Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Comparison of volumetric dynamic optical coherence tomography with biological methods for evaluation of radiation effects in prostate tumor spheroids

Created on 11 Nov 2025

Authors

Swanson, S., Chen, K., Cheraghi, E., Osei, E., Bizheva, K.

Abstract

Significance: 3D tumor spheroids are more physiologically representative of in vivo patient tumors compared to 2D monolayer culture. However, their 3D nature challenges the use of conventional biological techniques like proliferation assays, fluorescence microscopy, and the clonogenic assay, which is the gold standard method for assessing cell survival following radiation. However, clonogenic assay requires spheroid disaggregation. Aim: Non-invasive volumetric imaging with dynamic optical coherence tomography (dOCT) enables cellular activity to be visualized with spatial resolution within 3D tumor spheroids. Cellular activity observed via dOCT in irradiated prostate tumor spheroids was quantified for comparison with conventional biological techniques. Approach: A Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator was used to irradiate spheroid and monolayer cultures with a 6 MV beam. Cellular activity was estimated from dOCT images generated via frequency banding and compared to clonogenic assay, proliferation assay, fluorescence microscopy, and 3D cell simulation. Results: Prostate cancer cells cultured as spheroids demonstrated improved radio-resistance via clonogenic assay compared to monolayer culture. The dOCT method demonstrated quantitative and qualitative agreement with proliferation assay and fluorescence microscopy, respectively. Conclusions: A longer duration of repeated dOCT measurement in tumor spheroids following radiation treatment could offer a non-invasive alternative to the clonogenic assay.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 11 Nov 2025.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 29
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement