| Literature DB >> 34098978 |
So-Young Kim1, Eun A Cho2, Sang Mun Bae3, Sang-Yeob Kim4, Do Hyun Park5.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34098978 PMCID: PMC8183063 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-021-02900-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Schematic of the experimental study design. A LED catheter. Insertion of the FPCB (flexible printed circuit board) with a mini-LED bonded to the catheter (outer diameter 2.5 mm) and encapsulation with silicone. B, A conventional optic laser fiber catheter (RD; Medlight, Ecublens, Switzerland). C, A mini-LED catheter. After inserting into the animal model, the mini-LED was turned on by supplying power with the wire. D Follow-up of the experiment. E Comparison of the excised tumor after treatment (left, Photofrin; right, Ce6). Both LED-based i-PDT (100 J/cm2) with Photofrin and Ce6 had better suppression of tumor growth than in other groups. The excised tumor after LED-based i-PDT (25 J/cm2) is shown in this measurement as an addendum
Fig. 2In vivo efficacy of interstitial-photodynamic therapy (i-PDT) in BxPC3 tumor-bearing mice within 15 days in different groups treated with Photofrin (Phf) and chlorin e6 (Ce6). A, Normalized tumor volumes in mice treated with Phf+Catheter, Phf+LED100J, Phf+LED50J, LED only, and Phf only and untreated mice (n = 4 per group). B, Normalized tumor volumes in mice treated with Ce6+Catheter, Ce6+LED100J, Ce6+LED50J, LED only, and Ce6 only and untreated mice (n = 4 per group). C, Quantitative analysis of CD68-positive cells after indicated treatments. D, Representative images of CD68 staining. Scale bars: 50 mm. Asterisks indicate p values for the comparison of each group of irradiated tumors or nonirradiated tumors by one-way ANOVA. *p< 0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001