| Literature DB >> 35008362 |
Ilya Turchin1, Shazia Bano2, Mikhail Kirillin1, Anna Orlova1, Valeriya Perekatova1, Vladimir Plekhanov1, Ekaterina Sergeeva1, Daria Kurakina1, Aleksandr Khilov1, Alexey Kurnikov1, Pavel Subochev1, Marina Shirmanova3, Anastasiya Komarova3, Diana Yuzhakova3, Alena Gavrina3, Srivalleesha Mallidi2,4, Tayyaba Hasan2,5.
Abstract
The newly developed multimodal imaging system combining raster-scan optoacoustic (OA) microscopy and fluorescence (FL) wide-field imaging was used for characterizing the tumor vascular structure with 38/50 μm axial/transverse resolution and assessment of photosensitizer fluorescence kinetics during treatment with novel theranostic agents. A multifunctional photoactivatable multi-inhibitor liposomal (PMILs) nano platform was engineered here, containing a clinically approved photosensitizer, Benzoporphyrin derivative (BPD) in the bilayer, and topoisomerase I inhibitor, Irinotecan (IRI) in its inner core, for a synergetic therapeutic impact. The optimized PMIL was anionic, with the hydrodynamic diameter of 131.6 ± 2.1 nm and polydispersity index (PDI) of 0.05 ± 0.01, and the zeta potential between -14.9 ± 1.04 to -16.9 ± 0.92 mV. In the in vivo studies on BALB/c mice with CT26 tumors were performed to evaluate PMILs' therapeutic efficacy. PMILs demonstrated the best inhibitory effect of 97% on tumor growth compared to the treatment with BPD-PC containing liposomes (PALs), 81%, or IRI containing liposomes (L-[IRI]) alone, 50%. This confirms the release of IRI within the tumor cells upon PMILs triggering by NIR light, which is additionally illustrated by FL monitoring demonstrating enhancement of drug accumulation in tumor initiated by PDT in 24 h after the treatment. OA monitoring revealed the largest alterations of the tumor vascular structure in the PMILs treated mice as compared to BPD-PC or IRI treated mice. The results were further corroborated with histological data that also showed a 5-fold higher percentage of hemorrhages in PMIL treated mice compared to the control groups. Overall, these results suggest that multifunctional PMILs simultaneously delivering PDT and chemotherapy agents along with OA and FL multi-modal imaging offers an efficient and personalized image-guided platform to improve cancer treatment outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: fluorescence imaging; multi-inhibitor liposomes; nanoconstructs; optoacoustic imaging; photodynamic therapy; tumor vasculature
Year: 2021 PMID: 35008362 PMCID: PMC8750546 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1The scheme of the imaging setup for complementary FL and OA monitoring of PDT.
Figure A1Absorption spectra of oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin in comparison with absorption and emission spectra of BPD. The laser lines for OA imaging (532 nm) and FL excitation (690 nm) are also added to the graph.
Figure 2(a) Sequence of CT26 tumor implantation, FL and OA imaging, treatment with PAL, L-[IRI], or PMIL, (b) Schematic representation of the mechanism of action of photoactivatable multi-inhibitor liposomes (PMILs) following photoactivation. The photosensitizer tumoral uptake can be monitored with FL imaging, while the photodestruction of the tumor blood vessels can be monitored with OA imaging.
Figure A2(a) Schematic representation of photoactivatable multi-inhibitor liposomes (PMILs) preparation chemical structures of the lipidated variant of BPD conjugated to 20:0 PC (20:0 PC-BPD) and IRI.HCl. (b) UV-Visible absorption spectra of 20:0 BPD-PC (c) free IRI.HCl and PMILs. (d) Photo-triggered IRI release from PMILs versus IRI release under dark conditions. PMILs were triggered with NIR light (40 J/cm2, 150 mW/cm2) at 37 °C. Data presented as mean ± s.e.m. (n = 3 technical replicates each performed with independent PMILs preparation. (One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test, **** = p < 0.0001, * = p < 0.05).
Physical characterization of PMILs.
| Nanoliposomes | Hydrodynamic Diameter (nm) | Polydispersity Index (PDI) | ζ-Potential (mV) | Irinotecan Encapsulation Efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMILs | 130.5 ± 0.0 | 0.039 ± 0.0 | −16.9 ± 0.9 | 97.0 ± 3.7 |
| PALs | 134.1 ± 0.7 | 0.049 ± 0.0 | −14.9 ± 1.0 | NA |
| L-[IRI] | 130.3 ± 0.2 | 0.065 ± 0.0 | −16.9 ± 1.0 | 95.0 ± 1.5 |
Figure 3CT26 tumor volume dynamics after PDT with PALs, chemotherapy with L-[IRI], and combined therapy with PMILs (M ± SEM). Untreated animals served as control. Arrow indicates the day of treatment. * Indicates statistically significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction).
Figure 4FL monitoring of PDT. Representative fluorescence images were obtained at different time points for mice from PMILs (a) and PALs (b) groups. Red arrows show the tumor nodes. Dynamics of fluorescence signals in tumor (blue and red curves) and surrounding normal tissues (black curves) calculated for a mouse from PALs (c) group and PMILs group (d). Black arrows correspond to the start of light exposure. Mean ± SD.
Fluorescence parameters in CT26 mouse tumor and surrounding non-irradiated tissue calculated from FL imaging data. Mean ± SD.
| Treatment Group | Tissue Type | Accumulation of PS ( | Photobleaching of PS ( | Change in FL Signal 24 h Post-PDT ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMILs | Tumor | 0.78 ± 0.45 | 0.14 ± 0.32 | 3.13 ± 1.40 |
| Surrounding (non-irradiated) tissue | 0.8 ± 0.44 | 0.06 ± 0.09 | 0.51 ± 0.6 | |
| PALs | Tumor | 1.00 ± 0.82 | 0.39 ± 0.14 | 1.8 ± 1.2 |
| Surrounding (non-irradiated) tissue | 1.1 ± 0.99 | 0.15 ± 0.17 | 0.01 ± 0.22 |
Figure 5In vivo OA imaging of the tumors in different treatment groups (a) Representative angiographic OA images obtained for different groups of mice prior to treatment and in the follow-up. Blue arrows indicate the areas of formation of hemorrhages in the PMILs group. (b) The dynamics of the vesselness index (VI, 1/mm3) value in tumor calculated from OA images for each mouse in the groups aiming at the characterization of the observed changes in the microvasculature net as a result of treatment. Scale bar = 1 mm.
Figure 6Histopathological analysis of CT26 tumors in the 72 h after treatment with PMILs group, PALs, or L-[IRI]. (a) H&E staining; the scale bar is 150 µm. (b) IHC for CD31; the scale bar is 150 µm. (c) Percentage of hemorrhage in H&E-stained slides (mean ± SD); * indicates statistically significant differences between the treatment groups (**** = p < 0.0001, *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction). (d) Vesselness index VI (according to OA) versus percentage of hemorrhages (according to H&E staining). Marks show the measurements for each mouse.