4.7 Article

Pretreatment photosensitizer dosimetry reduces variation in tumor response

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.019

Keywords

photodynamic therapy; photodynamic; dosimetry; heterogeneity; treatment planning

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01CA109558, P01CA84203] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compensate for photosensitizer uptake variation in photodynamic therapy (PDT), via control of delivered light dose through photodynamic dose calculation based on online dosimetry of photosensitizer in tissue before treatment. Methods and Materials: Photosensitizer verteporfin was quantified via multiple fluorescence microprobe measurements immediately before treatment. To compensate individual PDT treatments, photodynamic doses were calculated on an individual animal basis, by matching the light delivered to provide an equal photosensitizer dose multiplied by light dose. This was completed for the lower quartile, median, and upper quartile of the photosensitizer distribution. PDT-induced tumor responses were evaluated by the tumor regrowth assay. Results: Verteporfin uptake varied considerably among tumors and within a tumor. The coefficient of variation in the surviving fraction was found significantly decreased in groups compensated to the lower quartile (CL-PDT), the median (CM-PDT), and the upper quartile (CU-PDT) of photosensitizer distribution. The CL-PDT group was significantly less effective compared with NC-PDT (Noncompensated PDT), CM-PDT, and CU-PDT treatments. No significant difference in effectiveness was observed between NC-PDT, CM-PDT, and CU-PDT treatment groups. Conclusions: This research suggests that accurate quantification of tissue photosensitizer levels and subsequent adjustment of light dose will allow for reduced subject variation and improved treatment consistency. (C) 2006 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