Chlorophyll derivatives: a new photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy of cancer in mice.
10.3349/ymj.1989.30.3.212
- Author:
Yong Joon PARK
1
;
Won Young LEE
;
Bo Sup HAHN
;
Man Jung HAN
;
Woo Ick YANG
;
Byung Soo KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Photosensitizer;
chlorophyll drivatives(CpD);
hematoporphyrin derivatives(HpD);
photodynamic therapy (PDT)
- MeSH:
Abdomen;
Animal;
Chlorophyll/*analogs and derivatives;
Mice;
Mice, Inbred ICR;
Photochemotherapy/*methods;
Sarcoma, Experimental/*drug therapy;
Skin Neoplasms/*drug therapy
- From:Yonsei Medical Journal
1989;30(3):212-218
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
The in vivo photosensitizing efficacy of chlorophyll derivatives(CpD), which had been developed as a new photosensitizer, was compared with that of hematoporphyrin derivatives (HpD). A murine tumor model implanted subcutaneously with S-180 cells on the abdomen was used. The CpD or HpD was administered by intratumoral injection, and light of appropriate wavelength was irradiated on the tumor areas for 10 minutes at 1h and 24h or 24h and 48h after the injection of photosensitizer. When CpD was injected, the early irradiation group (1h and 24h) showed a 100% tumor cure rate; however, the late irradiation group (24h and 48h) showed a 60% tumor cure rate (p less than 0.01). This showed that the early irradiation with light after injection of CpD was an important factor for obtaining better results. With HpD, there was no difference in tumor cure rate between early (1h and 24h, 80%) and late irradiation (24h and 48h, 80%) groups. Thus, in early irradiation groups, the tumor cure rate using CpD (100%) was superior to that of HpD (80%) (p less than 0.05). However, in late irradiation groups, the tumor cure rate using CpD (60%) was inferior to that of HpD (80%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.1). Pathologic sections of these tumors were made before treatment and 48h and 3 weeks after treatment. These showed geographic necrosis at 48h after treatment and no viable tumor tissue at 3 weeks after treatment. Our results showed that CpD was as effective as HpD as a photosensitizer for in vivo photodynamic therapy.
