Photodynamic therapy for human malignant mesothelioma in the nude mouse

Singlet oxygen luminescence as an in vivo photodynamic therapy dose metric: validation in normal mouse skin with topical amino-levulinic acid

“…This was statistically significant: P ¼ 0.001 between 15 and 50 mW cm À2 and P ¼ 0.003 between 50 and 150 mW cm À2 . This irradiance dependence was also observed by Robinson et al (1998), and similar effects have been reported by other authors in different in vitro and in vivo models (Feins et al, 1990;Gibson et al, 1990;Foster et al, 1993;Sitnik et al, 1998), and has usually been attributed to photochemical depletion of oxygen at high irradiances. The total skin scores as a function of fluence for all treatments are summarised in Figure 5.…”

“…Irradiance effects have been observed by other authors (Feins et al, 1990;Gibson et al, 1990;Foster et al, 1993;Robinson et al, 1998;Sitnik et al, 1998) and have usually been attributed to rapid photochemical depletion of molecular oxygen at higher irradiances. The 1 O 2 luminescence measurements here appear to be consistent with this interpretation.…”

Photodynamic therapy with chlorins for diffuse malignant mesothelioma: initial clinical results

“…Improved local control does require additional measures, but the disease responds poorly to radio-and chemotherapy (Lerner et al, 1983). As photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been reported to be effective in human mesothelioma xenografts (Feins et al, 1990), it might allow for an appropriate 'clean-up' of the thoracic cavity after surgery. For clinical purposes, the currently used sensitisers for PDT are haematoporphyrin derivatives (HpD) and dihaematoporphyrin ether (DHE) .…”

Effects of photodynamic therapy on xenografts of human mesothelioma and rat mammary carcinoma in nude mice

“…Employing meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin (mTHPP), Ris et al (1993) found that a 3 day interval between sensitiser administration and exposure of mesothelioma tumours in nude mice was optimum for response to PDT with this chlorin. In our laboratory, xenografted tumours, arising from H-MESO-1 cells implanted in nude mice, responded favourably to PDT, displaying drug-, fluence rate-and fluence-dependent relationships (Feins et al, 1990), with many animals remaining tumour free for 30 or more days.These findings, when compared with the less striking response we had observed for a rat mammary adenocarcinoma Foster et al, 1991), led us to enquire whether the sensitivity of this human mesothelioma tumour xenograft was due to intrinsic properties of the host or to inherent sensitivity of the tumour. To address this, we compared the response to PDT of the human mesothelioma with that of the rat tumour model in the same host, the nude mouse.…”

“…Employing meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin (mTHPP), Ris et al (1993) found that a 3 day interval between sensitiser administration and exposure of mesothelioma tumours in nude mice was optimum for response to PDT with this chlorin. In our laboratory, xenografted tumours, arising from H-MESO-1 cells implanted in nude mice, responded favourably to PDT, displaying drug-, fluence rate-and fluence-dependent relationships (Feins et al, 1990), with many animals remaining tumour free for 30 or more days.…”