4.7 Article

IMAGING TUMOR VARIATION IN RESPONSE TO PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY IN PANCREATIC CANCER XENOGRAFT MODELS

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.041

Keywords

Photodynamic therapy; Pancreatic cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Tumor aggressiveness; Orthotopic tumor

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [PO1CA84203]
  2. MRC [G0801588] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0801588] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA084203, R01CA109558] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: A treatment monitoring study investigated the differential effects of orthotopic pancreatic cancer models in response to interstitial photodynamic therapy (PDT), and the validity of using magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate measure of response was assessed. Methods and Materials: Different orthotopic pancreatic cancer xenograft models (AsPC-1 and Panc-1) were used to represent the range of pathophysiology observed in human beings. Identical dose escalation studies (10, 20, and 40J/cm) using interstitial verteporfin PDT were performed, and magnetic resonance imaging with T2-weighted and T1-weighted contrast were used to monitor the total tumor volume and the vascular perfusion volume, respectively. Results: There was a significant amount of necrosis in the slower-growing Panc-1 tumor using high light dose, although complete necrosis was not observed. Lower doses were required for the same level of tumor kill in the faster-growing AsPC-1 cell line. Conclusions: The tumor growth rate and vascular pattern of the tumor affect the optimal PDT treatment regimen, with faster-growing tumors being relatively easier to treat. This highlights the fact that therapy in human beings shows a heterogeneous range of outcomes, and suggests a need for careful individualized treatment outcomes assessment in clinical work. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available