INTRODUCTION: High-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an emerging technique that provides a powerful, non-invasive tool for in vivo studies of cancer therapy in animal models. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a relatively new treatment modality for prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer mortality in American males. The goal of this study was to evaluate the response of human prostate tumor cells growing as xenografts in athymic nude mice to Pc 4-sensitized PDT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PC-3, a cell line derived from a human prostate malignant tumor, was injected intradermally on the back flanks of athymic nude mice. Two tumors were initiated on each mouse. One was treated and the other served as the control. A second-generation photosensitizing drug Pc 4 (0.6 mg/kg body weight) was delivered to each animal by tail vein injection 48 hours before laser illumination (672 nm, 100 mW/cm(2), 150 J/cm(2)). A dedicated high-field (9.4 T) small-animal MR scanner was used for image acquisitions. A multi-slice multi-echo (MSME) technique, permitting noninvasive in vivo assessment of potential therapeutic effects, was used to measure the T2 values and tumor volumes. Animals were scanned immediately before and after PDT and 24 hours after PDT. T2 values were computed and analyzed for the tumor regions. RESULTS: For the treated tumors, the T2 values significantly increased (P<0.002) 24 hours after PDT (68.2+/- 8.5 milliseconds), compared to the pre-PDT values (55.8+/-6.6 milliseconds). For the control tumors, there was no significant difference (P = 0.53) between the pre-PDT (52.5+/-6.1 milliseconds) and 24-hour post-PDT (54.3+/-6.4 milliseconds) values. Histologic analysis showed that PDT-treated tumors demonstrated necrosis and inflammation that was not seen in the control. DISCUSSION: Changes in tumor T2 values measured by multi-slice multi-echo MR imaging provide an assay that could be useful for clinical monitoring of photodynamic therapy of prostate tumors. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc
INTRODUCTION: High-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an emerging technique that provides a powerful, non-invasive tool for in vivo studies of cancer therapy in animal models. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a relatively new treatment modality for prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer mortality in American males. The goal of this study was to evaluate the response of humanprostate tumor cells growing as xenografts in athymic nude mice to Pc 4-sensitized PDT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PC-3, a cell line derived from a humanprostate malignant tumor, was injected intradermally on the back flanks of athymicnude mice. Two tumors were initiated on each mouse. One was treated and the other served as the control. A second-generation photosensitizing drug Pc 4 (0.6 mg/kg body weight) was delivered to each animal by tail vein injection 48 hours before laser illumination (672 nm, 100 mW/cm(2), 150 J/cm(2)). A dedicated high-field (9.4 T) small-animal MR scanner was used for image acquisitions. A multi-slice multi-echo (MSME) technique, permitting noninvasive in vivo assessment of potential therapeutic effects, was used to measure the T2 values and tumor volumes. Animals were scanned immediately before and after PDT and 24 hours after PDT. T2 values were computed and analyzed for the tumor regions. RESULTS: For the treated tumors, the T2 values significantly increased (P<0.002) 24 hours after PDT (68.2+/- 8.5 milliseconds), compared to the pre-PDT values (55.8+/-6.6 milliseconds). For the control tumors, there was no significant difference (P = 0.53) between the pre-PDT (52.5+/-6.1 milliseconds) and 24-hour post-PDT (54.3+/-6.4 milliseconds) values. Histologic analysis showed that PDT-treated tumors demonstrated necrosis and inflammation that was not seen in the control. DISCUSSION: Changes in tumor T2 values measured by multi-slice multi-echo MR imaging provide an assay that could be useful for clinical monitoring of photodynamic therapy of prostate tumors. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc
Authors: Guoqiang Yu; Turgut Durduran; Chao Zhou; Timothy C Zhu; Jarod C Finlay; Theresa M Busch; S Bruce Malkowicz; Stephen M Hahn; Arjun G Yodh Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Timothy C Zhu; Andreea Dimofte; Jarod C Finlay; Diana Stripp; Theresa Busch; Jeremy Miles; Richard Whittington; S Bruce Malkowicz; Zelig Tochner; Eli Glatstein; Stephen M Hahn Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Timothy C Zhu; Stephen M Hahn; Amy S Kapatkin; Andreea Dimofte; Carmen E Rodriguez; Teodor G Vulcan; Eli Glatstein; R Alex Hsi Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Sean R H Davidson; Ashwini V Kale; Robert A Weersink; Andrew J Evans; Ants Toi; Mark R Gertner; Arjen Bogaards; Brian C Wilson; Joseph L Chin; Mostafa Elhilali; John Trachtenberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jonathan P Celli; Bryan Q Spring; Imran Rizvi; Conor L Evans; Kimberley S Samkoe; Sarika Verma; Brian W Pogue; Tayyaba Hasan Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Kimberley S Samkoe; Alina Chen; Imran Rizvi; Julia A O'Hara; P Jack Hoopes; Stephen P Pereira; Tayyaba Hasan; Brian W Pogue Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alyssa Master; Anthony Malamas; Rachna Solanki; Dana M Clausen; Julie L Eiseman; Anirban Sen Gupta Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 4.939