Baran Timothy M
Departments of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Ave., Box 648, Rochester, New York, 14642.
Lasers Surg Med. 2018 Jul;50(5):476-482. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22774. Epub 2017 Dec 7.
The goal of this study was to compare tumor response to Photofrin photodynamic therapy using intravenous and intratumoral injection of photosensitizer. Systemic skin photosensitivity and photosensitizer distribution were also compared between the two delivery methods.
SCCVII tumors were initiated in the hind legs of female C3H mice and grown to a volume of ∼1,000 mm . Photofrin was delivered intravenously via the tail vein at a concentration of 2 mg/kg or intratumorally at concentrations ranging from 0.5-2 mg/kg. A 630 nm laser illumination was delivered via interstitial diffuser placement at a fluence rate of 400 mW/cm and fluence of 100 J/cm. Mice were maintained under normal room lighting for 24 hours after treatment, at which point photographs were captured for assessment of skin photosensitivity. Animals were then sacrificed, and their tumors were excised, sectioned, imaged, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). H&E slides were imaged to assess necrosis post-PDT, and skin photographs were evaluated by two blinded reviewers for quantification of skin photosensitivity. Whole-body fluorescence imaging was performed before and after photodynamic therapy.
Tumor necrosis was not significantly different based on treatment group (P = 0.33), while skin photosensitivity was significantly reduced in animals that received Photofrin intratumorally (P = 0.0005). Fluorescence imaging revealed similar photosensitizer fluorescence in excised tumors for intratumor and intravenous injection of Photofrin (P = 0.48), although fluorescence decreased significantly with decreasing intratumor injection concentration (P= 0.01).
This pilot study shows that intratumoral administration of Photofrin has the potential to produce similar tumor outcomes, while reducing systemic skin photosensitivity. Further studies are warranted to characterize and optimize intratumor delivery. Lasers Surg. 50:476-482, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
本研究的目的是比较使用静脉注射和瘤内注射光敏剂时,Photofrin光动力疗法对肿瘤的反应。还比较了两种给药方式下的全身皮肤光敏性和光敏剂分布情况。
在雌性C3H小鼠的后腿上接种SCCVII肿瘤,并使其生长至体积约为1000立方毫米。Photofrin通过尾静脉以2毫克/千克的浓度静脉注射,或以0.5 - 2毫克/千克的浓度瘤内注射。通过间质扩散器放置以400毫瓦/平方厘米的光通量率和100焦/平方厘米的光通量进行630纳米激光照射。治疗后,小鼠在正常室内光照下饲养24小时,此时拍摄照片以评估皮肤光敏性。然后处死动物,切除其肿瘤,切片,成像,并用苏木精和伊红(H&E)染色。对H&E切片进行成像以评估光动力治疗后的坏死情况,由两名盲法评审员对皮肤照片进行评估以量化皮肤光敏性。在光动力治疗前后进行全身荧光成像。
基于治疗组,肿瘤坏死无显著差异(P = 0.33),而瘤内注射Photofrin的动物皮肤光敏性显著降低(P = 0.0005)。荧光成像显示,瘤内注射和静脉注射Photofrin后,切除肿瘤中的光敏剂荧光相似(P = 0.48),尽管随着瘤内注射浓度降低,荧光显著下降(P = 0.01)。
这项初步研究表明,瘤内注射Photofrin有可能产生相似的肿瘤治疗效果,同时降低全身皮肤光敏性。有必要进行进一步研究以表征和优化瘤内给药。激光外科杂志。50:476 - 482,2018。©2017威利期刊公司。