4.5 Article

Explicit dosimetry for 2-(1-hexyloxyethyl)-2-devinyl pyropheophorbide-a-mediated photodynamic therapy: macroscopic singlet oxygen modeling

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.20.12.128003

关键词

photodynamic therapy; explicit dosimetry; singlet oxygen; 2-(1-hexyloxyethyl)-2-devinyl pyropheophorbide-a photosensitizer; photodynamic therapy-induced necrosis; in vivo mice study

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 CA 154562, P01 CA87971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type II photodynamic therapy (PDT) is based on the photochemical reactions mediated through an interaction between a photosensitizer, ground-state oxygen ([O-3(2)]), and light excitation at an appropriate wavelength, which results in production of reactive singlet oxygen ([O-1(2)](rx)). We use an empirical macroscopic model based on four photochemical parameters for the calculation of [O-1(2)](rx) threshold concentration ([O-1(2)](rx),(sh)) causing tissue necrosis in tumors after PDT. For this reason, 2-(1-hexyloxyethyl)-2-devinyl pyropheophorbide-a (HPPH)mediated PDT was performed interstitially on mice with radiation-induced fibrosarcoma (RIF) tumors. A linear light source at 665 nm with total energy released per unit length of 12 to 100 J/cm and source power per unit length (LS) of 12 to 150 mW/cm was used to induce different radii of necrosis. Then the amount of [O-1(2)](rx) calculated by the macroscopic model incorporating explicit PDT dosimetry of light fluence distribution, tissue optical properties, and HPPH concentration was correlated to the necrotic radius to obtain the model parameters and [O-1(2)](rx,sh). We provide evidence that [O-1(2)](rx) is a better dosimetric quantity for predicting the treatment outcome than PDT dose, which is proportional to the time integral of the products of the photosensitizer concentration and light fluence rate. (C) 2015 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据