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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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