Implicit and explicit dosimetry in photodynamic therapy: a New paradigm.
Dosimetry for photodynamic therapy (PDT) is becoming increasingly complex as more factors are identified which may influence the effectiveness of a given treatment. The simple prescription of a PDT treatment in terms of the administered photosensitizer dose, the incident light and the drug-light time interval does not account for patient-to-patient variability in either the photosensitizer uptake, tissue optical properties or tissue oxygenation, nor for the interdependence of the photosensitizer-light-tissue factors. This interdependence is examined and the implications for developing adequate dosimetry for PDT are considered. The traditional dosimetric approach, measuring each dose factor independently, and termed here 'explicit dosimetry', may be contrasted with the recent trend to use photosensitizer photobleaching as an index of the effective delivered dose, termed here 'implicit dosimetry'. The advantages and limitations of each approach are discussed, and the need to understand the degree to which the photobleaching mechanism is linked, or 'coupled', to the photosensitizing mechanism is analysed. Finally, the influence of the tissue-response endpoints on the optimal dosimetry methods is considered.
Wilson
B C
BC
Ontario Cancer Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Patterson
M S
MS
Lilge
L
L
Br J Cancer. 1989 Aug;60(2):164-7
2765361
Photochem Photobiol. 1990 Mar;51(3):343-9
2356229
Photochem Photobiol. 1994 Feb;59(2):135-9
8165232
Photochem Photobiol. 1996 Aug;64(2):382-6
8760578
Int J Cancer. 1995 Oct 9;63(2):198-204
7591204
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1996 Apr;33(2):153-6
8691356
Biophys J. 1996 Apr;70(4):1609-17
8785320
Photochem Photobiol. 1995 Oct;62(4):764-8
7480152
Photochem Photobiol. 1996 Jul;64(1):163-7
8787009
J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1996 Oct;14(5):323-8
9612199
Cancer. 1995 Jun 1;75(11):2768-78
7743484
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1996 Mar;33(1):61-7
8786462
Phys Med Biol. 1996 May;41(5):835-49
8735252
Radiat Res. 1992 Jun;130(3):379-83
1594766
Br J Cancer. 1996 Feb;73(3):332-43
8562339
Photochem Photobiol. 1997 Jan;65(1):135-44
9066293
Radiat Res. 1991 Jun;126(3):296-303
2034787
Appl Opt. 1993 Feb 1;32(4):541-8
20802722
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1995 Jul;29(1):91-3
7472806
J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1996 Oct;14(5):219-21
9612186
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Apr 1;5(1):69-84
2111394
Cancer Lett. 1986 Oct;33(1):45-53
2945634
Photochem Photobiol. 1987 Nov;46(5):837-41
2964665
Br J Cancer. 1995 Aug;72(2):344-50
7640216
Photochem Photobiol. 1993 Dec;58(6):895-900
8310013
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1988 May;1(4):429-36
2977184
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1996 Jul;34(2-3):229-35
8810541
Lasers Surg Med. 1995;17(1):2-31
7564853
Lasers Surg Med. 1996;19(3):340-6
8923430
Cancer Res. 1991 Jun 15;51(12):3316-22
2040005
Radiat Res. 1993 Dec;136(3):422-34
8278585
Photochem Photobiol. 1994 Sep;60(3):274-9
7972381
Br J Cancer. 1994 Nov;70(5):867-72
7947091
Photochem Photobiol. 1985 Aug;42(2):153-62
4048297
Radiat Res. 1997 Jan;147(1):86-91
8989374
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1993 May;18(2-3):233-7
8350189
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1995 Oct;30(2-3):161-9
8558368
J Photochem Photobiol B. 1995 Apr;28(1):101-2
7791000
J Neurooncol. 1992 Oct;14(2):177-87
1331351
Int J Cancer. 1994 Jan 15;56(2):224-8
8314306
Cancer Res. 1993 Mar 15;53(6):1249-54
8443805
Appl Opt. 1997 Oct 1;36(28):7257-69
18264235