BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We examined tumor response to methylene blue (MB)-mediated photodynamic therapy (PDT) in a murine tumor model. The goal was to investigate the effects of drug-light interval (DLI), injection vehicle, and fluence on tumor destruction. Fluorescence and reflectance spectroscopy informed our understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMT6 tumor cells were implanted intradermally on the backs of female BALB/c mice and grown to ∼4-mm diameter. Mice were given a 35 µl, single site, intratumor injection of 500 µg/ml MB administered in either a water or a 5% ethanol-5% Cremophor-90% saline vehicle. PDT was begun either immediately or after a 1-hour DLI with a fluence rate of 60 mW/cm(2). Each animal received a fluence of 240 or 480 J/cm(2). Fluorescence and reflectance spectra were captured before and during irradiation. RESULTS: A protocol consisting of the Cremophor-based vehicle, 0 DLI, and a fluence of 480 J/cm(2) was the most effective, with a 55% cure rate as measured by no evidence of tumor 90 days after PDT. Use of the water vehicle with this fluence and DLI reduced the cure rate to 20%. Reducing the fluence to 240 J/cm(2) similarly reduced treatment efficacy with 0 and 1-hour DLIs. Univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis identified increased fluence, 0 versus 1-hour DLI, and the Cremophor versus water vehicle as highly significant independent predictors of long term tumor control (P < 0.01 in each case). Multivariate analysis with model selection revealed fluence and injection vehicle as the best predictors of survival hazards. Fluorescence spectroscopy in vivo showed that MB fluorescence decreased monotonically during a 2-hour dark interval but was restored by irradiation. Reflectance spectroscopy revealed that MB at this injected concentration attenuates the treatment beam significantly. CONCLUSION: Sensitizer delivery vehicle, drug-light interval, and fluence contribute significantly to the tumor response to MB-mediated PDT.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We examined tumor response to methylene blue (MB)-mediated photodynamic therapy (PDT) in a murinetumor model. The goal was to investigate the effects of drug-light interval (DLI), injection vehicle, and fluence on tumor destruction. Fluorescence and reflectance spectroscopy informed our understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMT6 tumor cells were implanted intradermally on the backs of female BALB/c mice and grown to ∼4-mm diameter. Mice were given a 35 µl, single site, intratumor injection of 500 µg/ml MB administered in either a water or a 5% ethanol-5% Cremophor-90% saline vehicle. PDT was begun either immediately or after a 1-hour DLI with a fluence rate of 60 mW/cm(2). Each animal received a fluence of 240 or 480 J/cm(2). Fluorescence and reflectance spectra were captured before and during irradiation. RESULTS: A protocol consisting of the Cremophor-based vehicle, 0 DLI, and a fluence of 480 J/cm(2) was the most effective, with a 55% cure rate as measured by no evidence of tumor 90 days after PDT. Use of the water vehicle with this fluence and DLI reduced the cure rate to 20%. Reducing the fluence to 240 J/cm(2) similarly reduced treatment efficacy with 0 and 1-hour DLIs. Univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis identified increased fluence, 0 versus 1-hour DLI, and the Cremophor versus water vehicle as highly significant independent predictors of long term tumor control (P < 0.01 in each case). Multivariate analysis with model selection revealed fluence and injection vehicle as the best predictors of survival hazards. Fluorescence spectroscopy in vivo showed that MB fluorescence decreased monotonically during a 2-hour dark interval but was restored by irradiation. Reflectance spectroscopy revealed that MB at this injected concentration attenuates the treatment beam significantly. CONCLUSION: Sensitizer delivery vehicle, drug-light interval, and fluence contribute significantly to the tumor response to MB-mediated PDT.
Authors: Dyego Miranda; Kevin Carter; Dandan Luo; Shuai Shao; Jumin Geng; Changning Li; Upendra Chitgupi; Steven G Turowski; Nasi Li; G Ekin Atilla-Gokcumen; Joseph A Spernyak; Jonathan F Lovell Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Ananthakrishnan Soundaram Jeevarathinam; Jeanne E Lemaster; Fang Chen; Eric Zhao; Jesse V Jokerst Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Kevin A Carter; Shuai Shao; Matthew I Hoopes; Dandan Luo; Bilal Ahsan; Vladimir M Grigoryants; Wentao Song; Haoyuan Huang; Guojian Zhang; Ravindra K Pandey; Jumin Geng; Blaine A Pfeifer; Charles P Scholes; Joaquin Ortega; Mikko Karttunen; Jonathan F Lovell Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Ningyan Hu; Layal Antoury; Timothy M Baran; Soumya Mitra; C Frank Bennett; Frank Rigo; Thomas H Foster; Thurman M Wheeler Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Lucimara R Carobeli; Lyvia E de F Meirelles; Gabrielle M Z F Damke; Edilson Damke; Maria V F de Souza; Natália L Mari; Kayane H Mashiba; Cristiane S Shinobu-Mesquita; Raquel P Souza; Vânia R S da Silva; Renato S Gonçalves; Wilker Caetano; Márcia E L Consolaro Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 6.321