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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reshetov, Vadzim, Lassalle, Henri-Pierre, François, Aurélie, Dumas, Dominique, Hupont, Sebastien, Gräfe, Susanna, Filipe, Vasco, Jiskoot, Wim, Guillemin, François, Zorin, Vladimir, Bezdetnaya, Lina
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