title: Intraperitoneal photodynamic therapy: comparison of red and green light distribution and toxicity.
abstract: The aim of this study was to compare red (652 nm) and green (514 nm) light for photodynamic therapy (PDT) of the peritoneal cavity with emphasis on light distribution and toxicity. Red-light PDT was limited by intestinal toxicity and it was hypothesized that less penetrating green light would allow higher light doses to be used in the peritoneal cavity. Female non-tumor-bearing rats were photosensitized with mTHPC (meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin, Foscan) intravenously or intraperitoneally and the peritoneum was illuminated using a minimally invasive technique. For both red and green light, the time of illumination was varied to give the required dose. Light fluence rate was measured in situ at multiple sites within the abdominal cavity. The toxicity experiments were carried out with a total of 160 J incident red or 640 J incident green light and a drug dose of 0.15 mg/kg Foscan. For red light a mean fluence rate of 55.2 +/- 38.5 mW cm-2 was measured, with a peak fluence rate of 128 mW cm-2 on the intestines. For green light the mean and peak fluence rates were 8.2 +/- 9.0 (i.e. including zero fluence rate measurements) and 28 mW cm-2, respectively. Intestines were most vulnerable to red light illumination. The intravenous injection route resulted in increased toxicity for red light, but for green light there were no major differences between intravenous and intraperitoneal routes. The 4 h interval between drug and illumination resulted in very little toxicity for both wavelengths. We conclude that for intraperitoneal PDT green light allows higher light doses than red light, but the light distribution over the peritoneum is much less favorable and may not be suitable for whole peritoneal illumination using a minimal-access technique.
authors.affiliation: Division of Experimental Therapy, Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Huis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: R B
authors.initials: RB
authors.lastname: Veenhuizen
authors.forename: M C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Ruevekamp
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Oppelaar
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Ransdorp
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: van de Vijver
authors.forename: T J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Helmerhorst
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kenemans
authors.forename: F A
authors.initials: FA
authors.lastname: Stewart
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D007422:Intestines / Q000528:radiation effects; D008027:Light; D008652:Mesoporphyrins / Q000627:therapeutic use; D010529:Peritoneal Cavity / Q000528:radiation effects; D010778:Photochemotherapy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D017319:Photosensitizing Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D051381:Rats
chemical_list: D008652:Mesoporphyrins; D017319:Photosensitizing Agents; C072269:temoporfin