Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1990 Nov;62(5):730–735. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.368

The significance of the nature of the photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy: quantitative and biological studies in the colon.

H Barr 1, A J MacRobert 1, C J Tralau 1, P B Boulos 1, S G Bown 1
PMCID: PMC1971516  PMID: 2147108

Abstract

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) depends on the interaction of light with an administered photosensitiser to produce a local cytotoxic effect. The most widely used photosensitiser is haematoporphyrin derivative (HpD), but newer photosensitisers such as aluminium sulphonated phthalocyanine (A1SPc) are promising. HpD and A1SPc have been compared as photosensitisers for colonic PDT in the rat. Quantitative analysis showed that following injection of a standard photosensitiser dose, A1SPc produced more damage than HpD with increasing energy (fluence). Alteration of the injected dose of photosensitiser did not produce a clear difference. There was a loss of reciprocity for photosensitiser/light combinations at low injected dose (0.5 mg kg-1), both HpD and A1SPc producing no damage. Similarly at high photosensitiser dosage (25 mg kg-1) there was no quantitative difference between A1SPc and HpD. Photosensitiser photodegradation at low photosensitiser doses, and light attenuation by high tissue concentrations of A1SPc account for these findings. PDT with either agent produced the same histological damage and full thickness necrosis produced no mechanical weakening of the colon measured by the bursting pressure. The submucosal collagen was preserved and healing was by regeneration.

Full text

PDF
730

Images in this article

732Figure 5
on p.732
733Figure 6
on p.733
733Figure 7
on p.733

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barr H., Tralau C. J., Boulos P. B., MacRobert A. J., Tilly R., Bown S. G. The contrasting mechanisms of colonic collagen damage between photodynamic therapy and thermal injury. Photochem Photobiol. 1987 Nov;46(5):795–800. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04850.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barr H., Tralau C. J., MacRobert A. J., Krasner N., Boulos P. B., Clark C. G., Bown S. G. Photodynamic therapy in the normal rat colon with phthalocyanine sensitisation. Br J Cancer. 1987 Aug;56(2):111–118. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1987.166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berenbaum M. C., Akande S. L., Bonnett R., Kaur H., Ioannou S., White R. D., Winfield U. J. meso-Tetra(hydroxyphenyl)porphyrins, a new class of potent tumour photosensitisers with favourable selectivity. Br J Cancer. 1986 Nov;54(5):717–725. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1986.232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berenbaum M. C., Bonnett R., Scourides P. A. In vivo biological activity of the components of haematoporphyrin derivative. Br J Cancer. 1982 Apr;45(4):571–581. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1982.94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chan W. S., Svensen R., Phillips D., Hart I. R. Cell uptake, distribution and response to aluminium chloro sulphonated phthalocyanine, a potential anti-tumour photosensitizer. Br J Cancer. 1986 Feb;53(2):255–263. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1986.43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dougherty T. J. Photosensitizers: therapy and detection of malignant tumors. Photochem Photobiol. 1987 Jun;45(6):879–889. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb07898.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kinsey J. H., Cortese D. A., Neel H. B. Thermal considerations in murine tumor killing using hematoporphyrin derivative phototherapy. Cancer Res. 1983 Apr;43(4):1562–1567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pantelides M. L., Moore J. V., Blacklock N. J. A comparison of serum kinetics and tissue distribution of photofrin II following intravenous and intraperitoneal injection in the mouse. Photochem Photobiol. 1989 Jan;49(1):67–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1989.tb04079.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Potter W. R., Mang T. S., Dougherty T. J. The theory of photodynamic therapy dosimetry: consequences of photo-destruction of sensitizer. Photochem Photobiol. 1987 Jul;46(1):97–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04741.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rosenthal I., Murali Krishna C., Riesz P., Ben-Hur E. The role of molecular oxygen in the photodynamic effect of phthalocyanines. Radiat Res. 1986 Jul;107(1):136–142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Selman S. H., Kreimer-Birnbaum M., Chaudhuri K., Garbo G. M., Seaman D. A., Keck R. W., Ben-Hur E., Rosenthal I. Photodynamic treatment of transplantable bladder tumors in rodents after pretreatment with chloroaluminum tetrasulfophthalocyanine. J Urol. 1986 Jul;136(1):141–145. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)44759-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tralau C. J., Barr H., Sandeman D. R., Barton T., Lewin M. R., Bown S. G. Aluminum sulfonated phthalocyanine distribution in rodent tumors of the colon, brain and pancreas. Photochem Photobiol. 1987 Nov;46(5):777–781. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04847.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tralau C. J., Young A. R., Walker N. P., Vernon D. I., MacRobert A. J., Brown S. B., Bown S. G. Mouse skin photosensitivity with dihaematoporphyrin ether (DHE) and aluminium sulphonated phthalocyanine (AlSPc): a comparative study. Photochem Photobiol. 1989 Mar;49(3):305–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1989.tb04111.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES