Cornelissen, Bart

Nonnekens, Julie

Pouget, Jean Pierre

Terry, Samantha

English

EUR Research Repository

First Symposium of the European Working Groupon the Radiobiology of Molecular RadiotherapyBart Cornelissen, PhD1,2, Samantha Terry, PhD3, Julie Nonnekens, PhD4,5, Jean-Pierre Pouget, PhD6,on behalf of the European Working Group on the Radiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy1MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, UK; 2Department of Nuclear Medicineand Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands; 3Department of ImagingChemistry and Biology, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, UK; 4Department ofMolecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 5Department ofRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;6Institut de Recherche en Cancerologie de Montpellier, Inserm U1194, Universite de Montpellier, Institut Regional du Cancer deMontpellier, Montpellier, FranceCancer therapy using radionuclides is gaining much atten-tion. Attached to tumor-specific vectors, isotopes emittinga, b, or Auger electron particles are being increasinglyinvestigated for their ability to deliver radiation damage selectivelyto cancer tissues. In light of the recent approval of 177Lu-DOTA-TATE and 223RaCl2 therapy by regulators on both sides of theAtlantic and the highly promising results just reported for177Lu–prostate-specific membrane antigen, investment andresearch interests in these and other radionuclide therapies are rap-idly expanding. The purpose of the European Working Group is topromote knowledge, investment, and networking in the area of(radio)biology of radionuclide therapy.This report details recent research and inspiring insights pre-sented at the inaugural International Workshop on Radiobiologyof Molecular Radiotherapy, held as a hybrid meeting in Montpel-lier, France, on March 17 and 18, 2021. After a 2019 call to arms(1), the workshop was another pioneering step in bringing thecommunity together. The aim of the workshop was to promotenetworking within the community, increase understanding of thebiological effects of cancer therapy with radionuclides emittingionizing particles, determine how this understanding can assist inimproving therapeutic outcome, and explore the best ways totranslate these findings into the clinic. On average, 150 attendeesfrom 37 countries in 5 continents participated in talks, debates,and roundtable discussions. Proffered talks and posters wereselected from more than 40 abstract submissions.Emmanuel Deshayes, from the host institution, the Institut duCancer de Montpellier, gave the first keynote address, highlightingthe role of radiobiology in treatment of neuroendocrine cancers.As a nuclear medicine physician, he stressed the importance of 6major areas in radiobiology of radionuclide therapy, including: (i)physical parameters of the radionuclide and normal tissueresponse, including accurate dosimetry; (ii) role of radiopharma-ceuticals and targeted distribution at both the (sub)cellular and tis-sue levels; (iii) role of the tumor microenvironment and othersystemic interplay; (iv) identification of biomarkers of response topotentially allow adaptive dose scheduling, including biomarkersfor prediction of therapy outcome; (v) determining optimal combi-nation therapies, based on improving perfusion, target receptorupregulation, coadministration of other DNA damaging agents, orthe addition of targeted drugs that manipulate associated signalingpathways; and (vi) studying the effects of molecular radionuclidetherapy (MRT) on healthy tissues.A series of proffered talks highlighted the best work submittedas abstracts by junior colleagues. Danny Feijtel (Erasmus MedicalCenter; Rotterdam, The Netherlands) detailed his work on somato-statin receptor heterogeneity and its influence on 177Lu-DOTA-TATE therapy efficacy. Ines Costa (King’s College; London, UK)talked about the potential of 99mTc as a radionuclide for therapy,employing a classical approach using DNA plasmids to assesstherapeutic potential, while highlighting that subcellular microdis-tribution is of utmost importance for these Auger electron emitters.Tiffany Chan (University of Oxford; UK) described their method-ology to acquire and analyze high-throughput screens of severalthousand drugs in combination with 177Lu-DOTATATE therapies,compared with external-beam radiotherapy combinations. UtaEberlein (University of W€urzburg; Germany) talked about theirability to visualize tracks of DNA damage repair foci in peripheralblood monocytes after irradiation with a particles from 223Ra ther-apy and the potential to use this as a biodosimeter to determineradiation absorbed dose in hematopoietic tissues.In the second keynote address of the day, Elif Hindie (Centre Hos-pitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux; France) spoke on physical differ-ences between several radionuclides for MRT and their potential fortreatment of micrometastases, approached using Monte Carlo model-ing. With this methodology, his team investigated the radiationabsorbed dose from the medium-range b-emitter 177Lu and com-pared this with 161Tb, which emits b particles as well as substantialnumbers of short-range, low-energy conversion and Auger electrons.They concluded that this type of isotope would allow not only foroptimal treatment of large tumors but simultaneously enable moreoptimal targeting of smaller metastases. For even smaller tumor sec-tions, such as circulating tumor cells, Auger electron emitters, witheven shorter emission ranges, were proposed and identified as poten-tially therapeutic, even at low absorbed radiation doses.The final session on the first day included a presentation fromthe members of the European Working Group on their researchand profiles.The second day began with Mark Konijnenberg (Erasmus MedicalCentre), who emphasized the continued importance of radionuclidedosimetry, given its necessity in facilitating comparison of differentstudies. However, he continued by highlighting the difficulties inobtaining reliable dosimetry, especially in smaller tumors. He wentfurther by questioning the general applicability of the linear-quadraticmodel and the term “biological equivalent dose” for radionuclidetherapy, despite the fact that the concept is tried and tested for14N THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE  Vol. 62  No. 7  July 2021NEWSLINEexternal-beam radiotherapy. Reliable dosimetry becomes further con-strained by limitations at the cellular or even suborgan structuralscales. It is difficult to calculate true radiation dose in grays, and agray may not be a gray in terms of biological consequences, such astumor growth inhibition or healthy tissue toxicity.An entertaining debate on the necessity of radiobiology fol-lowed, with Erik Verburg (a clinician at Erasmus Medical Centreinvestigating MRT) arguing for and Christophe Badie (a seniorradiobiologist at Public Health England’s Centre for Radiation,Chemical, and Environmental Hazards [Chilton, UK]) arguingagainst the proposition: “This house believes that radiobiology isuseful for improving MRT.” A selection of the more notable argu-ments (some hyperbolic or facetious and some irritably germane)included: (i) We are a storytelling species (quoting Jonathan Gott-schall). Thus, we either ignore evidence that does not fit our storyor blend and mold it until it does. Therefore, we use radiobiologywhen it fits with our desire to promote MRT or to disguise ourknowledge deficiencies. (ii) MRT works and has a great future, sothat we are likely to see an increase in the number of patientstreated with MRT. (iii) The gray is not a useful unit for MRT. Ifwe cannot even get dosimetry right, we have no chance of comingto grips with the intricacies of (radio)biology; the multidimension-ality of the problem is too complex. (iv) There is a lack of data toinvestigate MRT with the same vigor and intensity as we do che-motherapy drugs, especially in the clinic. (v) We do not need tounderstand the biology of MRT for it to be effective. (vi) Adminis-tered activities or radiation absorbed dose do not predict outcome,biology does. After an entertaining debate, the motion wasaccepted, reinforcing the need for the entire symposium.A discussion on bridging the gap between laboratory and clinicfor MRT followed, with panel members answering questions onimmediate clinical questions in MRT. Panelists includedDeshayes, Hindie, Katherine Vallis (University of Oxford), andMark Gaze (University College London Hospitals; UK). The pan-elists recognized that the field still faces major hurdles in translat-ing basic research into clinical and practical applications. KevinPrise (Queen's University Belfast; Ireland) gave his expert view onthe need to understand the biology of molecular radiotherapy byconsidering high-linear-energy transfer radiation effects, targetexpression, crossfire, bystander, and abscopal contributions. Thiswas followed by Simon Bouffler (Public Health England’s Centrefor Radiation, Chemical, and Environmental Hazards), with expertperspectives on European Union funding. In a roundtable discus-sion, the following issues were identified as important: optimizeddosimetry; determining the optimal therapeutic window of dose,including normal tissue toxicity studies; accelerated clinical trials;standardization (including whether to use the name MRT or tar-geted radionuclide therapy); and biobanking to make tissuesavailable.Eva Forssell-Aronsson (University of Gothenburg; Germany)spoke on low-dose and low-dose-rate radiobiology of MRT. Shehighlighted the great differences in dose rate between MRT andexternal-beam radiotherapy and the resulting lack of understanding ofhow much radiation absorbed dose is needed for tumor control or toavoid normal tissue toxicity (a recurring theme). She advocated anew radiobiological framework, in which various ‘omics’ and largedatasets are compounded to better understand the radiobiology ofMRT. She further highlighted research on the influence of circadianrhythm on thyroid toxicity following 211At, a unique perspective.The second series of proffered talks included those by TreewutRassamegevanon (Oncoray; Dresden, Germany) and Sara Lunds-ten et al. (Uppsala University; Sweden) on combining radionuclidetherapy with external-beam radiotherapy or a p53-activating pep-tide, respectively. Justine Perrin (Centre de Recherche en Cancero-logie et Immunologie Nantes Angers; France) talked about thetumor microenvironment and targeted a particle therapy, and JulieConstanzo (Institut de Recherche en Cancerologie de Montpellier)offered insights on the role of extracellular vesicles in immuno-logic reactions to external-beam and molecular radiotherapy.The final lecture of the symposium, by Claire Vanpouille-Box(Weill Cornell Medicine; New York, NY), centered on the inter-play between radiation oncology and immunology and lessons thatmay be learned for MRT. Her group investigates key factorsaffecting the immunogenicity of radiotherapy in glioblastomas toachieve better understanding of metabolic changes, molecularpathways, and cellular responses from the host and/or the tumorthat result from radiation therapy. With this lecture, she showednew actionable targets for modulation of antitumor immuneresponses against glioblastomas.Many congratulations were forwarded to Justine Perrin and Tif-fany Chan, who were awarded prizes for best oral presentations, andElise Verger and Jihad Karam, who won in the best poster category.Radiobiology remains as important as ever and has an importantrole to play in interpreting and improving radionuclide therapy.New contacts were established, with follow-up meetings plannedto identify concrete ways forward and to expand the workinggroup. A Scholar-in-Training Committee, inspired by the Radia-tion Research Society, was also created. It aims to increase the vis-ibility of scholar-in-training members within the radiobiology ofmolecular radiotherapy community and works to offer networkingand community opportunities. Additional information is availableat: www.mrtradiobiology.com.AcknowledgmentsThe symposium was sponsored by multiple entities, most notablyICRM, Inserm, Universite de Montpellier, Institut Regional du Can-cer Montpellier, Advanced Accelerator Applications, La RegionOccitanie, Molecubes, MILabs, Precirix, SCK-CEN, SocieteFrançaise de Medicine Nucleaire, and Xstrahl X-ray Systems.Organization of the symposium was arranged by Drs. Jean-PierrePouget, Julie Constanzo, Emmanuel Deshayes, Alexandre Pichard,Sophie Poty, and Lore Santoro. We thank all panel members andchairs who helped make the symposium a success.REFERENCE1. Terry SYA, Nonnekens J, Aerts A, et al. Call to arms: need for radiobiologyin molecular radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1588–1590.NEWSLINENewsline 15N

First Symposium of the European Working Group on the Radiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

   University of GroningenFirst Symposium of the European Working Group on the Radiobiology of MolecularRadiotherapyEuropean Working Group on the Radiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy; Cornelissen, Bart;Terry, Samantha; Nonnekens, Julie; Pouget, Jean PierrePublished in:Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear MedicineIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2021Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):European Working Group on the Radiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy, Cornelissen, B., Terry, S.,Nonnekens, J., & Pouget, J. P. (2021). First Symposium of the European Working Group on theRadiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society ofNuclear Medicine, 62(7), 14N-15N. https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/62/7/14N.longCopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.First Symposium of the European Working Groupon the Radiobiology of Molecular RadiotherapyBart Cornelissen, PhD1,2, Samantha Terry, PhD3, Julie Nonnekens, PhD4,5, Jean-Pierre Pouget, PhD6,on behalf of the European Working Group on the Radiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy1MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, UK; 2Department of Nuclear Medicineand Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands; 3Department of ImagingChemistry and Biology, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, UK; 4Department ofMolecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 5Department ofRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;6Institut de Recherche en Cancerologie de Montpellier, Inserm U1194, Universite de Montpellier, Institut Regional du Cancer deMontpellier, Montpellier, FranceCancer therapy using radionuclides is gaining much atten-tion. Attached to tumor-specific vectors, isotopes emittinga, b, or Auger electron particles are being increasinglyinvestigated for their ability to deliver radiation damage selectivelyto cancer tissues. In light of the recent approval of 177Lu-DOTA-TATE and 223RaCl2 therapy by regulators on both sides of theAtlantic and the highly promising results just reported for177Lu–prostate-specific membrane antigen, investment andresearch interests in these and other radionuclide therapies are rap-idly expanding. The purpose of the European Working Group is topromote knowledge, investment, and networking in the area of(radio)biology of radionuclide therapy.This report details recent research and inspiring insights pre-sented at the inaugural International Workshop on Radiobiologyof Molecular Radiotherapy, held as a hybrid meeting in Montpel-lier, France, on March 17 and 18, 2021. After a 2019 call to arms(1), the workshop was another pioneering step in bringing thecommunity together. The aim of the workshop was to promotenetworking within the community, increase understanding of thebiological effects of cancer therapy with radionuclides emittingionizing particles, determine how this understanding can assist inimproving therapeutic outcome, and explore the best ways totranslate these findings into the clinic. On average, 150 attendeesfrom 37 countries in 5 continents participated in talks, debates,and roundtable discussions. Proffered talks and posters wereselected from more than 40 abstract submissions.Emmanuel Deshayes, from the host institution, the Institut duCancer de Montpellier, gave the first keynote address, highlightingthe role of radiobiology in treatment of neuroendocrine cancers.As a nuclear medicine physician, he stressed the importance of 6major areas in radiobiology of radionuclide therapy, including: (i)physical parameters of the radionuclide and normal tissueresponse, including accurate dosimetry; (ii) role of radiopharma-ceuticals and targeted distribution at both the (sub)cellular and tis-sue levels; (iii) role of the tumor microenvironment and othersystemic interplay; (iv) identification of biomarkers of response topotentially allow adaptive dose scheduling, including biomarkersfor prediction of therapy outcome; (v) determining optimal combi-nation therapies, based on improving perfusion, target receptorupregulation, coadministration of other DNA damaging agents, orthe addition of targeted drugs that manipulate associated signalingpathways; and (vi) studying the effects of molecular radionuclidetherapy (MRT) on healthy tissues.A series of proffered talks highlighted the best work submittedas abstracts by junior colleagues. Danny Feijtel (Erasmus MedicalCenter; Rotterdam, The Netherlands) detailed his work on somato-statin receptor heterogeneity and its influence on 177Lu-DOTA-TATE therapy efficacy. Ines Costa (King’s College; London, UK)talked about the potential of 99mTc as a radionuclide for therapy,employing a classical approach using DNA plasmids to assesstherapeutic potential, while highlighting that subcellular microdis-tribution is of utmost importance for these Auger electron emitters.Tiffany Chan (University of Oxford; UK) described their method-ology to acquire and analyze high-throughput screens of severalthousand drugs in combination with 177Lu-DOTATATE therapies,compared with external-beam radiotherapy combinations. UtaEberlein (University of W€urzburg; Germany) talked about theirability to visualize tracks of DNA damage repair foci in peripheralblood monocytes after irradiation with a particles from 223Ra ther-apy and the potential to use this as a biodosimeter to determineradiation absorbed dose in hematopoietic tissues.In the second keynote address of the day, Elif Hindie (Centre Hos-pitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux; France) spoke on physical differ-ences between several radionuclides for MRT and their potential fortreatment of micrometastases, approached using Monte Carlo model-ing. With this methodology, his team investigated the radiationabsorbed dose from the medium-range b-emitter 177Lu and com-pared this with 161Tb, which emits b particles as well as substantialnumbers of short-range, low-energy conversion and Auger electrons.They concluded that this type of isotope would allow not only foroptimal treatment of large tumors but simultaneously enable moreoptimal targeting of smaller metastases. For even smaller tumor sec-tions, such as circulating tumor cells, Auger electron emitters, witheven shorter emission ranges, were proposed and identified as poten-tially therapeutic, even at low absorbed radiation doses.The final session on the first day included a presentation fromthe members of the European Working Group on their researchand profiles.The second day began with Mark Konijnenberg (Erasmus MedicalCentre), who emphasized the continued importance of radionuclidedosimetry, given its necessity in facilitating comparison of differentstudies. However, he continued by highlighting the difficulties inobtaining reliable dosimetry, especially in smaller tumors. He wentfurther by questioning the general applicability of the linear-quadraticmodel and the term “biological equivalent dose” for radionuclidetherapy, despite the fact that the concept is tried and tested for14N THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE  Vol. 62  No. 7  July 2021NEWSLINEexternal-beam radiotherapy. Reliable dosimetry becomes further con-strained by limitations at the cellular or even suborgan structuralscales. It is difficult to calculate true radiation dose in grays, and agray may not be a gray in terms of biological consequences, such astumor growth inhibition or healthy tissue toxicity.An entertaining debate on the necessity of radiobiology fol-lowed, with Erik Verburg (a clinician at Erasmus Medical Centreinvestigating MRT) arguing for and Christophe Badie (a seniorradiobiologist at Public Health England’s Centre for Radiation,Chemical, and Environmental Hazards [Chilton, UK]) arguingagainst the proposition: “This house believes that radiobiology isuseful for improving MRT.” A selection of the more notable argu-ments (some hyperbolic or facetious and some irritably germane)included: (i) We are a storytelling species (quoting Jonathan Gott-schall). Thus, we either ignore evidence that does not fit our storyor blend and mold it until it does. Therefore, we use radiobiologywhen it fits with our desire to promote MRT or to disguise ourknowledge deficiencies. (ii) MRT works and has a great future, sothat we are likely to see an increase in the number of patientstreated with MRT. (iii) The gray is not a useful unit for MRT. Ifwe cannot even get dosimetry right, we have no chance of comingto grips with the intricacies of (radio)biology; the multidimension-ality of the problem is too complex. (iv) There is a lack of data toinvestigate MRT with the same vigor and intensity as we do che-motherapy drugs, especially in the clinic. (v) We do not need tounderstand the biology of MRT for it to be effective. (vi) Adminis-tered activities or radiation absorbed dose do not predict outcome,biology does. After an entertaining debate, the motion wasaccepted, reinforcing the need for the entire symposium.A discussion on bridging the gap between laboratory and clinicfor MRT followed, with panel members answering questions onimmediate clinical questions in MRT. Panelists includedDeshayes, Hindie, Katherine Vallis (University of Oxford), andMark Gaze (University College London Hospitals; UK). The pan-elists recognized that the field still faces major hurdles in translat-ing basic research into clinical and practical applications. KevinPrise (Queen's University Belfast; Ireland) gave his expert view onthe need to understand the biology of molecular radiotherapy byconsidering high-linear-energy transfer radiation effects, targetexpression, crossfire, bystander, and abscopal contributions. Thiswas followed by Simon Bouffler (Public Health England’s Centrefor Radiation, Chemical, and Environmental Hazards), with expertperspectives on European Union funding. In a roundtable discus-sion, the following issues were identified as important: optimizeddosimetry; determining the optimal therapeutic window of dose,including normal tissue toxicity studies; accelerated clinical trials;standardization (including whether to use the name MRT or tar-geted radionuclide therapy); and biobanking to make tissuesavailable.Eva Forssell-Aronsson (University of Gothenburg; Germany)spoke on low-dose and low-dose-rate radiobiology of MRT. Shehighlighted the great differences in dose rate between MRT andexternal-beam radiotherapy and the resulting lack of understanding ofhow much radiation absorbed dose is needed for tumor control or toavoid normal tissue toxicity (a recurring theme). She advocated anew radiobiological framework, in which various ‘omics’ and largedatasets are compounded to better understand the radiobiology ofMRT. She further highlighted research on the influence of circadianrhythm on thyroid toxicity following 211At, a unique perspective.The second series of proffered talks included those by TreewutRassamegevanon (Oncoray; Dresden, Germany) and Sara Lunds-ten et al. (Uppsala University; Sweden) on combining radionuclidetherapy with external-beam radiotherapy or a p53-activating pep-tide, respectively. Justine Perrin (Centre de Recherche en Cancero-logie et Immunologie Nantes Angers; France) talked about thetumor microenvironment and targeted a particle therapy, and JulieConstanzo (Institut de Recherche en Cancerologie de Montpellier)offered insights on the role of extracellular vesicles in immuno-logic reactions to external-beam and molecular radiotherapy.The final lecture of the symposium, by Claire Vanpouille-Box(Weill Cornell Medicine; New York, NY), centered on the inter-play between radiation oncology and immunology and lessons thatmay be learned for MRT. Her group investigates key factorsaffecting the immunogenicity of radiotherapy in glioblastomas toachieve better understanding of metabolic changes, molecularpathways, and cellular responses from the host and/or the tumorthat result from radiation therapy. With this lecture, she showednew actionable targets for modulation of antitumor immuneresponses against glioblastomas.Many congratulations were forwarded to Justine Perrin and Tif-fany Chan, who were awarded prizes for best oral presentations, andElise Verger and Jihad Karam, who won in the best poster category.Radiobiology remains as important as ever and has an importantrole to play in interpreting and improving radionuclide therapy.New contacts were established, with follow-up meetings plannedto identify concrete ways forward and to expand the workinggroup. A Scholar-in-Training Committee, inspired by the Radia-tion Research Society, was also created. It aims to increase the vis-ibility of scholar-in-training members within the radiobiology ofmolecular radiotherapy community and works to offer networkingand community opportunities. Additional information is availableat: www.mrtradiobiology.com.AcknowledgmentsThe symposium was sponsored by multiple entities, most notablyICRM, Inserm, Universite de Montpellier, Institut Regional du Can-cer Montpellier, Advanced Accelerator Applications, La RegionOccitanie, Molecubes, MILabs, Precirix, SCK-CEN, SocieteFrançaise de Medicine Nucleaire, and Xstrahl X-ray Systems.Organization of the symposium was arranged by Drs. Jean-PierrePouget, Julie Constanzo, Emmanuel Deshayes, Alexandre Pichard,Sophie Poty, and Lore Santoro. We thank all panel members andchairs who helped make the symposium a success.REFERENCE1. Terry SYA, Nonnekens J, Aerts A, et al. Call to arms: need for radiobiologyin molecular radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1588–1590.NEWSLINENewsline 15N

Proceedings - University of Groningen

NARCIS 

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

University of Groningen

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/199263909/14N.full.pdf

First Symposium of the European Working Group on the Radiobiology of Molecular Radiotherapy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

EUR Research Repository

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

Proceedings - University of Groningen

NARCIS

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

University of Groningen

Proceedings - University of Groningen

EUR Research Repository

ARTS repository - University of Groningen