| Literature DB >> 35372087 |
Ping Zhang1, Ting Han2, Hui Xia3, Lijie Dong2, Liuqing Chen1, Li Lei1.
Abstract
Comprehensive cancer treatments have been widely studied. Traditional treatment methods (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy), despite ablating tumors, inevitably damage normal cells and cause serious complications. Photodynamic therapy (PDT), with its low rate of trauma, accurate targeting, synergism, repeatability, has displayed great advantages in the treatment of tumors. In recent years, nanotech-based PDT has provided a new modality for cancer treatment. Direct modification of PSs by nanotechnology or the delivery of PSs by nanocarriers can improve their targeting, specificity, and PDT efficacy for tumors. In this review, we strive to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview, on various aspects of the types, characteristics, and research progress of photosensitizers and nanomaterials used in PDT. And the application progress and relative limitations of nanotech-PDT in non-melanoma skin cancer and melanoma are also summarized.Entities:
Keywords: metastatic melanoma; nanoparticle; nanotechnology; nonmelanoma skin cancer; photodynamic therapy; photosensitizer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35372087 PMCID: PMC8966402 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.836397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Action mechanism of PDT. First-, second-, and third-generation PSs absorb photons from different types of light sources and transfer energy (between the excited state and ground state) to generate 1O2 (II type) or superoxide anion (I type) to kill cells.
Figure 2Effects of topical PDT on cancer/tumor cells and therapeutic strategies for enhancing ALA-based tumor therapy (increasing PpIX synthesis, reducing PpIX conversion, and inhibiting PpIX efflux).
Studies about nano-PDT for NMSC treatment.
| References, Years | Characteristics of PSs | Wavelength of excitation | Time-window between PSs application and irradiation | Efficiency | Adverse effects | Design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buchholz J, et al. 2007 ( | LP formulation of meta-(Tetrahydroxyphenyl)Chlorin (m-THPC) | 652 nm diode laser | 0.15 mg m-THPC/kg body weigh, cephalic or femoral vein injection, treatment time (200s) | 1-year control rate was 75% | local erythema and edema in 15% of the cases | cats-cSCC, in |
| Flickinger I, et al. 2018 ( | LP phosphorylated m-THPC, dosage of 0.15mg/kg body weight | 652 nm diode laser | 6 hours after injection, 10J/cm2 treatment time of 100 s, 20J/cm2 within 200s | overall response rate was 84% with a mean progression-free interval of 35 months | Local erythema and edema in 42% of cats shortly after PDT | cats-SCC, in |
| Wozniak M, et al. 2021 ( | curcumin encapsulated in hydrogenated soy phosphatidylcholine LPs | blue light 2.5 J/cm2 | 4h of pre-incubation | 10 μM concentration caused decreased viability in SCC-25 (34%), MUG-Mel2 (27%) and HaCaT (11%) | / | melanoma MUG-Mel2, SCC-25, HaCaT cells, in |
| Master A, et al. 2013 ( | silicon phthalocyanine-4 (Pc 4) packaging within polymeric micelles that are surface-decorated with GE11-peptides | 1) photoirradiated 400s | 1) incubation times varying from 2h to 24h | 1) enhanced Pc 4 uptake and significant cell-killing | / | 1) EGFR-overexpressing SCC-15, and in |
| Wang X, et al. 2015 ( | ALA-loaded polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) NPs | helium–neon laser (632.8nm) | topically cream containing 0.8% ALA, combination of microneedles | enhanced protoporphyrin IX production; decreased tumor sizes | / | UV-induced mice cSCC |
| Keyal U, et al. 2018 ( | ZnPc-loaded chitosan/mPEG-PLA NPs | 670 nm diode laser | after microneedles-pretreatment, topical application | the effect of PDT was significantly better with Z-CPP compared to free ZnPc | no dark toxicity, without systemic toxicity | primary cultured cSCC cells from UV-induced SKH-1 SCC mice, in |
| Morton CA, et al. 2018 ( | BF-200 ALA gel | red light (635nm) | topical application, two PDT sessions 1 week apart | complete responders: 93·4% in ALA droup, 91·8% in the MAL group | randomized, multinational, noninferiority, phase III trial in Germany and the U.K non-aggressive BCCs | |
| Salmivuori M, et al. 2020 ( | Hexyl aminolevulinate (HAL2%) vs. MAL 16%, BF-200 ALA 7.8% | topital application after 3h, illuminated 7min and 24s | lesion clearance: 93.8% for MAL, 90.9% for BF-200 ALA and 87.9% for HAL | pain, swelling, oedema, erythema and haematoma in the treatment area | prospective, non-aggressive BCCs |
Figure 3Active and passive forms of PSs or chemotherapeutics in combination with nanocarriers in PDT for skin cancer.