This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Iinuma, S. Articles by Hasan, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Iinuma, S. Articles by Hasan, T.

In Vivo Fluence Rate and Fractionation Effects on Tumor Response and Photobleaching

Photodynamic Therapy with Two Photosensitizers in an Orthotopic Rat Tumor Model¹

Wellman Laboratories of Photomedicine, Department of Dermatology [K. T. S., G. W., M. M., M. B., T. M., T. H.] and Department of Urology [S. I.], Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114

The effect of fluence rate and light fractionation on phototoxicity was investigated in vivo in an orthotopic rat bladder tumor model. Two photosensitizers, benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid ring A and 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced protoporphyrin IX, were studied. For a given cumulative light dose of 30 J/cm², enhanced tumor destruction was observed from both photosensitizers when using either lower fluence rates or fractionated light delivery. Photobleaching experiments in vivo demonstrated that the photobleaching rate, however, was not fluence rate dependent. The fluence rate and light fractionation effects on tumor phototoxicity lead to rapid local depletion in oxygen concentration that inhibited subsequent photochemical reactions necessary for efficient photodestruction of tumor cells. Nicotinamide did not enhance photodynamic therapy efficacy, suggesting that the added increase of oxygen within the tumor was not sufficient to enhance photodestruction of hypoxic cell fractions. The independence of the photobleaching rate with fluence rate suggests distinct mechanisms, at least in part, of photodestruction of the tumor and the photosensitizer and that the rate of photosensitizer photobleaching may not always be an appropriate monitor for singlet oxygen availability and photodynamic therapy dosimetry.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Z. Xiao, S. Halls, D. Dickey, J. Tulip, and R. B. Moore Fractionated versus Standard Continuous Light Delivery in Interstitial Photodynamic Therapy of Dunning Prostate Carcinomas Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2007; 13(24): 7496 - 7505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. W. Pogue, J. A. O'Hara, E. Demidenko, C. M. Wilmot, I. A. Goodwin, B. Chen, H. M. Swartz, and T. Hasan Photodynamic Therapy with Verteporfin in the Radiation-induced Fibrosarcoma-1 Tumor Causes Enhanced Radiation Sensitivity Cancer Res., March 1, 2003; 63(5): 1025 - 1033. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. E. J. G. J. Dolmans, A. Kadambi, J. S. Hill, K. R. Flores, J. N. Gerber, J. P. Walker, I. H. M. B. Rinkes, R. K. Jain, and D. Fukumura Targeting Tumor Vasculature and Cancer Cells in Orthotopic Breast Tumor by Fractionated Photosensitizer Dosing Photodynamic Therapy Cancer Res., August 1, 2002; 62(15): 4289 - 4294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]