Ana Luiza Ribeiro de Souza1, Ethan LaRochelle2, Kayla Marra2, Jason Gunn2, Scott C Davis2, Kimberley S Samkoe3, M Shane Chapman4, Edward V Maytin5, Tayyaba Hasan6, Brian W Pogue7. 1. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA; CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasilia 70040-020, Brazil. 2. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA. 3. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA; Department of Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 6. Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. 7. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA; Department of Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA. Electronic address: brian.w.pogue@dartmouth.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sunlight can activate photodynamic therapy (PDT), and this is a proven strategy to reduce pain caused byconventional PDT treatment, but assessment of this and other alternative low dose rate light sources, and their efficacy, has not been studied in an objective, controlled pre-clinical setting. This study used three objective assays to assess the efficacy of different PDT treatment regimens, using PpIX fluorescence as a photophysical measure, STAT3 cross-linking as a photochemical measure, and keratinocyte damage as a photobiological measure. METHODS: Nude mouse skin was used along with in vivo measures of photosensitizer fluorescence, keratinocyte nucleus damage from pathology, and STAT3 cross-linking from Western blot analysis. Light sources compared included a low fluence rate red LED panel, compact fluorescent bulbs, halogen bulbs and direct sunlight, as compared to traditional PDT delivery with conventional and fractionated high fluence rate red LED light delivery. RESULTS: Of the three biomarkers, two had strong correlation to the PpIX-weighted light dose, which is calculated as the product of the treatment light dose (J/cm2) and the normalized PpIX absorption spectra. Comparison of STAT3 cross-linking to PpIX-weighted light dose had an R=0.74, and comparison of keratinocyte nuclear damage R=0.70. There was little correlation to PpIX fluorescence. These assays indicate most of the low fluence rate treatment modalities were as effective as conventional PDT, while fractionated PDT showed the most damage. CONCLUSIONS: Daylight or artificial light PDT provides an alternative schedule for delivery of drug-light treatment, and this pre-clinical assay demonstrated that in vivo assays of damage could be used to objectively predict a clinical outcome in this altered delivery process.
BACKGROUND: Sunlight can activate photodynamic therapy (PDT), and this is a proven strategy to reduce pain caused byconventional PDT treatment, but assessment of this and other alternative low dose rate light sources, and their efficacy, has not been studied in an objective, controlled pre-clinical setting. This study used three objective assays to assess the efficacy of different PDT treatment regimens, using PpIX fluorescence as a photophysical measure, STAT3 cross-linking as a photochemical measure, and keratinocyte damage as a photobiological measure. METHODS: Nude mouse skin was used along with in vivo measures of photosensitizer fluorescence, keratinocyte nucleus damage from pathology, and STAT3 cross-linking from Western blot analysis. Light sources compared included a low fluence rate red LED panel, compact fluorescent bulbs, halogen bulbs and direct sunlight, as compared to traditional PDT delivery with conventional and fractionated high fluence rate red LED light delivery. RESULTS: Of the three biomarkers, two had strong correlation to the PpIX-weighted light dose, which is calculated as the product of the treatment light dose (J/cm2) and the normalized PpIX absorption spectra. Comparison of STAT3 cross-linking to PpIX-weighted light dose had an R=0.74, and comparison of keratinocyte nuclear damage R=0.70. There was little correlation to PpIX fluorescence. These assays indicate most of the low fluence rate treatment modalities were as effective as conventional PDT, while fractionated PDT showed the most damage. CONCLUSIONS: Daylight or artificial light PDT provides an alternative schedule for delivery of drug-light treatment, and this pre-clinical assay demonstrated that in vivo assays of damage could be used to objectively predict a clinical outcome in this altered delivery process.
Authors: Nathalie C Zeitouni; Ulas Sunar; Daniel J Rohrbach; Anne D Paquette; David A Bellnier; Yi Shi; Gregory Wilding; Thomas H Foster; Barbara W Henderson Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: H S de Bruijn; A van der Ploeg-van den Heuvel; H J C M Sterenborg; D J Robinson Journal: J Photochem Photobiol B Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 6.252
Authors: Dominic J Robinson; Henriëtte S de Bruijn; Willem M Star; Henricus J C M Sterenborg Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: B W Henderson; T M Busch; L A Vaughan; N P Frawley; D Babich; T A Sosa; J D Zollo; A S Dee; M T Cooper; D A Bellnier; W R Greco; A R Oseroff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M Hage; P D Siersema; H van Dekken; E W Steyerberg; J Haringsma; W van de Vrie; T E Grool; R L P van Veen; H J C M Sterenborg; E J Kuipers Journal: Gut Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Kayla Marra; Ethan P LaRochelle; M Shane Chapman; P Jack Hoopes; Karina Lukovits; Edward V Maytin; Tayyaba Hasan; Brian W Pogue Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Ethan P M LaRochelle; Michael Shane Chapman; Edward V Maytin; Tayyaba Hasan; Brian W Pogue Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Urvashi Kaw; Muneeb Ilyas; Taylor Bullock; Lisa Rittwage; Margo Riha; Allison Vidimos; Bo Hu; Christine B Warren; Edward V Maytin Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 11.527