mn Porphyrin-Based Redox-Active Drugs: Differential Effects as Cancer Therapeutics and Protectors of Normal Tissue Against Oxidative Injury. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2018;29:1691–724. doi: 10.1089/ars.2017.7453.

26. Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Zois CE, Kalamida D, Pouliliou S, Karagounis IV, et al. Normal tissue radioprotection by amifostine via Warburg-type effects. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30986. doi: 10.1038/srep30986.

27. Lu L, Li Z, Zuo Y, Zhao L, Liu B. Radioprotective activity of glutathione on cognitive ability in X-ray radiated tumor-bearing mice. Neurol Res. 2018;40:758–66. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2018.1476080.

28. Zhang J, Li K, Zhang Q, Zhu Z, Huang G, Tian H. Polycysteine as a new type of radio-protector ameliorated tissue injury through inhibiting ferroptosis in mice. Cell Death Dis. 2021;12:195. doi: 10.1038/s41419-021-03479-0.

29. Kim HJ, Kang SU, Lee YS, Jang JY, Kang H, Kim CH. Protective effects of N-acetylcysteine against radiation-induced oral mucositis in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Res Treat. 2020;52:1019–30. doi: 10.4143/crt.2020.012.

30. Hahn SM, Sullivan FJ, DeLuca AM, Krishna CM, Wersto N, Venzon D, et al. Evaluation of tempol radioprotection in a murine tumor model. Free Radic Biol Med. 1997;22:1211–16. doi: 10.1016/s0891-5849(96)00556-4.

31. Pathak R, Bachri A, Ghosh SP, Koturbash I, Boerma M, Binz RK, et al. The vitamin E analog gamma-tocotrienol (GT3) suppresses radiation-induced cytogenetic damage. Pharm Res. 2016;33:2117–25. doi: 10.1007/s11095-016-1950-0.

32. Narra VR, Harapanhalli RS, Howell RW, Sastry KS, Rao DV. Vitamins as radioprotectors in vivo. I. protection by vitamin C against internal radionuclides in mouse testes: implications to the mechanism of damage caused by the Auger effect. Radiat Res. 1994;137:394. doi: 10.2307/3578715.

33. Ashcraft KA, Boss M-K, Tovmasyan A, Roy Choudhury K, Fontanella AN, Young KH, et al. Novel manganese-porphyrin superoxide dismutase-mimetic widens the therapeutic margin in a preclinical head and neck cancer model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93:892–900. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.2283.

34. Pollard JM, Reboucas JS, Durazo A, Kos I, Fike F, Panni M, et al. Radioprotective effects of manganese-containing superoxide dismutase mimics on ataxia-telangiectasia cells. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;47:250–260. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.04.018.

35. Peng R, Zhang W, Zuo Z, Kos I, Fike F, Panni M, et al. Dimethyl sulfoxide, a potent oral radioprotective agent, confers radioprotection of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells independent of apoptosis. Free Radic Biol Med. 2020;153:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2020.03.021.

36. Gholami M, Ahmadi AA, Yusofvand R, Khanchoupan M, Hajimazdarany S, Najibi R. Radioprotective effects of vitamin C, cimetidine, and famotidine on lipid peroxidase and hepatic glutathione levels in mouse liver. Int J Cell Biol. 2025;2025:1106920. doi: 10.1155/ijcb/1106920.

37. Burdelya LG, Brackett CM, Kojouharov B, Gitlin II, Leonova KI, Gleiberman AS, et al. Central role of liver in anticancer and radioprotective activities of Toll-like receptor 5 agonist. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:E1857–66. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222805110.

38. Tanaka I, Tanaka M, Satoh A, Kurematsu A, Ishiwata A, Suzuki K, et al. Alteration of radioprotective effects of heat-killed lactobacillus casei in X-irradiated C3H/He mouse related to blood level of proinflammatory cytokines by corticoids. J Radiat Res. 2010;51:81–6. doi: 10.1269/jrr.09095.

39. Liu G, Zeng Y, Lv T, Mao T, Wei Y, Jia S, et al. High-throughput preparation of radioprotective polymers via Hantzsch’s reaction for in vivo X-ray damage determination. Nat Commun. 2020;11:6214. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20027-0.

40. Weiss JF, Kumar KS, Walden TL, Neta R, Landauer MR, Clark EP. Advances in Radioprotection through the use of combined agent regimens. Int J Radiat Biol. 1990;57:709–22. doi: 10.1080/09553009014550881.

41. Caner F, Kumbul YÇ, Özmen Ö, Özkan EE, Yasan H, Okur E, et al. Evaluation of the early radioprotective effect of curcumin on the rat larynx. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025;62:151–60. doi: 10.4274/tao.2025.2024-8-2.

42. Neta R, Oppenheim JJ, Douches SD. Interdependence of the radioprotective effects of human recombinant interleukin 1 alpha, tumor necrosis factor alpha, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and murine recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. J Immunol. 1988;140:108–11. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.140.1.108.

43. Svirnovski A, Sheleg S, Shimanskaya T, Bakkun A. Radioprotective and antileukemic effects of growth factors in regenerating hernatopoietic tissue. Stem Cells. 2009;15:111–118. doi: 10.1002/stem.5530150716.

44. Yamaguchi M, Suzuki M, Funaba M, Chiba A, Kashiwakura I. Mitigative efficacy of the clinical dosage administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and romiplostim in mice with severe acute radiation syndrome. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11:339. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01861-x.

45. Li W, Lu X, Jiang L, Wang X. Radioprotective effect of polyvinylpyrrolidone modified selenium nanoparticles and its antioxidation mechanism in vitro and in vivo. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024;12:1392339. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1392339.

46. Saadat I, Shakibaie M, Jomehzadeh A, Salimi A, Rahimi HR, Torabizadeh SA. Radioprotective effect of zinc nanoparticles on ionizing radiation-induced nephrotoxicity in mice. Pharmacology. 2023;108:101–10. doi: 10.1159/000526776.

47. Sonis ST. Superoxide dismutase as an intervention for radiation therapy-associated toxicities: review and profile of avasopasem manganese as a treatment option for radiation-induced mucositis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021;15:1021–29. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S267400.

48. Sheen A, Agarwal Y, Cheah KM, Cowles SC, Stinson JA, Palmeri JR, et al. Tumor-localized catalases can fail to alter tumor growth and transcriptional profiles in subcutaneous syngeneic mouse tumor models. Redox Biol. 2023;64:102766. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2023.102766.

49. Jafarpour SM, Shekarchi B, Bagheri H, Farhood B. The radioprotective effects of melatonin and nanoselenium on DNA double-strand breaks in peripheral lymphocytes caused by I-131. Indian J Nucl Med. 2021;36:134–9. doi: 10.4103/ijnm.IJNM_179_20.

50. Faraji S, Rajaeinejad M, Bagheri H, Afshar Ardalan M, Moutabian H, Ehsani F, et al. Modulation of ionizing radiation-induced apoptosis by taurine in human peripheral blood lymphocytes: Flow cytometry-based quantification. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2024;14:287–98. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2308-1655.

51. Virmani A, Diedenhofen A. The possible mechanisms involved in the protection strategies against radiation-induced cellular damage by carnitines. Int J Clin Med. 2015;6:71–80. doi: 10.4236/ijcm.2015.62011.

52. Rittase WB, McCart EA, Muir JM, Bouten RM, Slaven JE, Mungunsukh O, et al. Effects of captopril against radiation injuries in the Göttingen minipig model of hematopoietic-acute radiation syndrome. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0256208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256208.

53. Medhora M, Phadnis P, Narayanan J, Gasperetti T, Zielonka J, Moulder JE, et al. Radiation increases bioavailability of lisinopril, a mitigator of radiation-induced toxicities. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:646076. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.646076.

54. El-Dessouky YMM, El-Dessouky MM, El-Batrawy OA. Penicillamine as radiation protector against gamma radiation effect on complete blood count parameters of guinea pigs. Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal. 2019;17:145. doi: 10.4103/azmj.azmj_137_18.

55. Eun B-L, Liu X-H, Barks JDE. Pentoxifylline attenuates hypoxic-ischemic brain injury in immature rats. Pediatr Res. 2000;47:73. doi: 10.1203/00006450-200001000-00014.

56. Li ZT, Wang LM, Yi LR, Jia C, Bai F, Peng RJ, et al. Succinate ester derivative of δ-tocopherol enhances the protective effects against 60Co γ-ray-induced hematopoietic injury through granulocyte colony-stimulating factor induction in mice. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40380. doi: 10.1038/srep40380.

57. Chen C, Zeng B, Xue D, Cao R, Liao S, Yang Y, et al. Pirfenidone for the prevention of radiation-induced lung injury in patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e060619. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060619.

58. Tu J, Chen X, Li C, Liu C, Huang Y, Wang X, et al. Nintedanib mitigates radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis by suppressing epithelial cell inflammatory response and inhibiting fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transition. Int J Biol Sci. 2024;20:3353–71. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.92620.

59. Kouvaris JR, Kouloulias VE, Vlahos LJ. Amifostine: The first selective-target and broad-spectrum radioprotector. Oncologist. 2007;12:738–47. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-6-738.

60. Finch PW, Mark Cross LJ, McAuley DF, Farrell CL. Palifermin for the protection and regeneration of epithelial tissues following injury: new findings in basic research and pre‐clinical models. J Cell Mol Med. 2013;17:1065–87. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12091.

61. Maier P, Wenz F, Herskind C. Radioprotection of normal tissue cells. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014;190:745–52. doi: 10.1007/s00066-014-0637-x.

62. ClinicalTrials.gov. Palifermin for the reduction of oral mucositis in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00101582 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

63. ClinicalTrials.gov. Radiation therapy, amifostine, and chemotherapy in treating young patients with newly diagnosed nasopharyngeal cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00274937 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

64. ClinicalTrials.gov. Prospective study of head and neck cancer radiation treatment with or without amifostine. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01288625 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

65. ClinicalTrials.gov . Melphalan and amifostine followed by one or two autologous or syngeneic stem cell transplants and maintenance therapy in treating patients with stage II-III multiple myeloma. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00217438 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

66. ClinicalTrials.gov. Amifostine in treating patients with stage II or stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00003313 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

67. ClinicalTrials.gov. Amifostine in treating peripheral neuropathy in patients who have received chemotherapy for cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00058071 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

68. ClinicalTrials.gov. Combination chemotherapy with or without amifostine in treating young patients with liver cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00003994 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

69. ClinicalTrials.gov. Amifostine in Treating patients with cancer who have neurological changes caused by chemotherapy. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00003252 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

70. ClinicalTrials.gov. Amifostine in treating patients with ovarian epithelial cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00004166 , accessed on, June 7, 2025.

71. ClinicalTrials.gov. Intravenous versus subcutaneous amifostine in prevention of xerostomia after RT for head and neck carcinomas. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00158691 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

72. ClinicalTrials.gov. Subcutaneous amifostine safety study. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00158041 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

73. ClinicalTrials.gov. Standard chemotherapy with or without nelarabine or rituximab in treating patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01085617 , accessed June 7, 2025.

74. ClinicalTrials.gov. Palifermin in lessening oral mucositis in patients undergoing radiation therapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00360971 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

75. ClinicalTrials.gov. Palifermin for the reduction of oral mucositis in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00101582 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

76. Lorusso D, Ferrandina G, Greggi S, Gadducci A, Pignata S, Tateo S, et al. Phase III multicenter randomized trial of amifostine as cytoprotectant in first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Annals of Oncology. 2003;14:1086–93. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdg301.

77. DrugBank. Amifostine. Available from: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB01143 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

78. Ostojic A, Holtzman NG, Curtis LM, Shaffer BC, Rubin JS, Hakim FT, et al. A phase 1 single dose escalation study of palifermin administered pre-transplant conditioning in subjects undergoing matched unrelated donor allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2020;136:21. doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-140059.

79. Culy CR, Spencer CM. Amifostine: An update on its clinical status as a cytoprotectant in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy and its potential therapeutic application in myelodysplastic syndrome. Drugs. 2001;61:641–84. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200161050-00012.

80. Drugs.com. Know more. Be sure. Amifostine. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/mtm/amifostine.html , accessed on June 7, 2025.

81. El Jurdi N, Fair C, Rogosheske J, Shanley R, Arora M, Bachanova V, et al. Effect of keratinocyte growth factor on hospital readmission and regimen-related toxicities after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma. Transplant Cell Ther. 2021;27:179.e1–179.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jtct.2020.11.005.

82. PharmacyChecker.com. Amifostine Prices (Ethyol). Available from: https://www.pharmacychecker.com/amifostine/# !, accessed on June 7, 2025.

83. Drugs.com. Know more. Be sure. Kepivance prices, coupons, copay cards & patient assistance. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/kepivance , accessed on June 7, 2025.

84. Medscape. Ethyol (DSC) (amifostine) dosing, indications, interactions, adverse effects, and more. Available from: https://reference.medscape.com/drug/ethyol-amifostine-342249 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

85. ashp pharmacists advancing healthcare. Amifostine injection. Available from: https://www.ashp.org/drug-shortages/current-shortages/drug-shortage-detail.aspx?id=662&loginreturnUrl=SSOCheckOnly , accessed on June 7, 2025.

86. Mayo Clinic. Amifostine (intravenous route). Available from: https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/amifostine-intravenous-route/proper-use/drg-20061637 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

87. Mayo Clinic. Palifermin (intravenous route). Available from: https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/palifermin-intravenous-route/proper-use/drg-20065275?p=1 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

88. Medicine.com. Palifermin: Dosage, mechanism/onset of action, half-life. Available from: https://www.medicine.com/drug/palifermin/hcp , accessed on June 7, 2025.

89. MedlinePlus. Amifostine injection. Available from: https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a696014.html , accessed on June 7, 2025.

90. National Cancer Institute. Palifermin. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/palifermin , accessed on June 7, 2025.

91. Drugs.com. Amifostine Advanced patient information. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/cons/amifostine.html , accessed on June 7, 2025.

92. DailyMed. KEPIVANCE- palifermin injection, powder, lyophilized, for solution. Available from: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=426f6e64-2c20-4a61-6d65-7320426f6e64 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

93. Medicine.com. Amifostine. Available from: https://www.medicine.com/drug/amifostine/hcp , accessed on June 7, 2025.

94. RxList. Ethyol. Available from: https://www.rxlist.com/ethyol-drug.htm , accessed on June 7, 2025.

95. Drugs.com. Know more. Be sure. Palifermin drug interactions. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/drug-interactions/palifermin-index.html , accessed on June 7, 2025.

96. Stiff PJ, Emmanouilides C, Bensinger WI, Gentile T, Blazar B, Shea TC, et al. Palifermin reduces patient-reported mouth and throat soreness and improves patient functioning in the hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation setting. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5186–93. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.8340.

97. Drugs.com. Know more. Be sure. Palifermin uses, side effects warnings. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/mtm/palifermin.html , accessed on June 7, 2025.

98. DrugBank Online. Palifermin: Uses, interactions, mechanism of action. Available from: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00039 , accessed on June 7, 2025.

99. Cancernetwork. Amifostine reduces side effects during treatment for advanced lung cancer. Available from: https://www.cancernetwork.com/view/amifostine-reduces-side-effects-during-treatment-advanced-lung-cancer , accessed on June 7, 2025.

100. Zakeri K, Narayanan D, Prasanna PGS, Vikram B, Buchsbaum JC. Development of novel radiosensitizers through the national cancer institute’s small business innovation research program. Radiat Res. 2020;193:425–34. doi: 10.1667/RR15545.1.

101. Valeyrie-Allanore L, Poulalhon N, Fagot JP, Sekula P, Davidovici B, Sidoroff A, et al. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis induced by amifostine during head and neck radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2008;87:300–3. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.01.021.

102. Shi T, Li L, Zhou G, Wang C, Chen X, Zhang R, et al. Toll-like receptor 5 agonist CBLB502 induces radioprotective effects in vitro. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai) 2017;49:487–95. doi: 10.1093/abbs/gmx034.

103. Prasanna PGS, Narayanan D, Hallett K, Bernhard EJ, Ahmed MM, Evans G, et al. Radioprotectors and radiomitigators for improving radiation therapy: The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) gateway for accelerating clinical translation. Radiat Res. 2015;184:235–48. doi: 10.1667/RR14186.1.

104. Nunn AD. The cost of bringing a radiopharmaceutical to the patient’s bedside. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:169.

105. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Imaging Program (CIP). The cancer imaging archive. ARAR0331: Radiation therapy, amifostine, and chemotherapy in treating young patients with newly diagnosed nasopharyngeal cancer. Available from: https://www.cancerimagingarchive.net/collection/arar0331/ , accessed on June 7, 2025.

106. Zois CE, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E, Tokmakidis SP, Botaitis S, Simopoulos C, et al. Narrow amifostine dose windows define radioprotection outcome, following fractionated whole-body irradiation of mice. In Vivo. 2011;25:191–6.

107. Wagner W, Radmard A, Schönekaes KG. A new administration schedule for amifostine as a radioprotector in cancer therapy. Anticancer Res. 1999;19:2281–3.

108. Rosenthal DI, Chambers MS, Weber RS, Eisbruch A. A phase II study to assess the efficacy of amifostine for submandibular/sublingual salivary sparing during the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity modulated radiation therapy for parotid salivary sparing. Semin Oncol. 2004;31:25–8. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2004.12.008.

109. Brizel DM, Wasserman TH, Henke M, Strnad V, Rudat V, Monnier A, et al. Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radioprotector in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3339–45. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.19.3339.

110. Oliveira Bernardo M, Morgado F, dos Santos AASMD, Foley S, Paulo G, de Almeida FA. Impact of a radiological protection campaign in emergency paediatric radiology: a multicentric observational study in Brazil. Insights Imaging. 2022;13:40. doi: 10.1186/s13244-022-01180-0.

111. Vadhan-Raj S, Goldberg JD, Perales MA, Berger DP, van den Brink MR. Clinical applications of palifermin: amelioration of oral mucositis and other potential indications. J Cell Mol Med. 2013;17:1371. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12169.

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table I

Supplementary Table II