| Literature DB >> 35645842 |
Yunong Ma1,2, Fengfeng Xiao2, Cuixia Lu1, Liewei Wen2.
Abstract
Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) with the intrinsic advantages including non-invasiveness, spatiotemporal selectivity, low side-effects, and immune activation ability has been clinically approved for the treatment of head and neck cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Nevertheless, the PDT is only a strategy for local control of primary tumor, that it is hard to remove the residual tumor cells and inhibit the tumor metastasis. Recently, various smart nanomedicine-based strategies are developed to overcome the barriers of traditional PDT including the drawbacks of traditional photosensitizers, limited tissue penetrability of light, inefficient induction of tumor cell death and tumor resistance to the therapy. More notably, a growing number of studies have focused on improving the therapeutic efficiency by eliciting host immune system with versatile nanoplatforms, which heralds a broader clinical application prospect of PDT in the future. Herein, the pathways of PDT induced-tumor destruction, especially the host immune response is summarized, and focusing on the recent progress of nanosystems-enhanced PDT through eliciting innate immunity and adaptive immunity. We expect it will provide some insights for conquering the drawbacks current PDT and expand the range of clinical application through this review.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive immunity; innate immunity; nanosystems; photodynamic therapy; photosensitizers
Year: 2022 PMID: 35645842 PMCID: PMC9130658 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.905078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
FIGURE 1Schematic illustration of the antitumor mechanism of PDT.
Summary of nanocomposites containing photosensitizers for cancer therapy.
| Photosensitizer | Nanoplatforms | Wavelength | Cancer | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porphyrin sodium (Photofrin) | Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) | 630 nm | Breast cancer, cervical cancer |
|
| 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) | 5-ALA-SQ NPs, nanogels, ALA-OHex micelles | 630 nm, 660 nm | Prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer |
|
| Chlorin e6 (Ce6) | rGO-PEG/Ce6 NPs, PEG-Ce6-Gd NPs, Uccinate (TPGS)–IR820/Ce6 micelles | 630 nm, 660 nm, 808 nm | Breast cancer, glioma, melanoma |
|
| Rose Bengal (RB) | Mesoporous silica NPs, RB-loaded peptido-nanomicelles (RBNs) | 532 nm, 585 nm | Glioma, squamous cell carcinoma |
|
| Indocyanine green (ICG) | Holo-Tf-indocyanine green (holo-Tf-ICG) NPs, folate decorated polymeric micelles (FA Co-PMs), DOX/ICG (DI) micellar | 808 nm | Breast cancer, glioma, liver cancer |
|
| Infrared 780 iodide (IR780) | Polydopamine nanoclustered micelles, IR780-DOX-PEG NPs | 808 nm | Breast cancer |
|
| Infrared 820 (IR820) | IR820 1-methyl-tryptophan (IR820-1 MT) NPs, zinc protoporphyrin (ZnPP) conjugated micelles | 808 nm | Breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer |
|
| Infrared 806 (IR806) | Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), IR806 chitosan liposomes | 793 nm, 980 nm | Breast cancer, cervical cancer |
|
Summary of photodynamic therapy and immunotherapy combinatorial treatments.
| Immunity effect | Nanoplatform | Cancer | Methods | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activate NK cells | Liposomes | Melanoma | Loaded with NK cell agonist |
|
| Induce M1 macrophage polarization | Liposomes; metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) | Breast cancer | Nanoparticles wrapped with TAMs/ neutrophil/NK cell membranes; nanoparticles repolarize macrophages |
|
| Activate DCs and increase DCs antigen presentation | Nanocapsule; liposome | Gastric carcinoma | Nanoparticles loaded with DCs agonists |
|
| Activate cytotoxic T lymphocytes and deplete Tregs | Liposome; micelle | Breast cancer | Loaded with drugs against immunosuppressive cells |
|
| Blockade immune checkpoint | Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs); micelle; liposome | Breast cancer; melanoma; bladder cancer; melanoma | Co-administration with CTLA-4 and PD-L1; Or co-delivering the IDO-1 inhibitor |
|
FIGURE 2Example of nanomedicine-based PDT to activate innate immune responses. (A) Schematic Illustration of NK Cell-Membranes-Cloaked Nanoparticles for PDT-Enhanced Cell-Membrane Immunotherapy. (B) Growth curves for the distal tumors. (C) In vivo maturation of DCs (CD80+ and CD86+) from tumor-draining lymph nodes in BALB/c mice following intravenous injection of T-NPs or murine NK-NPs (n = 3 per group). (D) Proportions of tumor-infiltrating CD4+ T cells. (E) Proportions of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells. (F) Pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α) levels in the sera of mice treated with murine NK-NPs-mediated PDT from day 0, day 1, day 3, and day 7 (Deng et al., 2018). (G) Schematic illustration of the tumor-associated-macrophage-membrane-coated upconversion nanoparticles for improved photodynamic immunotherapy. (H) Photographs show representative external views of lung nodules. (I) The survival curve of tumor-bearing mice calculated by Kaplan−Meier estimate. (J) Quantification by flow cytometry of the ratio of CD11b + CD206 + cell populations in the different treatment groups of tumor-bearing mice. (K) ELISA assay of IFN-γ in tumor-bearing mice with different treatments (Chen et al., 2021). Data are means ± SD. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. NS, no significance.
FIGURE 3Example of nanomedicine-based PDT to activate adaptive immune responses. (A) Schematic illustration of an in situ DC vaccine exploiting chimeric cross-linked polymersomes (CCPS) as adjuvant combined with tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) induced by PDT and ICD for MC38 colorectal cancer immunotherapy. (B) Activated DC ratio in tumor-draining lymph nodes (tdLNs) for mice treated with different nanoformulations (n = 3). (C) Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in tumor sites after treatment (n = 3) (Yang et al., 2019b). (D) Schematic illustration of visible-light-triggered prodrug nanoparticles (LT-NPs) combined chemotherapy and PDT to potentiate checkpoint blockade cancer immunotherapy. (E,F) Percentage of (E) matured DCs (CD11c + CD40 + CD86+) and (F) cytotoxic T cells (CD45 + CD3+ CD8+) in lymphocytes after coculture with culture medium containing CT26 cells treated with DOX, VPF, or LT-NPs in the presence or absence of light irradiation (n = 5). (G–I) Percentage of (G) CRT-positive cancer cells (CD45−CRT+), (H) tumor-infiltrating matured dendritic cells (CD11c + CD40 + CD86+), and (I) tumor-infiltrating cytotoxic T cells (CD45 + CD3+ CD8+) on day 7 after treatments (n = 5). (J) Percentage of splenic effector/memory T cells among the CD8+ T cells (CD3+CD8+CD44 + CD62Llow) in mice that experienced CR by LT-NPs (+L) with anti-PD-L1 antibody on day 100 after treatment and naive mice (n = 5). (K) Cytokine levels in serum isolated 20 days after CR mice were rechallenged with secondary tumors, compared to naive mice (n = 5) (Choi et al., 2021). Data are means ± SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.