Valdir Colussi

Photodynamic therapy in oncology

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a cancer treatment modality that is based on the administration of a photosensitiser, which is retained in tumour tissues more than in normal tissues, followed by illumination of the tumour with visible light in a wavelength range matching the absorption spectrum of the photosensitiser. The photosensitiser absorbs light energy and induces the production of reactive oxygen species in the tumour environment, generating a cascade of events that kills the tumour cells. The first generation photosensitiser, Photofrin® (porfirmer sodium), has been approved for oesophageal and lung cancer in the US and has been under investigation for other malignant and non-malignant diseases. Sub-optimal light penetration at the treatment absorption peak of Photofrin and prolonged skin photosensitivity in patients are limiting factors for this preparation. Several new photosensitisers have improved properties, especially absorption of longer wavelength light which penetrates deeper into tissue and faster clearance from normal tissue. This paper reviews the current use of first- and second-generation photosensitisers in oncology. The use of PDT in oncology has been restricted to certain cancer indications and has not yet become an integral part of cancer treatment in general. The main advantage of PDT is that the treatment can be repeated multiple times safely, without producing immunosuppressive and myelosuppressive effects and can be administered even after surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The current work on new photosensitisers and light delivery equipment will address some of the present shortcomings of PDT. Much has been learned in recent years about the mechanisms of cellular and tissue responses to PDT and protocols designed to capitalise on this knowledge showed lead to additional improvements.

Photodynamic therapy: a new concept in medical treatment

A new concept in the therapy of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases is discussed in this article. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) involves light activation, in the presence of molecular oxygen, of certain dyes that are taken up by the target tissue. These dyes are termed photosensitizers. The mechanism of interaction of the photosensitizers and light is discussed, along with the effects produced in the target tissue. The present status of clinical PDT is discussed along with the newer photosensitizers being used and their clinical roles. Despite the promising results from earlier clinical trials of PDT, considerable additional work is needed to bring this new modality of treatment into modern clinical practice. Improvements in the area of light source delivery, light dosimetry and the computation of models of treatment are necessary to standardize treatments and ensure proper treatment delivery. Finally, quality assurance issues in the treatment process should be introduced.

Phthalocyanine 4 (Pc 4) Photodynamic Therapy of Human OVCAR‐3 Tumor Xenografts

Abstract— Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a cancer treatment modality utilizing a photosensitizer, light and oxygen. Photodynamic therapy with Photofrin® has been approved by the US. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of advanced esophageal and early lung cancer. Because of certain drawbacks associated with the use of Photofrin, there is a need to identify new photosensitizers for human use. The photosensitizer Pc 4 (HOSiPc‐OSi[CH3]2[CH2]3N[CH3]2) has yielded promising PDT effects in many in vitro and in vivo systems. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of Pc 4 as a PDT photosensitizer for a human tumor grown as a xenograft in athymic nude mice. The ovarian epithelial carcinoma (OVCAR‐3) was heterotransplanted subcutaneously in athymic nude mice. Sixty mice bearing OVCAR‐3 tumors (∼80–130 mm3) were divided into six groups of 10 animals each, three for controls and three for treatment. The Pc 4 was given by tail vein injection, and 48 h later a 1 cm area encompassing the tumor was irradiated with light from a diode laser coupled to a fiberoptic terminating in a microlens (Λ= 672 nm, 150 J/cm2,150 mW/cm2). Tumors of control animals receiving no treatment, light alone or Pc 4 alone continued to grow. Of animals receiving 0.4 mg/kg Pc 4 and light, one (10%) had a complete response and was cured (no regrowth up to 90 days post‐PDT), while all others (90%) had a partial response and were delayed in regrowth. Of animals receiving 0.6 mg/kg Pc 4 and light, eight (80%) had a complete response, and two of these were cured. Of animals receiving 1.0 mg/kg Pc 4 and light, six (60%) had a complete response, and two of these were cured. In additional experiments, tumors from animals treated with Pc 4 (1 mg/kg) and light were removed 15, 30, 60 and 180 min post‐PDT, and from these tumors DNA and protein were extracted. Agarose gel electrophoresis revealed the presence of apoptotic DNA fragmentation as early as 15 min post‐PDT. Western blotting showed the cleavage of the 116 kDa native poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) into fragments of ∼90 kDa, another indication of apoptosis, and the presence of p21/WAFl/CIPl (p21) in all PDT‐treated tumors. These changes did not occur in control tumors. Pc 4 appears to be an effective photosensitizer for PDT of human tumors grown as xenografts in nude mice. Early apoptosis, as revealed by PARP cleavage, DNA fragmentation and p21 overexpression, may be responsible for the excellent Pc 4‐PDT response. Clinical trials of Pc 4‐PDT are warranted.

Silicon phthalocyanine (Pc 4) photodynamic therapy is a safe modality for cutaneous neoplasms: results of a phase 1 clinical trial.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a non‐invasive treatment for non‐melanoma skin cancer. However, PDT systems currently used clinically have limitations such as pain and superficial tissue penetration. The silicon phthalocyanine Pc 4 is a second‐generation photosensitizer with peak absorption in the far red at 675 nm.

Phase II Trial of Radiosurgery to Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy-Defined High-Risk Tumor Volumes in Patients With Glioblastoma Multiforme

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy of a Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) boost to areas of high risk determined by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) functional imaging in addition to standard radiotherapy for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirty-five patients in this prospective Phase II trial underwent surgical resection or biopsy for a GBM followed by SRS directed toward areas of MRS-determined high biological activity within 2 cm of the postoperative enhancing surgical bed. The MRS regions were determined by identifying those voxels within the postoperative T2 magnetic resonance imaging volume that contained an elevated choline/N-acetylaspartate ratio in excess of 2:1. These voxels were marked, digitally fused with the SRS planning magnetic resonance image, targeted with an 8-mm isocenter per voxel, and treated using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group SRS dose guidelines. All patients then received conformal radiotherapy to a total dose of 60 Gy in 2-Gy daily fractions. The primary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS The median survival for the entire cohort was 15.8 months. With 75% of recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class 3 patients still alive 18 months after treatment, the median survival for RPA Class 3 has not yet been reached. The median survivals for RPA Class 4, 5, and 6 patients were 18.7, 12.5, and 3.9 months, respectively, compared with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group radiotherapy-alone historical control survivals of 11.1, 8.9, and 4.6 months. For the 16 of 35 patients who received concurrent temozolomide in addition to protocol radiotherapeutic treatment, the median survival was 20.8 months, compared with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer historical controls of 14.6 months using radiotherapy and temozolomide. Grade 3/4 toxicities possibly attributable to treatment were 11%. CONCLUSIONS This represents the first prospective trial using selective MRS-targeted functional SRS combined with radiotherapy for patients with GBM. This treatment is feasible, with acceptable toxicity and patient survivals higher than in historical controls. This study can form the basis for a multicenter, randomized trial.

Four-year biochemical outcome after radioimmunoguided transperineal brachytherapy for patients with prostate adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE To evaluate 4-year biochemical outcomes for patients with prostate adenocarcinoma who underwent radioimmunoguided (Prostascint) permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eighty patients with clinical T1C-T3A NxM0 prostate cancer underwent ProstaScint-guided prostate brachytherapy using either (103)Pd or (125)I between February 1997 and December 2000. Sixty-seven patients underwent prostate brachytherapy alone, whereas 13 patients received neoadjuvant hormonal manipulation before implantation. Risk factors (RF) included PSA >10, Stage >or=T2b, and Gleason grade >or=7. Sixty patients had low-risk disease (0 RF), 17 were intermediate risk (1 RF), and 3 were high risk (2 RF). Biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) was calculated using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus criteria, a PSA cutoff of 1.0 ng/mL, and a PSA cutoff of 0.5 ng/mL. RESULTS Four-year bDFS for the entire cohort was 97.4% using the ASTRO consensus criteria. Low-risk patients (60) had a 4-year bDFS of 100%; intermediate- and high-risk patients (20 patients) were 89.2%. The hormonally naïve group (67 patients) had a 4-year bDFS of 96.9% and a median PSA nadir of 0.2 ng/mL. Median time to nadir was 19.8 months (range: 1.9-53.2 months). For the neoadjuvant hormonal therapy group (13 patients), ASTRO-defined bDFS was 100%. Overall, 85.2% of patients had a posttreatment PSA <or=1.0 ng/mL, and 75.9% had a PSA <or=0.5 ng/mL at a median follow-up of 36 months. CONCLUSIONS At a median follow-up of 36 months, ProstaScint-guided transperineal brachytherapy results in a high probability of actuarial 4-year biochemical disease-free survival for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Radiotherapy and Survival in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Study

PURPOSE To investigate the association of overall and disease-specific survival with the five standard treatment modalities for prostate cancer (CaP): radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and no treatment (NT) within 6 months after CaP diagnosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS The study population included 10,179 men aged 65 years and older with incident CaP diagnosed between 1999 and 2001. Using the linked Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System, Medicare, and death certificate files, overall and disease-specific survival through 2005 among the five clinically accepted therapies were analyzed. RESULTS Disease-specific survival rates were 92.3% and 23.9% for patients with localized vs. distant disease at 7 years, respectively. Controlling for age, race, comorbidities, stage, and Gleason score, results from the Cox multiple regression models indicated that the risk of CaP-specific death was significantly reduced in patients receiving RP or BT, compared with NT. For localized disease, compared with NT, in the monotherapy cohort, RP and BT were associated with reduced hazard ratios (HR) of 0.25 and 0.45 (95% confidence intervals 0.13-0.48 and 0.23-0.87, respectively), whereas in the combination therapy cohort, HR were 0.40 (0.17-0.94) and 0.46 (0.27-0.80), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The present population-based study indicates that RP and BT are associated with improved survival outcomes. Further studies are warranted to improve clinical determinates in the selection of appropriate management of CaP and to improve predictive modeling for which patient subsets may benefit most from definitive therapy vs. conservative management and/or observation.

Differential Radiosensitization in DNA Mismatch Repair-Proficient and -Deficient Human Colon Cancer Xenografts with 5-Iodo-2-pyrimidinone-2′-deoxyribose

Purpose: 5-Iodo-2-pyrimidinone-2′-deoxyribose (IPdR) is a pyrimidinone nucleoside prodrug of 5-iododeoxyuridine (IUdR) under investigation as an orally administered radiosensitizer. We previously reported that the mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (both hMSH2 and hMLH1) impact on the extent (percentage) of IUdR-DNA incorporation and subsequent in vitro IUdR-mediated radiosensitization in human tumor cell lines. In this study, we used oral IPdR to assess in vivo radiosensitization in MMR-proficient (MMR+) and -deficient (MMR−) human colon cancer xenografts. Experimental Design: We tested whether oral IPdR treatment (1 g/kg/d for 14 days) can result in differential IUdR incorporation in tumor cell DNA and subsequent radiosensitization after a short course (every day for 4 days) of fractionated radiation therapy, by using athymic nude mice with an isogenic pair of human colon cancer xenografts, HCT116 (MMR−, hMLH1−) and HCT116/3-6 (MMR+, hMLH1+). A tumor regrowth assay was used to assess radiosensitization. Systemic toxicity was assessed by daily body weights and by percentage of IUdR-DNA incorporation in normal bone marrow and intestine. Results: After a 14-day once-daily IPdR treatment by gastric gavage, significantly higher IUdR-DNA incorporation was found in HCT116 (MMR−) tumor xenografts compared with HCT116/3-6 (MMR+) tumor xenografts. Using a tumor regrowth assay after the 14-day drug treatment and a 4-day radiation therapy course (days 11–14 of IPdR), we found substantial radiosensitization in both HCT116 and HCT116/3-6 tumor xenografts. However, the sensitizer enhancement ratio (SER) was substantially higher in HCT116 (MMR−) tumor xenografts (1.48 at 2 Gy per fraction, 1.41 at 4 Gy per fraction), compared with HCT116/3-6 (MMR+) tumor xenografts (1.21 at 2 Gy per fraction, 1.20 at 4 Gy per fraction). No substantial systemic toxicity was found in the treatment groups. Conclusions: These results suggest that IPdR-mediated radiosensitization can be an effective in vivo approach to treat “drug-resistant” MMR-deficient tumors as well as MMR-proficient tumors.

In vivo dosimetry using a single diode for megavoltage photon beam radiotherapy: Implementation and response characterization

The AAPM Task Group 40 reported that in vivo dosimetry can be used to identify major deviations in treatment delivery in radiation therapy. In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of using one single diode to perform in vivo dosimetry in the entire radiotherapeutic energy range regardless of its intrinsic buildup material. The only requirement on diode selection would be to choose a diode with the adequate build up to measure the highest beam energy. We have tested the new diodes from Sun Nuclear Corporation (called QED and ISORAD‐p–both p‐type) for low‐, intermediate‐, and high‐energy range. We have clinically used both diode types to monitor entrance doses. In general, we found that the dose readings from the ISORAD (p‐type) are closer of the dose expected than QED diodes in the clinical setting. In this paper we report on the response of these newly available ISORAD (p‐type) diode detectors with respect to certain radiation field parameters such as source‐to‐surface distance, field size, wedge beam modifiers, as well as other parameters that affect detector characteristics (temperature and detector‐beam orientation). We have characterized the response of the high‐energy ISORAD (p‐type) diode in the low‐ (1–4 MV), intermediate‐ (6–12 MV), and high‐energy (15–25 MV) range. Our results showed that the total variation of the response of high‐energy ISORAD (p‐type) diodes to all the above parameters are within ±5% in most encountered clinical patient treatment setups in the megavoltage photon beam radiotherapy. The usage of the high‐energy buildup diode has the additional benefit of amplifying the response of the diode reading in case the wrong energy is used for patient treatment. In the light of these findings, we have since then switched to using only one single diode type, namely the “red” diode; manufacturer designation of the ISORAD (p‐type) high‐energy (15–25 MV) range diode, for all energies in our institution and satellites. PACS number(s): 87.66.–a, 87.53.–j

RADIOSENSITIZATION OF HUMAN CERVICAL CANCER CELLS BY INHIBITING RIBONUCLEOTIDE REDUCTASE: ENHANCED RADIATION RESPONSE AT LOW-DOSE RATES

PURPOSE To test whether pharmacologic inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) by 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP, NSC #663249) enhances radiation sensitivity during low-dose-rate ionizing radiation provided by a novel purpose-built iridium-192 cell irradiator. METHODS AND MATERIALS The cells were exposed to low-dose-rate radiation (11, 23, 37, 67 cGy/h) using a custom-fabricated cell irradiator or to high-dose-rate radiation (330 cGy/min) using a conventional cell irradiator. The radiation sensitivity of human cervical (CaSki, C33-a) cancer cells with or without RNR inhibition by 3-AP was evaluated using a clonogenic survival and an RNR activity assay. Alteration in the cell cycle distribution was monitored using flow cytometry. RESULTS Increasing radiation sensitivity of both CaSki and C33-a cells was observed with the incremental increase in radiation dose rates. 3-AP treatment led to enhanced radiation sensitivity in both cell lines, eliminating differences in cell cytotoxicity from the radiation dose rate. RNR blockade by 3-AP during low-dose-rate irradiation was associated with low RNR activity and extended G(1)-phase cell cycle arrest. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that RNR inhibition by 3-AP impedes DNA damage repair mechanisms that rely on deoxyribonucleotide production and thereby increases radiation sensitivity of human cervical cancers to low-dose-rate radiation.