4.7 Article

Photodynamic Therapy with 3-(1′-Hexyloxyethyl) Pyropheophorbide a for Cancer of the Oral Cavity

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 23, 页码 6605-6613

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1735

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI [PO1CA55791]
  2. Roswell Park Cancer Institute [P30CA16056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The primary objective was to evaluate safety of 3-(1'-hexyloxyethyl) pyropheophorbide-a (HPPH) photodynamic therapy (HPPH-PDT) for dysplasia and early squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). Secondary objectives were the assessment of treatment response and reporters for an effective PDT reaction. Experimental Design: Patients with histologically proven oral dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, or early-stage HNSCC were enrolled in two sequentially conducted dose escalation studies with an expanded cohort at the highest dose level. These studies used an HPPH dose of 4 mg/m(2) and light doses from 50 to 140 J/cm(2). Pathologic tumor responses were assessed at 3 months. Clinical follow up range was 5 to 40 months. PDT induced cross-linking of STAT3 were assessed as potential indicators of PDT effective reaction. Results: Forty patients received HPPH-PDT. Common adverse events were pain and treatment site edema. Biopsy proven complete response rates were 46% for dysplasia and carcinoma in situ and 82% for squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) lesions at 140 J/cm(2). The responses in the carcinoma in situ/dysplasia cohort are not durable. The PDT-induced STAT3 cross-links is significantly higher (P = 0.0033) in SCC than in carcinoma in situ/dysplasia for all light doses. Conclusion: HPPH-PDT is safe for the treatment of carcinoma in situ/dysplasia and early-stage cancer of the oral cavity. Early-stage oral HNSCC seems to respond better to HPPH-PDT in comparison with premalignant lesions. The degree of STAT3 cross-linking is a significant reporter to evaluate HPPH-PDT-mediated photoreaction. Clin Cancer Res; 19(23); 6605-13. (C) 2013 AACR.

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

4.7
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