Cargando…
Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy
Clinical photodynamic therapy (PDT) schedules are based on the assumption that optimum drug–light intervals are times at which there is a maximum differential between photosensitiser retention in the tumour and surrounding normal tissue. However, vascular-mediated effects contribute to tumour destru...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2003
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12610515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600682 |
_version_ | 1782154763894259712 |
---|---|
author | Cramers, P Ruevekamp, M Oppelaar, H Dalesio, O Baas, P Stewart, F A |
author_facet | Cramers, P Ruevekamp, M Oppelaar, H Dalesio, O Baas, P Stewart, F A |
author_sort | Cramers, P |
collection | PubMed |
description | Clinical photodynamic therapy (PDT) schedules are based on the assumption that optimum drug–light intervals are times at which there is a maximum differential between photosensitiser retention in the tumour and surrounding normal tissue. However, vascular-mediated effects contribute to tumour destruction by PDT; therefore, plasma sensitiser levels and endothelial cell drug exposure could also be important determinants of PDT response. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of tumour, tissue and plasma concentrations of the photosensitiser Foscan® (meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin, mTHPC) on PDT response. Groups of BalbC nude mice, bearing human mesothelioma xenografts (H-MESO1) were injected (i.v.) with a single dose of (14)C-labelled mTHPC, or with two doses, separated by 72 h. Drug levels in plasma, tumour and normal tissues were measured at 5 min to 120 h after drug administration. The PDT tumour and skin responses were evaluated by illuminating separate groups mice at intervals of 5 min to 120 h after injection of Foscan (nonlabelled). Drug levels in both tumour and skin increased during the first 24 h after a single injection, and remained almost constant for at least 120 h. The second injection produced a further, rapid increase in mTHPC levels in tumours and skin, with steady state being maintained from 20 min to 120 h. By contrast, PDT response of both tumours and skin were maximal for illumination at 1–3 h after drug, with very little response when illumination was given 48–120 h after drug. There was no significant correlation between tumour or skin drug level and PDT response. There was, however, a significant correlation between plasma drug levels and tumour or skin response, excluding an initial distribution time of 20 min. These studies demonstrate a pronounced disassociation between tumour drug levels and optimum drug–light intervals for PDT response with Foscan. We suggest that the PDT effect, in both tumours and normal tissues, is largely mediated via vascular damage and that the selectivity of PDT is not based on differential tumour drug uptake. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2377038 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2003 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23770382009-09-10 Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy Cramers, P Ruevekamp, M Oppelaar, H Dalesio, O Baas, P Stewart, F A Br J Cancer Experimental Therapeutics Clinical photodynamic therapy (PDT) schedules are based on the assumption that optimum drug–light intervals are times at which there is a maximum differential between photosensitiser retention in the tumour and surrounding normal tissue. However, vascular-mediated effects contribute to tumour destruction by PDT; therefore, plasma sensitiser levels and endothelial cell drug exposure could also be important determinants of PDT response. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of tumour, tissue and plasma concentrations of the photosensitiser Foscan® (meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin, mTHPC) on PDT response. Groups of BalbC nude mice, bearing human mesothelioma xenografts (H-MESO1) were injected (i.v.) with a single dose of (14)C-labelled mTHPC, or with two doses, separated by 72 h. Drug levels in plasma, tumour and normal tissues were measured at 5 min to 120 h after drug administration. The PDT tumour and skin responses were evaluated by illuminating separate groups mice at intervals of 5 min to 120 h after injection of Foscan (nonlabelled). Drug levels in both tumour and skin increased during the first 24 h after a single injection, and remained almost constant for at least 120 h. The second injection produced a further, rapid increase in mTHPC levels in tumours and skin, with steady state being maintained from 20 min to 120 h. By contrast, PDT response of both tumours and skin were maximal for illumination at 1–3 h after drug, with very little response when illumination was given 48–120 h after drug. There was no significant correlation between tumour or skin drug level and PDT response. There was, however, a significant correlation between plasma drug levels and tumour or skin response, excluding an initial distribution time of 20 min. These studies demonstrate a pronounced disassociation between tumour drug levels and optimum drug–light intervals for PDT response with Foscan. We suggest that the PDT effect, in both tumours and normal tissues, is largely mediated via vascular damage and that the selectivity of PDT is not based on differential tumour drug uptake. Nature Publishing Group 2003-01-27 2003-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2377038/ /pubmed/12610515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600682 Text en Copyright © 2003 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Experimental Therapeutics Cramers, P Ruevekamp, M Oppelaar, H Dalesio, O Baas, P Stewart, F A Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
title | Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
title_full | Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
title_fullStr | Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
title_full_unstemmed | Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
title_short | Foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
title_sort | foscan® uptake and tissue distribution in relation to photodynamic efficacy |
topic | Experimental Therapeutics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12610515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600682 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cramersp foscanuptakeandtissuedistributioninrelationtophotodynamicefficacy AT ruevekampm foscanuptakeandtissuedistributioninrelationtophotodynamicefficacy AT oppelaarh foscanuptakeandtissuedistributioninrelationtophotodynamicefficacy AT dalesioo foscanuptakeandtissuedistributioninrelationtophotodynamicefficacy AT baasp foscanuptakeandtissuedistributioninrelationtophotodynamicefficacy AT stewartfa foscanuptakeandtissuedistributioninrelationtophotodynamicefficacy |