Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6) and hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD) in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model

Louis Michel Wong Kee Song, Kenneth Ke Ning Wang, Alan R. Zinsmeister

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

70 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Despite their relatively localized nature, the therapy for surgically unresectable cholangiocarcinomas has been largely unsuccessful. Photodynamic therapy is a promising technique for both curative and palliative treatment of this malignancy. The effectiveness of a potential new photosensitizer, mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6), was compared with that of a traditional drug, hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD), in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model. METHODS. An established cholangiocarcinoma cell line was inoculated subcutaneously in the left back of male nude mice age 8 weeks. After a predetermined tumor size was reached, the mice were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. Experimental tumor-bearing mice received either HpD (5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) or NPe6 (2 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, or 8 mg/kg) followed by photoradiation. HpD and NPe6 were administered intraperitoneally at 24 and 2 hours, respectively, prior to light exposure. Photoradiation was conducted using a xenon-mercury arc lamp with a 405-650 nm filter at a light flux of 80 J/cm2. Tumor response was assessed by serial tumor volume measurements. RESULTS. Control mice showed an estimated mean tumor volume doubling rate of 9.0 days. Triaxial tumor measurements correlated well with autopsy measurements (correlation coefficient = 0.9). Overall differences in tumor volume reduction were detected (P < 0.001) among the three groups: HpD, NPe6, and controls (photoradiation only, HpD only, or NPe6 only). The degree of tumor volume reduction was superior for dosages of NPe6 compared with all dosages of HpD (P < 0.05). Although a dose effect was detected (P < 0.05) for HpD and separately for NPe6, a consistent dose-response relationship was not observed for either. Inhibition of tumor regrowth was better for NPe6 compared with HpD. The depth of tissue injury was significantly increased (P < 0.05), by 67%, for 5-8 mg/kg of NPe6 compared with 5-10 mg/kg of HpD. The duration of cutaneous photosensitization was also decreased for NPe6 compared with HpD. CONCLUSION. Photodynamic therapy with HpD or NPe6 was effective inducing tumor regression in the cholangiocarcinoma model in this study. At the dose studied, NPe6 appeared to induce greater tumor regression than HpD, with decreased tumor regrowth and duration of cutaneous photosensitization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)421-427
Number of pages7
JournalCancer
Volume82
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 15 1998

Fingerprint

Hematoporphyrin Derivative
Cholangiocarcinoma
Photochemotherapy
Tumor Burden
Neoplasms
Light
Photosensitivity Disorders
chlorin e6
Talaporfin
Skin
Xenon
Photosensitizing Agents
Mercury
Palliative Care
Nude Mice

Keywords

  • Animal model
  • Cancer therapy
  • Cholangiocarcinoma
  • Hematoporphyrin derivative
  • Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6
  • Nude mice
  • Photodynamic therapy
  • Photosensitizers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6) and hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD) in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model. / Song, Louis Michel Wong Kee; Wang, Kenneth Ke Ning; Zinsmeister, Alan R.

In: Cancer, Vol. 82, No. 2, 15.01.1998, p. 421-427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dbcfc0fe0d3244a384fe2d49d76c7e10,
title = "Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6) and hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD) in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model",
abstract = "BACKGROUND. Despite their relatively localized nature, the therapy for surgically unresectable cholangiocarcinomas has been largely unsuccessful. Photodynamic therapy is a promising technique for both curative and palliative treatment of this malignancy. The effectiveness of a potential new photosensitizer, mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6), was compared with that of a traditional drug, hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD), in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model. METHODS. An established cholangiocarcinoma cell line was inoculated subcutaneously in the left back of male nude mice age 8 weeks. After a predetermined tumor size was reached, the mice were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. Experimental tumor-bearing mice received either HpD (5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) or NPe6 (2 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, or 8 mg/kg) followed by photoradiation. HpD and NPe6 were administered intraperitoneally at 24 and 2 hours, respectively, prior to light exposure. Photoradiation was conducted using a xenon-mercury arc lamp with a 405-650 nm filter at a light flux of 80 J/cm2. Tumor response was assessed by serial tumor volume measurements. RESULTS. Control mice showed an estimated mean tumor volume doubling rate of 9.0 days. Triaxial tumor measurements correlated well with autopsy measurements (correlation coefficient = 0.9). Overall differences in tumor volume reduction were detected (P < 0.001) among the three groups: HpD, NPe6, and controls (photoradiation only, HpD only, or NPe6 only). The degree of tumor volume reduction was superior for dosages of NPe6 compared with all dosages of HpD (P < 0.05). Although a dose effect was detected (P < 0.05) for HpD and separately for NPe6, a consistent dose-response relationship was not observed for either. Inhibition of tumor regrowth was better for NPe6 compared with HpD. The depth of tissue injury was significantly increased (P < 0.05), by 67{\%}, for 5-8 mg/kg of NPe6 compared with 5-10 mg/kg of HpD. The duration of cutaneous photosensitization was also decreased for NPe6 compared with HpD. CONCLUSION. Photodynamic therapy with HpD or NPe6 was effective inducing tumor regression in the cholangiocarcinoma model in this study. At the dose studied, NPe6 appeared to induce greater tumor regression than HpD, with decreased tumor regrowth and duration of cutaneous photosensitization.",
keywords = "Animal model, Cancer therapy, Cholangiocarcinoma, Hematoporphyrin derivative, Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6, Nude mice, Photodynamic therapy, Photosensitizers",
author = "Song, {Louis Michel Wong Kee} and Wang, {Kenneth Ke Ning} and Zinsmeister, {Alan R.}",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/1097-0142(19980115)82:2<421::AID-CNCR25>3.0.CO;2-O",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "82",
pages = "421--427",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6) and hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD) in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model

AU - Song, Louis Michel Wong Kee

AU - Wang, Kenneth Ke Ning

AU - Zinsmeister, Alan R.

PY - 1998/1/15

Y1 - 1998/1/15

N2 - BACKGROUND. Despite their relatively localized nature, the therapy for surgically unresectable cholangiocarcinomas has been largely unsuccessful. Photodynamic therapy is a promising technique for both curative and palliative treatment of this malignancy. The effectiveness of a potential new photosensitizer, mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6), was compared with that of a traditional drug, hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD), in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model. METHODS. An established cholangiocarcinoma cell line was inoculated subcutaneously in the left back of male nude mice age 8 weeks. After a predetermined tumor size was reached, the mice were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. Experimental tumor-bearing mice received either HpD (5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) or NPe6 (2 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, or 8 mg/kg) followed by photoradiation. HpD and NPe6 were administered intraperitoneally at 24 and 2 hours, respectively, prior to light exposure. Photoradiation was conducted using a xenon-mercury arc lamp with a 405-650 nm filter at a light flux of 80 J/cm2. Tumor response was assessed by serial tumor volume measurements. RESULTS. Control mice showed an estimated mean tumor volume doubling rate of 9.0 days. Triaxial tumor measurements correlated well with autopsy measurements (correlation coefficient = 0.9). Overall differences in tumor volume reduction were detected (P < 0.001) among the three groups: HpD, NPe6, and controls (photoradiation only, HpD only, or NPe6 only). The degree of tumor volume reduction was superior for dosages of NPe6 compared with all dosages of HpD (P < 0.05). Although a dose effect was detected (P < 0.05) for HpD and separately for NPe6, a consistent dose-response relationship was not observed for either. Inhibition of tumor regrowth was better for NPe6 compared with HpD. The depth of tissue injury was significantly increased (P < 0.05), by 67%, for 5-8 mg/kg of NPe6 compared with 5-10 mg/kg of HpD. The duration of cutaneous photosensitization was also decreased for NPe6 compared with HpD. CONCLUSION. Photodynamic therapy with HpD or NPe6 was effective inducing tumor regression in the cholangiocarcinoma model in this study. At the dose studied, NPe6 appeared to induce greater tumor regression than HpD, with decreased tumor regrowth and duration of cutaneous photosensitization.

AB - BACKGROUND. Despite their relatively localized nature, the therapy for surgically unresectable cholangiocarcinomas has been largely unsuccessful. Photodynamic therapy is a promising technique for both curative and palliative treatment of this malignancy. The effectiveness of a potential new photosensitizer, mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6), was compared with that of a traditional drug, hematoporphyrin derivative (HpD), in photodynamic therapy administered to a human cholangiocarcinoma model. METHODS. An established cholangiocarcinoma cell line was inoculated subcutaneously in the left back of male nude mice age 8 weeks. After a predetermined tumor size was reached, the mice were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. Experimental tumor-bearing mice received either HpD (5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) or NPe6 (2 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, or 8 mg/kg) followed by photoradiation. HpD and NPe6 were administered intraperitoneally at 24 and 2 hours, respectively, prior to light exposure. Photoradiation was conducted using a xenon-mercury arc lamp with a 405-650 nm filter at a light flux of 80 J/cm2. Tumor response was assessed by serial tumor volume measurements. RESULTS. Control mice showed an estimated mean tumor volume doubling rate of 9.0 days. Triaxial tumor measurements correlated well with autopsy measurements (correlation coefficient = 0.9). Overall differences in tumor volume reduction were detected (P < 0.001) among the three groups: HpD, NPe6, and controls (photoradiation only, HpD only, or NPe6 only). The degree of tumor volume reduction was superior for dosages of NPe6 compared with all dosages of HpD (P < 0.05). Although a dose effect was detected (P < 0.05) for HpD and separately for NPe6, a consistent dose-response relationship was not observed for either. Inhibition of tumor regrowth was better for NPe6 compared with HpD. The depth of tissue injury was significantly increased (P < 0.05), by 67%, for 5-8 mg/kg of NPe6 compared with 5-10 mg/kg of HpD. The duration of cutaneous photosensitization was also decreased for NPe6 compared with HpD. CONCLUSION. Photodynamic therapy with HpD or NPe6 was effective inducing tumor regression in the cholangiocarcinoma model in this study. At the dose studied, NPe6 appeared to induce greater tumor regression than HpD, with decreased tumor regrowth and duration of cutaneous photosensitization.

KW - Animal model

KW - Cancer therapy

KW - Cholangiocarcinoma

KW - Hematoporphyrin derivative

KW - Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6

KW - Nude mice

KW - Photodynamic therapy

KW - Photosensitizers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031985031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031985031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/1097-0142(19980115)82:2<421::AID-CNCR25>3.0.CO;2-O

DO - 10.1002/1097-0142(19980115)82:2<421::AID-CNCR25>3.0.CO;2-O

M3 - Article

VL - 82

SP - 421

EP - 427

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 2

ER -