PURPOSE: A phase II trial of Photofrin-mediated i.p. photodynamic therapy shown in a previous report limited efficacy and significant acute, but not chronic, toxicity. A secondary aim of this trial and the subject of this report is to determine Photofrin uptake in tumor and normal tissues. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received Photofrin, 2.5 mg/kg, i.v., 48 hours before debulking surgery. Photofrin uptake was measured by spectroflurometric analysis of drug extracted from tumor and normal tissues removed at surgery. Differences in drug uptake among these tissues were statistically considered using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Photofrin concentration was measured in 301 samples collected from 58 of 100 patients enrolled on the trial. In normal tissues, drug uptake significantly (P<0.0001) differed as a function of seven different tissue types. In the toxicity-limiting tissue of intestine, the model-based mean (SE) Photofrin level was 2.70 ng/mg (0.32 ng/mg) and 3.42 ng/mg (0.24 ng/mg) in full-thickness large and small intestine, respectively. In tumors, drug uptake significantly (P=0.0015) differed as a function of patient cohort: model-based mean Photofrin level was 3.32 to 5.31 ng/mg among patients with ovarian, gastric, or small bowel cancer; 2.09 to 2.45 ng/mg among patients with sarcoma and appendiceal or colon cancer; and 0.93 ng/mg in patients with pseudomyxoma. Ovarian, gastric, and small bowel cancers showed significantly higher Photofrin uptake than full-thickness large and/or small intestine. However, the ratio of mean drug level in tumor versus intestine was modest (<or=2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Some selectivity is found in Photofrin uptake between tumor and normal tissues of the peritoneal cavity, but absolute differences in drug uptake relative to toxicity-limiting normal tissues (intestine) are small. This narrow differential in drug selectivity likely contributes to a narrow window in therapeutic application, which has been previously reported.
PURPOSE: A phase II trial of Photofrin-mediated i.p. photodynamic therapy shown in a previous report limited efficacy and significant acute, but not chronic, toxicity. A secondary aim of this trial and the subject of this report is to determine Photofrin uptake in tumor and normal tissues. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Patients received Photofrin, 2.5 mg/kg, i.v., 48 hours before debulking surgery. Photofrin uptake was measured by spectroflurometric analysis of drug extracted from tumor and normal tissues removed at surgery. Differences in drug uptake among these tissues were statistically considered using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Photofrin concentration was measured in 301 samples collected from 58 of 100 patients enrolled on the trial. In normal tissues, drug uptake significantly (P<0.0001) differed as a function of seven different tissue types. In the toxicity-limiting tissue of intestine, the model-based mean (SE) Photofrin level was 2.70 ng/mg (0.32 ng/mg) and 3.42 ng/mg (0.24 ng/mg) in full-thickness large and small intestine, respectively. In tumors, drug uptake significantly (P=0.0015) differed as a function of patient cohort: model-based mean Photofrin level was 3.32 to 5.31 ng/mg among patients with ovarian, gastric, or small bowel cancer; 2.09 to 2.45 ng/mg among patients with sarcoma and appendiceal or colon cancer; and 0.93 ng/mg in patients with pseudomyxoma. Ovarian, gastric, and small bowel cancers showed significantly higher Photofrin uptake than full-thickness large and/or small intestine. However, the ratio of mean drug level in tumor versus intestine was modest (<or=2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Some selectivity is found in Photofrin uptake between tumor and normal tissues of the peritoneal cavity, but absolute differences in drug uptake relative to toxicity-limiting normal tissues (intestine) are small. This narrow differential in drug selectivity likely contributes to a narrow window in therapeutic application, which has been previously reported.
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: Harry Quon; Craig E Grossman; Jarod C Finlay; Timothy C Zhu; Clarice S Clemmens; Kelly M Malloy; Theresa M Busch Journal: Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.631
Authors: Erin C Tracy; Mary J Bowman; Ravindra K Pandey; Barbara W Henderson; Heinz Baumann Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: S P Pereira; L Ayaru; R Ackroyd; D Mitton; G Fullarton; M Zammit; Z Grzebieniak; H Messmann; M-A Ortner; L Gao; M M Trinh; J Spénard Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Patrizia Agostinis; Kristian Berg; Keith A Cengel; Thomas H Foster; Albert W Girotti; Sandra O Gollnick; Stephen M Hahn; Michael R Hamblin; Asta Juzeniene; David Kessel; Mladen Korbelik; Johan Moan; Pawel Mroz; Dominika Nowis; Jacques Piette; Brian C Wilson; Jakub Golab Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Cátia S M Ferreira; Melissa C Cheung; Sotiris Missailidis; Stuart Bisland; Jean Gariépy Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2008-12-22 Impact factor: 16.971