This paper is one of several in this Special Issue of the International Journal of Hyperthermia that discusses the current state of knowledge about the human health risks of hyperthermia. This special issue emanated from a workshop sponsored by the World Health Organization in the Spring of 2002 on this topic. It is anticipated that these papers will help to establish guidelines for human exposure to conditions leading to hyperthermia. This comprehensive review of the literature makes it clear that much more work needs to be done to clarify what the thresholds for thermal damage are in humans. This review summarizes the basic principles that govern the relationships between thermal exposure (temperature and time of exposure) and thermal damage, with an emphasis on normal tissue effects. Methods for converting one time-temperature combination to a time at a standardized temperature are provided as well as a detailed discussion about the underlying assumptions that go into these calculations. There are few in vivo papers examining the type and extent of damage that occurs in the lower temperature range for hyperthermic exposures (e.g. 39-42 degrees C). Therefore, it is clear that estimation of thermal dose to effect at these thermal exposures is less precise in that temperature range. In addition, there are virtually no data that directly relate to the thermal sensitivity of human tissues. Thus, establishment of guidelines for human exposure based on the data provided must be done with significant caution. There is detailed review and presentation of thermal thresholds for tissue damage (based on what is detectable in vivo). The data are normalized using thermal dosimetric concepts. Tables are included in an Appendix Database which compile published data for thresholds of thermal damage in a variety of tissues and species. This database is available by request (contact MWD or PJH), but not included in this manuscript for brevity. All of the studies reported are for single acute thermal exposures. Except for brain function and physiology (as detailed in this issue by Sharma et al) one notes the critical lack of publications examining effects of chronic thermal exposures as might be encountered in occupational hazards. This review also does not include information on the embryo, which is covered in detail elsewhere in this volume (see article by Edwards et al.) as well as in a recent review on this subject, which focuses on thermal dose.

One potential cancer treatment selectively deposits heat to the tumor through activation of magnetic nanoparticles inside the tumor. This can damage or kill the cancer cells without harming the surrounding healthy tissue. The properties assumed to be most important for this heat generation (saturation magnetization, amplitude and frequency of external magnetic field) originate from theoretical models that assume non-interacting nanoparticles. Although these factors certainly contribute, the fundamental assumption of ‘no interaction’ is flawed and consequently fails to anticipate their interactions with biological systems and the resulting heat deposition. Experimental evidence demonstrates that for interacting magnetite nanoparticles, determined by their spacing and anisotropy, the resulting collective behavior in the kilohertz frequency regime generates significant heat, leading to nearly complete regression of aggressive mammary tumors in mice.

The activation of magnetic nanoparticles (mNPs) by an alternating magnetic field (AMF) is currently being explored as technique for targeted therapeutic heating of tumors. Various types of superparamagnetic and ferromagnetic particles, with different coatings and targeting agents, allow for tumor site and type specificity. Magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia is also being studied as an adjuvant to conventional chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This review provides an introduction to some of the relevant biology and materials science involved in the technical development and current and future use of mNP hyperthermia as clinical cancer therapy.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) involves the combination of photosensitizers (PS) with light as a treatment, and has been an established medical practice for about 10 years. Current primary applications of PDT are age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and several types of cancer and precancer. Tumor vasculature and parenchyma cells are both potential targets of PDT damage. The preference of vascular versus cellular targeting is highly dependent upon the relative distribution of photosensitizers in each compartment, which is governed by the photosensitizer pharmacokinetic properties and can be effectively manipulated by the photosensitizer drug administration and light illumination interval (drug-light interval) during PDT treatment, or by the modification of photosensitizer molecular structure. PDT using shorter PS-light intervals mainly targets tumor vasculature by confining photosensitizer localization within blood vessels, whereas if the sensitizer has a reasonably long pharmacokinetic lifetime, then PDT at longer PS-light intervals can induce more tumor cellular damage, because the photosensitizer has then distributed into the tumor cellular compartment. This passive targeting mechanism is regulated by the innate photosensitizer physicochemical properties. In addition to the passive targeting approach, active targeting of various tumor endothelial and cellular markers has been studied extensively. The tumor cellular markers that have been explored for active photodynamic targeting are mainly tumor surface markers, including growth factor receptors, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors, transferrin receptors, folic acid receptors, glucose transporters, integrin receptors, and insulin receptors. In addition to tumor surface proteins, nuclear receptors are targeted, as well. A limited number of studies have been performed to actively target tumor endothelial markers (ED-B domain of fibronectin, VEGF receptor-2, and neuropilin-1). Intracellular targeting is a challenge due to the difficulty in achieving sufficient penetration into the target cell, but significant progress has been made in this area. In this review, we summarize current studies of vascular and cellular targeting of PDT after more than 30 years of intensive efforts.

Purpose: Loss of vascular barrier function has been observed shortly following vasculartargeting photodynamic therapy. However, the mechanism involved in this event is still not clear, and the therapeutic implications associated with this pathophysiologic change have not been fully explored. Experimental Design: The effect of vascular-targeting photodynamic therapy on vascular barrier function was examined in both s.c. and orthotopic MatLyLu rat prostate tumor models and endothelial cells in vitro, using photosensitizer verteporfin. Vascular permeability to macromolecules (Evans blue-albumin and high molecular weight dextran) was assessed with dye extraction (ex vivo) and intravital microscopy (in vivo) methods. Intravital microscopy was also used to monitor tumor vascular functional changes after vascular-targeting photodynamic therapy. The effects of photosensitization on monolayer endothelial cell morphology and cytoskeleton structures were studied with immunofluorescence staining. Results: Vascular-targeting photodynamic therapy induced vascular barrier dysfunction in the MatLyLu tumors. Thus, tumor uptake of macromolecules was significantly increased following photodynamic therapy treatments. In addition to vascular permeability increase, blood cell adherence to vessel wall was observed shortly after treatment, further suggesting the loss of endothelial integrity. Blood cell adhesion led to the formation of thrombi that can occlude blood vessels, causing vascular shutdown. However, viable tumor cells were often detected at tumor periphery after vascular-targeting photodynamic therapy. Endothelial cell barrier dysfunction following photodynamic therapy treatment was also observed in vitro by culturing monolayer endothelial cells on Transwell inserts. Immunofluorescence study revealed microtubule depolymerization shortly after photosensitization treatment and stress actin fiber formation thereafter. Consequently, endothelial cells were found to retract, and this endothelial morphologic change led to the formation of intercellular gaps. Conclusions: Vascular-targeting photodynamic therapy permeabilizes blood vessels through the formation of endothelial intercellular gaps, which are likely induced via endothelial cell microtubule depolymerization following vascular photosensitization. Loss of endothelial barrier function can ultimately lead to tumor vascular shutdown and has significant implications in drug transport and tumor cell metastasis.