Cargando…
A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis
The iron chelator, deferoxamine (DFO), has been shown to potentially improve dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis (RIF) in mice through increased angiogenesis and reduced oxidative damage. This preclinical study evaluated the efficacy of two DFO administration modalities, transdermal delivery and direc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34612609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.16913 |
_version_ | 1784595285982314496 |
---|---|
author | Lavin, Christopher V. Abbas, Darren B. Fahy, Evan J. Lee, Daniel K. Griffin, Michelle Diaz Deleon, Nestor M. Mascharak, Shamik Chen, Kellen Momeni, Arash Gurtner, Geoffrey C. Longaker, Michael T. Wan, Derrick C. |
author_facet | Lavin, Christopher V. Abbas, Darren B. Fahy, Evan J. Lee, Daniel K. Griffin, Michelle Diaz Deleon, Nestor M. Mascharak, Shamik Chen, Kellen Momeni, Arash Gurtner, Geoffrey C. Longaker, Michael T. Wan, Derrick C. |
author_sort | Lavin, Christopher V. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The iron chelator, deferoxamine (DFO), has been shown to potentially improve dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis (RIF) in mice through increased angiogenesis and reduced oxidative damage. This preclinical study evaluated the efficacy of two DFO administration modalities, transdermal delivery and direct injection, as well as temporal treatment strategies in relation to radiation therapy to address collateral soft tissue fibrosis. The dorsum of CD‐1 nude mice received 30 Gy radiation, and DFO (3 mg) was administered daily via patch or injection. Treatment regimens were prophylactic, during acute recovery, post‐recovery, or continuously throughout the experiment (n = 5 per condition). Measures included ROS‐detection, histology, biomechanics and vascularity changes. Compared with irradiated control skin, DFO treatment decreased oxidative damage, dermal thickness and collagen content, and increased skin elasticity and vascularity. Metrics of improvement in irradiated skin were most pronounced with continuous transdermal delivery of DFO. In summary, DFO administration reduces dermal fibrosis induced by radiation. Although both treatment modalities were efficacious, the transdermal delivery showed greater effect than injection for each temporal treatment strategy. Interestingly, the continuous patch group was more similar to normal skin than to irradiated control skin by most measures, highlighting a promising approach to address detrimental collateral soft tissue injury following radiation therapy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8572785 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85727852021-11-10 A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis Lavin, Christopher V. Abbas, Darren B. Fahy, Evan J. Lee, Daniel K. Griffin, Michelle Diaz Deleon, Nestor M. Mascharak, Shamik Chen, Kellen Momeni, Arash Gurtner, Geoffrey C. Longaker, Michael T. Wan, Derrick C. J Cell Mol Med Original Articles The iron chelator, deferoxamine (DFO), has been shown to potentially improve dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis (RIF) in mice through increased angiogenesis and reduced oxidative damage. This preclinical study evaluated the efficacy of two DFO administration modalities, transdermal delivery and direct injection, as well as temporal treatment strategies in relation to radiation therapy to address collateral soft tissue fibrosis. The dorsum of CD‐1 nude mice received 30 Gy radiation, and DFO (3 mg) was administered daily via patch or injection. Treatment regimens were prophylactic, during acute recovery, post‐recovery, or continuously throughout the experiment (n = 5 per condition). Measures included ROS‐detection, histology, biomechanics and vascularity changes. Compared with irradiated control skin, DFO treatment decreased oxidative damage, dermal thickness and collagen content, and increased skin elasticity and vascularity. Metrics of improvement in irradiated skin were most pronounced with continuous transdermal delivery of DFO. In summary, DFO administration reduces dermal fibrosis induced by radiation. Although both treatment modalities were efficacious, the transdermal delivery showed greater effect than injection for each temporal treatment strategy. Interestingly, the continuous patch group was more similar to normal skin than to irradiated control skin by most measures, highlighting a promising approach to address detrimental collateral soft tissue injury following radiation therapy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-06 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8572785/ /pubmed/34612609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.16913 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published by Foundation for Cellular and Molecular Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Lavin, Christopher V. Abbas, Darren B. Fahy, Evan J. Lee, Daniel K. Griffin, Michelle Diaz Deleon, Nestor M. Mascharak, Shamik Chen, Kellen Momeni, Arash Gurtner, Geoffrey C. Longaker, Michael T. Wan, Derrick C. A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
title | A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
title_full | A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
title_fullStr | A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
title_short | A comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
title_sort | comparative analysis of deferoxamine treatment modalities for dermal radiation‐induced fibrosis |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34612609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.16913 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lavinchristopherv acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT abbasdarrenb acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT fahyevanj acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT leedanielk acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT griffinmichelle acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT diazdeleonnestorm acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT mascharakshamik acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT chenkellen acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT momeniarash acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT gurtnergeoffreyc acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT longakermichaelt acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT wanderrickc acomparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT lavinchristopherv comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT abbasdarrenb comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT fahyevanj comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT leedanielk comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT griffinmichelle comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT diazdeleonnestorm comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT mascharakshamik comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT chenkellen comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT momeniarash comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT gurtnergeoffreyc comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT longakermichaelt comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis AT wanderrickc comparativeanalysisofdeferoxaminetreatmentmodalitiesfordermalradiationinducedfibrosis |