PURPOSE: Response to photodynamic therapy depends on adequate tumor oxygenation as well as sufficient accumulation of photosensitizer in the tumor. The goal of this study was to investigate the presence of hypoxia and retention of the photosensitizer Photofrin in the tumors of patients with intra-abdominal carcinomatosis or sarcomatosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor nodules from 10 patients were studied. In nine of these patients, hypoxia was identified in histological sections of biopsied tumor after administration of the hypoxia marker 2-(2-nitroimidazol-1[H]-yl)-N-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropyl)acetamide (EF5). In separate tumor nodules from 10 patients, Photofrin uptake was measured by fluorescence after tissue solubilization. RESULTS: Hypoxia existed in the tumors of five patients, with three of these patients demonstrating at least one severely hypoxic nodule. Physiological levels of oxygen were present in the tumors of four patients. An association between tumor size and hypoxia was not evident because some tumor nodules as small as approximately 2 mm in diameter were severely hypoxic. However, even these tumor nodules contained vascular networks. Three patients with severely hypoxic tumor nodules exhibited moderate levels of Photofrin uptake of 3.9 +/- 0.4 to 3.9 +/- 0.5 ng/mg (mean +/- SE). The four patients with tumors of physiological oxygenation did not consistently exhibit high tumor concentrations of Photofrin: mean +/- SE drug uptake among these patients ranged from 0.6 +/- 0.8 to 5.8 +/- 0.5 ng/mg. CONCLUSIONS: Carcinomatosis or sarcomatosis of the i.p. cavity may exhibit severe tumor hypoxia. Photofrin accumulation in tumors varied by a factor of approximately 10x among all patients, and, on average, those with severe hypoxia in at least one nodule did not demonstrate poor Photofrin uptake in separate tumor samples. These data emphasize the need for reconsideration of the generally accepted paradigm of small tumor size, good oxygenation, and good drug delivery because this may vary on an individual tumor basis.
PURPOSE: Response to photodynamic therapy depends on adequate tumor oxygenation as well as sufficient accumulation of photosensitizer in the tumor. The goal of this study was to investigate the presence of hypoxia and retention of the photosensitizer Photofrin in the tumors of patients with intra-abdominal carcinomatosis or sarcomatosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Tumor nodules from 10 patients were studied. In nine of these patients, hypoxia was identified in histological sections of biopsied tumor after administration of the hypoxia marker 2-(2-nitroimidazol-1[H]-yl)-N-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropyl)acetamide (EF5). In separate tumor nodules from 10 patients, Photofrin uptake was measured by fluorescence after tissue solubilization. RESULTS:Hypoxia existed in the tumors of five patients, with three of these patients demonstrating at least one severely hypoxic nodule. Physiological levels of oxygen were present in the tumors of four patients. An association between tumor size and hypoxia was not evident because some tumor nodules as small as approximately 2 mm in diameter were severely hypoxic. However, even these tumor nodules contained vascular networks. Three patients with severely hypoxic tumor nodules exhibited moderate levels of Photofrin uptake of 3.9 +/- 0.4 to 3.9 +/- 0.5 ng/mg (mean +/- SE). The four patients with tumors of physiological oxygenation did not consistently exhibit high tumor concentrations of Photofrin: mean +/- SE drug uptake among these patients ranged from 0.6 +/- 0.8 to 5.8 +/- 0.5 ng/mg. CONCLUSIONS:Carcinomatosis or sarcomatosis of the i.p. cavity may exhibit severe tumor hypoxia. Photofrin accumulation in tumors varied by a factor of approximately 10x among all patients, and, on average, those with severe hypoxia in at least one nodule did not demonstrate poor Photofrin uptake in separate tumor samples. These data emphasize the need for reconsideration of the generally accepted paradigm of small tumor size, good oxygenation, and good drug delivery because this may vary on an individual tumor basis.
Authors: Amanda L Maas; Shirron L Carter; E Paul Wileyto; Joann Miller; Min Yuan; Guoqiang Yu; Amy C Durham; Theresa M Busch Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Mukund Seshadri; David A Bellnier; Lurine A Vaughan; Joseph A Spernyak; Richard Mazurchuk; Thomas H Foster; Barbara W Henderson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Craig E Grossman; Stephen Pickup; Amy Durham; E Paul Wileyto; Mary E Putt; Theresa M Busch Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Imran Rizvi; Sriram Anbil; Nermina Alagic; Jonathan Celli; Jonathan P Celli; Lei Zak Zheng; Akilan Palanisami; Michael D Glidden; Brian W Pogue; Tayyaba Hasan Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Christine Edmonds; Sarah Hagan; Shannon M Gallagher-Colombo; Theresa M Busch; Keith A Cengel Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Yi Hong Ong; Michele M Kim; Jarod C Finlay; Andreea Dimofte; Sunil Singhal; Eli Glatstein; Keith A Cengel; Timothy C Zhu Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 3.609