Cargando…
Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
A major challenge in the application of a nanoparticle-based drug delivery system for anticancer agents is the knowledge of the critical properties that influence their in vivo behavior and the therapeutic performance of the drug. The effect of a liposomal formulation, as an example of a widely-used...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797282/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24143087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S51002 |
_version_ | 1782287594016473088 |
---|---|
author | Reshetov, Vadzim Lassalle, Henri-Pierre François, Aurélie Dumas, Dominique Hupont, Sebastien Gräfe, Susanna Filipe, Vasco Jiskoot, Wim Guillemin, François Zorin, Vladimir Bezdetnaya, Lina |
author_facet | Reshetov, Vadzim Lassalle, Henri-Pierre François, Aurélie Dumas, Dominique Hupont, Sebastien Gräfe, Susanna Filipe, Vasco Jiskoot, Wim Guillemin, François Zorin, Vladimir Bezdetnaya, Lina |
author_sort | Reshetov, Vadzim |
collection | PubMed |
description | A major challenge in the application of a nanoparticle-based drug delivery system for anticancer agents is the knowledge of the critical properties that influence their in vivo behavior and the therapeutic performance of the drug. The effect of a liposomal formulation, as an example of a widely-used delivery system, on all aspects of the drug delivery process, including the drug’s behavior in blood and in the tumor, has to be considered when optimizing treatment with liposomal drugs, but that is rarely done. This article presents a comparison of conventional (Foslip®) and polyethylene glycosylated (Fospeg®) liposomal formulations of temoporfin (meta-tetra[hydroxyphenyl]chlorin) in tumor-grafted mice, with a set of comparison parameters not reported before in one model. Foslip® and Fospeg® pharmacokinetics, drug release, liposome stability, tumor uptake, and intratumoral distribution are evaluated, and their influence on the efficacy of the photodynamic treatment at different light–drug intervals is discussed. The use of whole-tumor multiphoton fluorescence macroscopy imaging is reported for visualization of the in vivo intratumoral distribution of the photosensitizer. The combination of enhanced permeability and retention-based tumor accumulation, stability in the circulation, and release properties leads to a higher efficacy of the treatment with Fospeg® compared to Foslip®. A significant advantage of Fospeg® lies in a major decrease in the light–drug interval, while preserving treatment efficacy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3797282 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37972822013-10-18 Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo Reshetov, Vadzim Lassalle, Henri-Pierre François, Aurélie Dumas, Dominique Hupont, Sebastien Gräfe, Susanna Filipe, Vasco Jiskoot, Wim Guillemin, François Zorin, Vladimir Bezdetnaya, Lina Int J Nanomedicine Original Research A major challenge in the application of a nanoparticle-based drug delivery system for anticancer agents is the knowledge of the critical properties that influence their in vivo behavior and the therapeutic performance of the drug. The effect of a liposomal formulation, as an example of a widely-used delivery system, on all aspects of the drug delivery process, including the drug’s behavior in blood and in the tumor, has to be considered when optimizing treatment with liposomal drugs, but that is rarely done. This article presents a comparison of conventional (Foslip®) and polyethylene glycosylated (Fospeg®) liposomal formulations of temoporfin (meta-tetra[hydroxyphenyl]chlorin) in tumor-grafted mice, with a set of comparison parameters not reported before in one model. Foslip® and Fospeg® pharmacokinetics, drug release, liposome stability, tumor uptake, and intratumoral distribution are evaluated, and their influence on the efficacy of the photodynamic treatment at different light–drug intervals is discussed. The use of whole-tumor multiphoton fluorescence macroscopy imaging is reported for visualization of the in vivo intratumoral distribution of the photosensitizer. The combination of enhanced permeability and retention-based tumor accumulation, stability in the circulation, and release properties leads to a higher efficacy of the treatment with Fospeg® compared to Foslip®. A significant advantage of Fospeg® lies in a major decrease in the light–drug interval, while preserving treatment efficacy. Dove Medical Press 2013 2013-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3797282/ /pubmed/24143087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S51002 Text en © 2013 Reshetov et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Reshetov, Vadzim Lassalle, Henri-Pierre François, Aurélie Dumas, Dominique Hupont, Sebastien Gräfe, Susanna Filipe, Vasco Jiskoot, Wim Guillemin, François Zorin, Vladimir Bezdetnaya, Lina Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
title | Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
title_full | Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
title_fullStr | Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
title_full_unstemmed | Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
title_short | Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
title_sort | photodynamic therapy with conventional and pegylated liposomal formulations of mthpc (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797282/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24143087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S51002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT reshetovvadzim photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT lassallehenripierre photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT francoisaurelie photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT dumasdominique photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT hupontsebastien photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT grafesusanna photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT filipevasco photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT jiskootwim photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT guilleminfrancois photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT zorinvladimir photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo AT bezdetnayalina photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo |