Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1999 Mar;79(7-8):1061–1066. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690170

Photodynamic therapy with mTHPC and polyethylene glycol-derived mTHPC: a comparative study on human tumour xenografts

H-B Ris 1, T Krueger 1, A Giger 2, C K Lim 3, J C M Stewart 4, U Althaus 1, H J Altermatt 2
PMCID: PMC2362256  PMID: 10098737

Abstract

The photosensitizing properties of m-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin (mTHPC) and polyethylene glycol-derivatized mTHPC (pegylated mTHPC) were compared in nude mice bearing human malignant mesothelioma, squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma xenografts. Laser light (20 J/cm2) at 652 nm was delivered to the tumour (surface irradiance) and to an equal-sized area of the hind leg of the animals after i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg body weight mTHPC and an equimolar dose of pegylated mTHPC, respectively. The extent of tumour necrosis and normal tissue injury was assessed by histology. Both mTHPC and pegylated mTHPC catalyse photosensitized necrosis in mesothelioma xenografts at drug-light intervals of 1–4 days. The onset of action of pegylated mTHPC seemed slower but significantly exceeds that of mTHPC by days 3 and 4 with the greatest difference being noted at day 4. Pegylated mTHPC also induced significantly larger photonecrosis than mTHPC in squamous cell xenografts but not in adenocarcinoma at day 4, where mTHPC showed greatest activity. The degree of necrosis induced by pegylated mTHPC was the same for all three xenografts. mTHPC led to necrosis of skin and underlying muscle at a drug-light interval of 1 day but minor histological changes only at drug-light intervals from 2–4 days. In contrast, pegylated mTHPC did not result in histologically detectable changes in normal tissues under the same treatment conditions at any drug-light interval assessed. In this study, pegylated mTHPC had advantages as a photosensitizer compared to mTHPC.

Tissue concentrations of mTHPC and pegylated mTHPC were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography in non-irradiated animals 4 days after administration. There was no significant difference in tumour uptake between the two sensitizers in mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma xenografts. Tissue concentration measurements were of limited use for predicting photosensitization in this model. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaign

Keywords: photodynamic therapy, mTHPC, MD-mTHPC, xenografts

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.3 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Alian W., Andersson-Engels S., Svanberg K., Svanberg S. Laser-induced fluorescence studies of meso-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)chlorin in malignant and normal tissues in rats. Br J Cancer. 1994 Nov;70(5):880–885. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allémann E., Brasseur N., Benrezzak O., Rousseau J., Kudrevich S. V., Boyle R. W., Leroux J. C., Gurny R., Van Lier J. E. PEG-coated poly(lactic acid) nanoparticles for the delivery of hexadecafluoro zinc phthalocyanine to EMT-6 mouse mammary tumours. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1995 May;47(5):382–387. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1995.tb05815.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Altermatt H. J., Gebbers J. O., Laissue J. A. Heavy water delays growth of human carcinoma in nude mice. Cancer. 1988 Aug 1;62(3):462–466. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ash D. V., Brown S. B. New drugs and future developments in photodynamic therapy. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(12):1781–1783. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(93)90125-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Ji Y., Powers S. K., Brown J. T., Walstad D., Maliner L. Toxicity of photodynamic therapy with photofrin in the normal rat brain. Lasers Surg Med. 1994;14(3):219–228. doi: 10.1002/lsm.1900140304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lofgren L. A., Ronn A. M., Abramson A. L., Shikowitz M. J., Nouri M., Lee C. J., Batti J., Steinberg B. M. Photodynamic therapy using m-tetra(hydroxyphenyl) chlorin. An animal model. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994 Dec;120(12):1355–1362. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1994.01880360051010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ma L., Moan J., Berg K. Evaluation of a new photosensitizer, meso-tetra-hydroxyphenyl-chlorin, for use in photodynamic therapy: a comparison of its photobiological properties with those of two other photosensitizers. Int J Cancer. 1994 Jun 15;57(6):883–888. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910570618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Peng Q., Moan J., Ma L. W., Nesland J. M. Uptake, localization, and photodynamic effect of meso-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)porphine and its corresponding chlorin in normal and tumor tissues of mice bearing mammary carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1995 Jun 15;55(12):2620–2626. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Reale F. R., Griffin T. W., Compton J. M., Graham S., Townes P. L., Bogden A. Characterization of a human malignant mesothelioma cell line (H-MESO-1): a biphasic solid and ascitic tumor model. Cancer Res. 1987 Jun 15;47(12):3199–3205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ris H. B., Altermatt H. J., Inderbitzi R., Hess R., Nachbur B., Stewart J. C., Wang Q., Lim C. K., Bonnett R., Berenbaum M. C. Photodynamic therapy with chlorins for diffuse malignant mesothelioma: initial clinical results. Br J Cancer. 1991 Dec;64(6):1116–1120. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ris H. B., Altermatt H. J., Nachbur B., Stewart J. C., Wang Q., Lim C. K., Bonnett R., Althaus U. Effect of drug-light interval on photodynamic therapy with meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin in malignant mesothelioma. Int J Cancer. 1993 Jan 2;53(1):141–146. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910530126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ris H. B., Altermatt H. J., Stewart C. M., Schaffner T., Wang Q., Lim C. K., Bonnett R., Althaus U. Photodynamic therapy with m-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin in vivo: optimization of the therapeutic index. Int J Cancer. 1993 Sep 9;55(2):245–249. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910550213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stewart F. A., Oussoren Y. Functional and histological bladder damage in mice after photodynamic therapy: the influence of sensitiser dose and time of administration. Br J Cancer. 1993 Oct;68(4):673–677. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1993.407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tochner Z. A., Pass H. I., Smith P. D., DeLaney T. F., Sprague M., DeLuca A. M., Harrington F., Thomas G. F., Terrill R., Bacher J. D. Intrathoracic photodynamic therapy: a canine normal tissue tolerance study and early clinical experience. Lasers Surg Med. 1994;14(2):118–123. doi: 10.1002/1096-9101(1994)14:2<118::aid-lsm1900140204>3.0.co;2-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Veenhuizen R. B., Ruevekamp-Helmers M. C., Helmerhorst T. J., Kenemans P., Mooi W. J., Marijnissen J. P., Stewart F. A. Intraperitoneal photodynamic therapy in the rat: comparison of toxicity profiles for photofrin and MTHPC. Int J Cancer. 1994 Dec 15;59(6):830–836. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910590620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. van Geel I. P., Oppelaar H., Oussoren Y. G., van der Valk M. A., Stewart F. A. Photosensitizing efficacy of MTHPC-PDT compared to photofrin-PDT in the RIF1 mouse tumour and normal skin. Int J Cancer. 1995 Jan 27;60(3):388–394. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910600320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES