Advertisement

Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 121–126 | Cite as

Development of an alternative light source to lasers for photodynamic therapy: 2. Comparative in vivo tumour response characteristics

  • C. Whitehurst
  • J. D. Humphries
  • J. V. Moore
Original Articles

Abstract

The performance of a low cost, table-top/portable light source was tested against an argon ion pumped dye laser for in vivo photodynamic therapy (PDT). The prototype delivers up to 1 W via a 4 mm flexible lightguide within a 30 nm bandwidth centred at any wavelength from 300 nm to 1200 nm at fluence rates of up to 8 W cm−2. An in situ bioassay using regrowth delay of tumour T50/80 was used to quantify the relative efficacy of the prototype with a laser. The tumours were sensitized with haematoporphyrin derivative (HpD) and externally irradiated. There was no significant difference in the response of the tumour to treatment between the two light sources (p = 0.69). Mean growth delays ranged from 2 days (light dose 10 J cm−2) to 20 days (light dose 100 J cm−2). The estimate for the difference in means (laser minus prototype growth delay) was only 0.66 days and was not statistically significant. This in vivo study demonstrates that the prototype is equivalent to a laser in PDT effect. The device has low capital/running cost, is simple to use and is one of the most powerful, spectrally efficient non-laser PDT sources available.

Key words

Photodynamic therapy Haematoporphyrin derivative In vivo Laser Light source Murine tumour 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Henderson BW, Dougherty TJ. How does photo-dynamic therapy work?Photochem Photobiol 1992,55:145–57Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barr H, Boulos PB, MacRoberts AJ et al. Comparison of lasers for photodynamic therapy with a phthalocyanine photosensitiser.Lasers Med Science 1989,4:7–12Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forbes IJ, Ward AD, Jacka FJ et al. Multidisciplinary approach to phototherapy of human cancers. In: Doiron DR, Gomer CJ (eds)Porphyrin Localization and Treatment of Tumours. New York: Alan Liss, 1984:693–708Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Szeimies R-M, Hein R, Baümler B et al. A possible new incoherent lamp for photodynamic treatment of superficial skin lesions.Acta Derm Venereal (Stokh) 1994,74:117–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang JZ, Van Vugt DA, Kennedy JC, Reid RL. Intrauterine 5-amino levulinic acid induces selective fluorescence and photodynamic ablation of the rat endometrium.Photochem Photobiol 1993,57:803–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Selman SH, Hampton JA, Morgon AR et al. Copper benzochlorin, a novel photosensitiser for photodynamic therapy: Effects on a transplantable urothelial tumour.Photochem Photobiol 1993,57:681–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hampton JA, Goldblath PJ, Selman SH. Photodynamic therapy: A new modality for the treatment of cancer.Ann Clin Lab Sci 1994,24:203–10Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krosl G, Korbelick M, Dougherty GJ. Induction of immune cell infiltration into murine SCCVII tumour by Photofrin-based photodynamic therapy.Br J Cancer 1995,71:549–55Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whitehurst C, Byrne K, Moore JV. Development of an alternative light source to lasers for photodynamic therapy: 1. Comparative in vitro dose response characteristics.Lasers Med Science 1993,8:259–67Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weishaupt KR, Gomer CJ, Dougherty TJ. Identification of singlet oxygen as a toxic agent in photo-inactivation of a murine tumour.Cancer Res. 1986,36:2326–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Begg AC. Analysis of growth delay data: Potential pitfalls.Br J Cancer 1980,41 Suppl. IV:93–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moore JV. The dynamics of tumour cords in an irradiated mouse mammary carcinoma with a large hypoxic cell component.Jpn J Cancer Res (Gann),79:236–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kallman RF. Measurements of effects on tumours by growth/regrowth assays. In: Kallman RF (ed)Rodent Tumor Models in Experimental Cancer Therapy. New York: Pergamon, 1987 Chap 5Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fingar VH, Henderson BW. Drug and light dose dependence of PDT: A study of tumour and normal tissue response.Photochem Photobiol 1987,46:837–41Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marijnissen JPA, Versteeg JAC, Star WM, Putten WLJ. Tumour and normal tissue response to interstitial photodynamic therapy of the rat R-1 rhabdomyosarcoma.Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 1992,22:963–72Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilson D, Dixon B, Ash DV et al. The response of a rodent fibrosarcoma to superficial/interstitial photochemotherapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy.Radiother Oncol 1990,18:271–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore JV. The tumour bed effect reflected in the radius of tumour cords.Brit J Rad 1985,58:685–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benstead K, Moore JV. Vascular function and probability of skin necrosis after photodynamic therapy: An experimental study.Br J Cancer 1988,57:451–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© W.B. Saunders Company Ltd 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Whitehurst
    • 1
  • J. D. Humphries
    • 1
  • J. V. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Laser Oncology Programme, Cancer Research Campaign Department of Experimental Radiation OncologyPaterson Institute for Cancer Research, Christie Hospital (NHS) TrustManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations