Photodynamic Therapy (PDT): History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Contributor:
Jooho Park

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) using oxygen, light, and photosensitizers, which has potential for making up for the weakness of the existing therapies such as surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. It has been mainly used to treat cancer, and clinical tests for second-generation photosensitizers with improved physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetic profiles, or singlet oxygen quantum yield have been conducted.

  • nanomedicine
  • photodynamic therapy

1. Introduction

The discovery of dyes and their use in combination with light since the end of the nineteenth century led to the idea of modern photodynamic therapy (PDT) for the treatment of cancers, infections, and other diseases [1][2]. PDT has been receiving great attention, because it has potential for making up for the weakness of the existing therapies such as surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. In order to destroy malignant cells, PDT is done in two stages involving administration of a light-responsive agent known as a photosensitizer and activation of the photosensitizer by light irradiation, usually using a laser [3]. The wavelength of near-infrared (NIR) light is useful for tissue penetration without interference by endogenous chromophores [4]. When photosensitizer molecules are excited by absorption of light, they can react with substrates to form free radicals, or the absorbed photon energy in the photosensitizer molecules is transferred to molecular triplet oxygen after intersystem crossing between the two different electronic states to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) [5]. The distance diffused by ROS is estimated to be 0.01–0.02 μm. Namely, the lifetime of ROS, mainly of 1O2, in the cells is estimated to be 0.01–0.04 μs [6].

The singlet oxygen with high reactivity can diffuse across the cell membrane and induce intracellular signaling, resulting in organelle damage and cell death [7].

In order to obtain the effective cytotoxic effects on tumor cells (larger than 10 μm), photosensitizers administered in vivo need to be localized to the target tissue. In the current era of nanotechnology, scientific studies on the use of nanomaterials in PDT are increasing for the treatment of a wide range of diseases, especially cancer. Encapsulation of photosensitizer molecules into the nanocarrier targeting neoplastic endothelial cells can be selectively delivered to the tumor endothelium by the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect [8]. Generation of ROS by irradiation of ultrashort pulse lasers induces cytotoxic effects on vascular endothelial cells and widens intercellular spaces in the blood vessels, improving the efficient accumulation and therapeutic efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapies [9][10]. Since engineered nanomaterials with at least one dimension of around 100 nm have shown great potential as nanocarriers with complementary and supplementary roles in PDT, their use in combination with photosensitizers has increased over the last decade [11].

Pharmacokinetic profiles of NIR photosensitizers together with the prognosis of diseases have also been studied by using NIR imaging [12]. As gold nanorods show the surface plasmon absorption in the NIR region, gold nanorod–photosensitizer complexes were invented as the multifunctional nanoplatform for photodynamic/photothermal therapy as well as fluorescence imaging [13]. Coating multifunctional gold nanorods with the mesoporous silica shell enhances stability of the photosensitizer and the surface plasmon absorption band of gold nanorods [14]. The micellar nanoscale delivery system for a photosensitizer was reported to show theranostic potential for brain tumors [15].

Human clinical studies on PDT for the treatment of early-stage bladder, skin, lung, esophagus, and stomach cancers showed promising therapeutic responses [16][17][18][19]. However, clinical improvements in cancer patient survival have been observed only at high doses. There are several challenges that must be overcome for the clinical use of PDT agents. Appropriate dosage forms that improve solubility and stability of hydrophobic photosensitizers in biological fluids are required. Nanoparticles formed by self-assembly of amphiphilic copolymers may provide good loading efficiency and sustained release of hydrophobic photosensitizers [20]. In addition, prodrug nanomedicines for PDT can be activated by stimuli such as enzymes in the tumor site (Figure 1).

Biomedicines 09 00085 g001 550

Figure 1. Schematic representation of nanomedicine for photodynamic therapy (PDT). Accumulation of photosensitizers in the tumor site can be enhanced by nanocarriers. In addition, prodrug nanomedicines for PDT can be activated by such stimuli as enzymes in the tumor site. Self-assembly of amphiphilic polymers may provide good loading efficiency and sustained release of hydrophobic photosensitizers.

Therefore, delivery to the specific target site and therapeutic efficacy must be investigated for the clinical use of nanomedicine for PDT. Although several challenges remain to expand the therapeutic application of PDT in the clinic, the advanced nanoplatforms potentially offer the best hope for PDT.

2. Advantages and Disadvantages of PDT in Cancer Treatment

While chemotherapeutic drugs exhibit side effects not only on cancer cells but also on normal cells, photosensitizers combined with nanocarriers selectively accumulate in the tumor site and show cytotoxicity only in the area exposed to light irradiation. PDT can be performed instead of surgery in inoperable patients; light irradiation of the surgical site in patients who underwent tumor removal surgery can decrease the risk of cancer recurrence [21]. Combination of PDT with chemotherapy has the advantage of reducing side effects by lowering the dose of anticancer drugs [22].

However, contrary to systemic chemotherapy, local treatment using an optical fiber in PDT is hard to kill the tumor cells present outside the focal area or alter the therapeutic outcomes in patients with advanced-stage cancer [23]. Under light irradiation for PDT, the penetration efficiency of light into the deep tissue is low because of endogenous biomolecules absorbing the light. It is difficult to efficiently excite the photosensitizers located deeper than 1 cm from the tumor surface. Although there have been recent advances in microendoscopic technology or laparoscopic light delivery systems, PDT still has obvious limitations in treating large, deeply hidden tumors [24].

Among photosensitizer classes such as porphyrins, chlorophylls, and dyes, most photosensitizers approved for clinical use are derivatives of the porphyrin moiety [25]. Porphyrins are composed of tetrapyrrole macrocycles connected to each other via methine bridges [26]. Limitations of the first-generation photosensitizers in clinical application to various solid tumors include aggregation in water, low singlet oxygen quantum yield, high doses needed for therapeutic efficacy, low selectivity to the tumor site, skin photosensitivity, and long elimination half-life [27]. The first-generation photosensitizers based on the porphyrin backbone exhibited undesirable hydrophobicity and low penetration depth, hindering their clinical use. The second-generation photosensitizers such as chlorins and phthalocyanines, which are structurally related to tetrapyrrole macrocycles, have been investigated for cancer treatment [27][28]. Their water solubility, pKa value, and stability were improved by introduction of the hydrophilic substituents to pyrrole rings. However, the increase in renal clearance due to improved water solubility tends to decrease bioavailability of the photosensitizer.

In order to be excited in the deeper tissue, the second-generation photosensitizers have been developed to show higher molar extinction coefficient in the near-infrared region than the first-generation photosensitizers [29]. 5-Aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA), a precursor of protoporphyrin IX, has shown good clinical outcomes in cancer treatment [30][31]. Protoporphyrin IX, an intermediate in the heme biosynthesis, exhibits cytotoxicity when excited by light, and loses phototoxicity by binding to iron ions. Administration of excess exogenous ALA promotes production of protoporphyrin IX more efficiently in cancer cells than in normal cells. One of the disadvantages in clinical application of photosensitizers is a risk of skin photosensitivity. Hydrophobic photosensitizers remain nonspecifically accumulated in the skin and eyes after photodynamic treatment [32]. Contrary to other porphyrin-based photosensitizers, protoporphyrin IX produced by systemic administration of 5-ALA is eliminated after 24–48 h with the lower risk of long-term photosensitivity (Table 1).

Table 1. Recent outcomes of clinical trials with photosensitizers.

Photosensitizer Other Name (s) Indications Clinical Trial
Photofrin Porfimer sodium Esophageal cancer, endobronchial cancer, high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus FDA-approved PDT drug
Photofrin Porfimer sodium Clinical trials (phases I–II)
for various cancers		 NCT00054002
NCT00003788
NCT00118222
NCT00322699
(Completed 1)
Temoporfin Foscan Head and neck cancer -
Temoporfin Foscan Clinical trials (phase II) NCT00003856
(Unknown 2)
5-Aminolevulinic acid 5-ALA Malignant gliomas For the guiding agent, not therapeutics
Talaporfin Mono-l-aspartyl chlorin e6, Laserphyrin Lung cancer Approved in Japan
Verteporfin Visudyne Age-related macular degeneration, subfoveal choroidal neovascularization Clinical trials for macular degeneration (NCT02081339)

1 The studies were completed between 2010 and 2018. 2 The study has passed its completion date, and its recruitment status has not been confirmed within the past 2 years.

 

The ratio between type I and type II reactions of photosensitizers in cancer depends on the concentration of oxygen and substrates in the tumor microenvironment (TME) [33]. When exposed to light of a specific wavelength, photosensitizer molecules are excited to the singlet energy state. While some of the excited photosensitizer molecules return to the ground state by emitting energy in the form of fluorescence, most of the excited molecules transfer to the triplet energy state via intersystem crossing. In type I reaction, the transfer of electrons or hydrogen atoms between photosensitizer molecules excited by light and the surrounding substrates generates radical species, resulting in cytotoxicity through oxidation reaction with intracellular components. In type II reaction, photosensitizer molecules in the triplet state efficiently transfer energy to the surrounding oxygen and generate singlet oxygen [34]. Singlet oxygen induces cytotoxicity via chemical reaction with intracellular components. It is important to consider that the production of cytotoxic ROS in the TME induces oxygen depletion in the tumor tissue, resulting in apoptosis or necrosis in the targeted tissue. After intravenous injection, porphyrin derivatives accumulate in the tumor vasculature, and occlusion by damage of vascular epithelial cells occurs under light irradiation [35]. It induces hypoxia and tumor necrosis. As therapeutic outcomes of PDT are dependent on the preexisting concentration of oxygen at the tumor site, strategies are needed for use of PDT in the treatment of hypoxic tumors [36].

Effective cytotoxic effects can be obtained by localization of photosensitizers in the intracellular organelles such as mitochondria, nucleus, and lysosomes because of reactivity and short half-life of the ROS generated by light irradiation [37]. In order to allow photosensitizers to accumulate in the target site at sufficient concentrations, modification of photosensitizers has been attempted by using cell-penetrating peptides or conjugation with targeting ligands [38]. Besides, therapeutic efficacy of PDT depends on the wavelength of light, laser power per unit area, and the dosage of photosensitizers [39]. Over the past few decades, extensive attention has been paid to the design and development of various PDT modalities.

3. Advances in Nanocarriers for PDT

To date, numerous nanocarriers such as polymers, micelles, liposomes, dendrimers, and inorganic nanoparticles have been studied for increasing therapeutic efficacy of photosensitizers. It is important to efficiently deliver photosensitizers and the generated singlet oxygen to the target site in the optimum therapeutic range. Pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles of nanocarriers should also be checked for clinical use. Multifunctional nanoparticles are also currently being investigated for theranostic purpose or photodynamic/chemo dual therapy. Recent advances in preclinical developments using nanomedicine for PDT are categorized in Table 2.

Table 2. Recent advances in preclinical developments using nanomedicine for PDT.

Class Photosensitizer Nanomaterial Highlight Year
Nanocarrier Chlorin e6 (Ce6) Hyaluronic acid (HA)–based nanomaterials CRISPR–Cas9 system targeting the Ptpn2 gene 2020
Nanocarrier Verteporfin Dendrimer–fucoidan nanocomplex Sensitive to glutathione-targeted P-selectin 2020
Nanocarrier Ce6 HA shielding could endow nanoplatform Peroxidase mimic metal–organic framework 2020
Nanocarrier Pheophorbide A (PhA) Polyethylene glycol (PEG)–stearamine Long-circulating, photodynamic/chemo dual therapy 2020
Self-assembly Ce6 mPEG-grafted HA Photodynamic/chemo dual therapy 2015
Self-assembly Porphyrin Polyvinyl alcohol One-pot fabrication, theranostics 2017
Self-assembly Porphyrin Silica pH-Dependent assembly of porphyrin–silica nanocomposites 2017
Self-assembly Ce6 Peptide conjugate Dipeptide and Ce6 conjugate 2016
Self-assembly Indocyanine Pentamethine indocyanine Indocyanine, camptothecin, RGD peptide 2018
Self-assembly MeTTMN mPEG-SS-OH and cinnamic acid conjugate Photosensitizers with aggregation-induced emission characteristics 2020
Self-assembly Ce6 Fucoidan Theranostic nanogel 2020
Prodrug Ce6 DEVD–monomethyl auristatin E conjugate Caspase 3-cleavable photosensitizer–drug conjugate 2019
Prodrug PhA PEG–doxorubicin conjugate Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-sensitive nanoparticles for photodynamic/chemo dual therapy 2020
Prodrug IR780 PEG with further modification of internalizing RGD peptide Camptothecin prodrug for blood–brain barrier penetration 2020
Prodrug Ce6 Dimeric paclitaxel encapsulated by a PEGylated peptide copolymer Prodrug activatable via irradiation in a hypoxic microenvironment 2020
Prodrug Ce6 Dimeric cabazitaxel Cabazitaxel prodrug for photodynamic/chemo dual therapy against melanoma 2020
Prodrug PhA Polygalactose-co-poly-cinnamaldehyde ROS generation by polyprodrug for combinational therapy 2020

Ce6: chlorin e6; HA: hyaluronic acid; CRISPR: clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats; PhA: pheophorbide A; PEG: polyethylene glycol; RGD: arginine-glycine-aspartic; DEVD: Asp-Glu-Val-Asp; ROS: reactive oxygen species.

 

Natural polysaccharides such as hyaluronic acid (HA), heparin, chitin, chitosan, and fucoidan have been reported as potential photosensitizer carriers owing to their biocompatibility and biodegradability [40][41][42]. HA shell can interact with the core, including chlorin e6 (Ce6) and positively charged CRISPR–Cas9 targeting the phosphatase gene, which constructs a nanocarrier system [43]. The negatively charged HA in the nanoparticles could not only regulate the surface charge of the nanoparticles reducing nonspecific interactions in the physiological environment, but also target the TME via CD44 receptors [44][45]. This multifunctional nanosystem demonstrated high transfection efficiency in B16F10 cells and PDT efficacy under laser irradiation. It can also sensitize the targeted tumors to immunotherapy by promoting the proliferation of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells.

Newly developed biocompatible nanocarriers not only encapsulate PDT agents, but also provide additional targeting effects for enhancing anticancer activities. Fucoidan exhibits binding affinity to P-selectin and the targeting effect on P-selectin-positive cancer cells [46][47]. Chung et al. developed a multifunctional nanocomplex carrying photosensitizer verteporfin, which was composed of negatively charged fucoidan, positively charged polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimer, and MnO2 catalyzing the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to form oxygen. The nanocarrier can enhance accumulation of verteporfin in the tumor site through both P-selectin targeting and the EPR effect. The dendrimer–fucoidan nanocomplex could specifically target P-selectin-overexpressed breast cancer and tumor-associated vasculature [48]. It also overcame tumor hypoxia using MnO2 and improved the therapeutic efficacy of PDT for antimetastatic effects. Recent multifunctional nanoplatforms exhibit such characteristics as cancer targeting, improved pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and high photodynamic efficacy.

In order to overcome drawbacks of chemotherapy, nanocarriers for the combination of chemotherapy and PDT have also been developed. Ce6 was loaded into peroxidase mimic metal–organic nanoparticles and coated with HA [49]. The nanocarrier can react with hydrogen peroxide in the tumor site and form oxygen to prevent hypoxia. It was designed for exhibiting cascade reactions and it could show synergetic chemo–photodynamic therapeutic efficacy.

Attachment of polyethylene glycol to the nanocarrier can provide hydrophilicity, decrease the clearance by the reticuloendothelial system, and extend circulation time. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) conjugated with hydrophobic stearamine carrying doxorubicin and pheophorbide A (PhA) accumulated in the tumor site, and the release of drugs from the nanocarrier with a ROS-sensitive linker was triggered by ROS within cancer cells [50]. The outer PEG layer could be helpful for long circulation of the nanocarrier in blood, and a stable thioketal bond could prevent premature drug leakage. On the other hand, there is growing concern about the immune response induced by PEGylation. Injection of PEGylated multifunctional nanoplatforms or bioconjugates may induce immunogenic reaction in the body [51]. Alternatively, zwitterionic polymers that have a hydrophilic nature and excellent biocompatibility can be used in the nanocarriers [52][53][54][55].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/biomedicines9010085

References

  1. Wainwright, M. The use of dyes in modern biomedicine. Biotech. Histochem. 2003, 78, 147–155.
  2. Ackroyd, R.; Kelty, C.; Brown, N.; Reed, M. The history of photodetection and photodynamic therapy. Photochem. Photobiol. 2001, 74, 656–669.
  3. Dougherty, T.J.; Gomer, C.J.; Henderson, B.W.; Jori, G.; Kessel, D.; Korbelik, M.; Moan, J.; Peng, Q. Photodynamic therapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998, 90, 889–905.
  4. Celli, J.P.; Spring, B.Q.; Rizvi, I.; Evans, C.L.; Samkoe, K.S.; Verma, S.; Pogue, B.W.; Hasan, T. Imaging and photodynamic therapy: Mechanisms, monitoring, and optimization. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 2795–2838.
  5. Dolmans, D.E.; Fukumura, D.; Jain, R.K. Photodynamic therapy for cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003, 3, 380–387.
  6. Moan, J.; Berg, K. The photodegradation of porphyrins in cells can be used to estimate the lifetime of singlet oxygen. Photochem. Photobiol. 1991, 53, 549–553.
  7. Skovsen, E.; Snyder, J.W.; Lambert, J.D.; Ogilby, P.R. Lifetime and diffusion of singlet oxygen in a cell. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 8570–8573.
  8. Zhen, Z.; Tang, W.; Chuang, Y.J.; Todd, T.; Zhang, W.; Lin, X.; Niu, G.; Liu, G.; Wang, L.; Pan, Z.; et al. Tumor vasculature targeted photodynamic therapy for enhanced delivery of nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 6004–6013.
  9. Yoon, J.; Park, J.; Choi, M.; Jong Choi, W.; Choi, C. Application of femtosecond-pulsed lasers for direct optical manipulation of biological functions. Annalen der Physik 2013, 525, 205–214.
  10. Choi, H.; Choi, M.; Choi, K.; Choi, C. Blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor sensitizes tumor-associated vasculatures to angiolytic therapy with a high-frequency ultrashort pulsed laser. Microvasc. Res. 2011, 82, 141–146.
  11. Chatterjee, D.K.; Fong, L.S.; Zhang, Y. Nanoparticles in photodynamic therapy: An emerging paradigm. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2008, 60, 1627–1637.
  12. Kang, Y.; Choi, M.; Lee, J.; Koh, G.Y.; Kwon, K.; Choi, C. Quantitative analysis of peripheral tissue perfusion using spatiotemporal molecular dynamics. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4275.
  13. Jang, B.; Park, J.Y.; Tung, C.H.; Kim, I.H.; Choi, Y. Gold nanorod-photosensitizer complex for near-infrared fluorescence imaging and photodynamic/photothermal therapy in vivo. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 1086–1094.
  14. Liu, J.; Liang, H.; Li, M.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, J.; Guo, X.; Cai, K. Tumor acidity activating multifunctional nanoplatform for NIR-mediated multiple enhanced photodynamic and photothermal tumor therapy. Biomaterials 2018, 157, 107–124.
  15. Chong, K.; Choi, K.; Kim, E.; Han, E.C.; Lee, J.; Cha, J.; Ku, T.; Yoon, J.; Park, J.H.; Choi, C. Coloring Brain Tumor with Multi-Potent Micellar Nanoscale Drug Delivery System. In Nanosystems in Engineering and Medicine; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 85480I.
  16. Kelly, J.F.; Snell, M.E. Hematoporphyrin derivative: A possible aid in the diagnosis and therapy of carcinoma of the bladder. J. Urol. 1976, 115, 150–151.
  17. Balchum, O.J.; Doiron, D.R.; Huth, G.C. Photoradiation therapy of endobronchial lung cancers employing the photodynamic action of hematoporphyrin derivative. Lasers Surg. Med. 1984, 4, 13–30.
  18. McCaughan, J.S., Jr.; Williams, T.E., Jr.; Bethel, B.H. Palliation of esophageal malignancy with photodynamic therapy. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1985, 40, 113–120.
  19. Hayata, Y.; Kato, H.; Okitsu, H.; Kawaguchi, M.; Konaka, C. Photodynamic therapy with hematoporphyrin derivative in cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Semin. Surg. Oncol. 1985, 1, 1–11.
  20. Li, L.; Moon, H.T.; Park, J.-Y.; Heo, Y.J.; Choi, Y.; Tran, T.H.; Lee, Y.-k.; Kim, S.Y.; Huh, K.M. Heparin-based self-assembled nanoparticles for photodynamic therapy. Macromol. Res. 2011, 19, 487–494.
  21. Stranadko, E.; Shabarov, V.; Riabov, M.; Duvansky, V. Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Endoscopy 2020, 52, OP339.
  22. Doustvandi, M.A.; Mohammadnejad, F.; Mansoori, B.; Tajalli, H.; Mohammadi, A.; Mokhtarzadeh, A.; Baghbani, E.; Khaze, V.; Hajiasgharzadeh, K.; Moghaddam, M.M. Photodynamic therapy using zinc phthalocyanine with low dose of diode laser combined with doxorubicin is a synergistic combination therapy for human SK-MEL-3 melanoma cells. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2019, 28, 88–97.
  23. Doko, M.; Jurin, M.; Svarc, A.; Tonkovic, G.; Ledinsky, M. The introduction of photodynamic therapy for tumorous patients in Croatia based on our experimental experiences and clinical approaches of the other groups. Coll Antropol. 1998, 22, 315–319.
  24. Mallidi, S.; Anbil, S.; Bulin, A.-L.; Obaid, G.; Ichikawa, M.; Hasan, T. Beyond the barriers of light penetration: Strategies, perspectives and possibilities for photodynamic therapy. Theranostics 2016, 6, 2458.
  25. Allison, R.R.; Downie, G.H.; Cuenca, R.; Hu, X.H.; Childs, C.J.; Sibata, C.H. Photosensitizers in clinical PDT. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2004, 1, 27–42.
  26. Josefsen, L.B.; Boyle, R.W. Photodynamic therapy and the development of metal-based photosensitisers. Met. Based Drugs 2008, 2008, 276109.
  27. Dabrowski, J.M.; Arnaut, L.G. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) of cancer: From local to systemic treatment. Photoch. Photobio. Sci. 2015, 14, 1765–1780.
  28. Li, X.; Zheng, B.-D.; Peng, X.-H.; Li, S.-Z.; Ying, J.-W.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, J.-D.; Yoon, J. Phthalocyanines as medicinal photosensitizers: Developments in the last five years. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2019, 379, 147–160.
  29. Paul, S.; Heng, P.W.; Chan, L.W. Implications of Photophysical and Physicochemical Factors on Successful Application of Photodynamic Therapy. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2017, 23, 6194–6205.
  30. Stummer, W.; Pichlmeier, U.; Meinel, T.; Wiestler, O.D.; Zanella, F.; Reulen, H.J.; ALA-Glioma Study Group. Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: A randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006, 7, 392–401.
  31. Inoue, K. 5-Aminolevulinic acid-mediated photodynamic therapy for bladder cancer. Int. J. Urol. 2017, 24, 97–101.
  32. Schuitmaker, H.J.; Barthen, E.; Keunen, J.E.; Wolff-Rouendaal, D.M. Evaluation of Photodynamically Induced Damage to Healthy Eye Tissues of Rabbits Using the Second-Generation Photosensitizers Bacteriochlorin a and Mthpc. In Photochemotherapy of Cancer and Other Diseases; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 52–58.
  33. Sharma, S.K.; Mroz, P.; Dai, T.; Huang, Y.Y.; Denis, T.G.S.; Hamblin, M.R. Photodynamic therapy for cancer and for infections: What is the difference? Isr. J. Chem. 2012, 52, 691–705.
  34. Juzenas, P.; Moan, J. Singlet oxygen in photosensitization. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 2006, 25, 29–50.
  35. Engbrecht, B.W.; Menon, C.; Kachur, A.V.; Hahn, S.M.; Fraker, D.L. Photofrin-mediated photodynamic therapy induces vascular occlusion and apoptosis in a human sarcoma xenograft model. Cancer Res. 1999, 59, 4334–4342.
  36. Li, X.; Kwon, N.; Guo, T.; Liu, Z.; Yoon, J. Innovative strategies for hypoxic-tumor photodynamic therapy. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2018, 57, 11522–11531.
  37. Yoo, J.-O.; Ha, K.-S. New insights into the mechanisms for photodynamic therapy-induced cancer cell death. In International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 295, pp. 139–174.
  38. Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W. Phototriggered targeting of nanocarriers for drug delivery. Nano Res. 2018, 11, 5424–5438.
  39. Mustafa, F.H.; Jaafar, M.S.; Ismail, A.H.; Houssein, H.A. The Effect of Laser Wavelength in Photodynamic Therapy and Phototherapy for Superficial Skin Diseases. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques, Penang, Malaysia, 17–18 May 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 232–236.
  40. Shi, L. Bioactivities, isolation and purification methods of polysaccharides from natural products: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 92, 37–48.
  41. Torres, F.G.; Troncoso, O.P.; Pisani, A.; Gatto, F.; Bardi, G. Natural Polysaccharide Nanomaterials: An Overview of Their Immunological Properties. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5092.
  42. Ren, Y.; Bai, Y.P.; Zhang, Z.; Cai, W.L.; Flores, A.D. The Preparation and Structure Analysis Methods of Natural Polysaccharides of Plants and Fungi: A Review of Recent Development. Molecules 2019, 24, 3122.
  43. Yang, C.; Fu, Y.; Huang, C.; Hu, D.; Zhou, K.; Hao, Y.; Chu, B.; Yang, Y.; Qian, Z. Chlorin e6 and CRISPR-Cas9 dual-loading system with deep penetration for a synergistic tumoral photodynamic-immunotherapy. Biomaterials 2020, 255, 120194.
  44. Choi, K.Y.; Silvestre, O.F.; Huang, X.; Hida, N.; Liu, G.; Ho, D.N.; Lee, S.; Lee, S.W.; Hong, J.I.; Chen, X. A nanoparticle formula for delivering siRNA or miRNAs to tumor cells in cell culture and in vivo. Nat. Protoc. 2014, 9, 1900–1915.
  45. Cohen, Z.R.; Ramishetti, S.; Peshes-Yaloz, N.; Goldsmith, M.; Wohl, A.; Zibly, Z.; Peer, D. Localized RNAi Therapeutics of Chemoresistant Grade IV Glioma Using Hyaluronan-Grafted Lipid-Based Nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 1581–1591.
  46. Shamay, Y.; Elkabets, M.; Li, H.; Shah, J.; Brook, S.; Wang, F.; Adler, K.; Baut, E.; Scaltriti, M.; Jena, P.V. P-selectin is a nanotherapeutic delivery target in the tumor microenvironment. Sci. Transl. Med. 2016, 8, 345ra87.
  47. Lu, K.-Y.; Li, R.; Hsu, C.-H.; Lin, C.-W.; Chou, S.-C.; Tsai, M.-L.; Mi, F.-L. Development of a new type of multifunctional fucoidan-based nanoparticles for anticancer drug delivery. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 165, 410–420.
  48. Chung, C.H.; Lu, K.Y.; Lee, W.C.; Hsu, W.J.; Lee, W.F.; Dai, J.Z.; Shueng, P.W.; Lin, C.W.; Mi, F.L. Fucoidan-based, tumor-activated nanoplatform for overcoming hypoxia and enhancing photodynamic therapy and antitumor immunity. Biomaterials 2020, 257, 120227.
  49. Sheng, S.; Liu, F.; Lin, L.; Yan, N.; Wang, Y.; Xu, C.; Tian, H.; Chen, X. Nanozyme-mediated cascade reaction based on metal-organic framework for synergetic chemo-photodynamic tumor therapy. J. Control. Release 2020, 328, 631–639.
  50. Uthaman, S.; Pillarisetti, S.; Mathew, A.P.; Kim, Y.; Bae, W.K.; Huh, K.M.; Park, I.K. Long circulating photoactivable nanomicelles with tumor localized activation and ROS triggered self-accelerating drug release for enhanced locoregional chemo-photodynamic therapy. Biomaterials 2020, 232, 119702.
  51. Zhang, P.; Sun, F.; Liu, S.; Jiang, S. Anti-PEG antibodies in the clinic: Current issues and beyond PEGylation. J. Control. Release 2016, 244, 184–193.
  52. Cao, Z.; Yu, Q.; Xue, H.; Cheng, G.; Jiang, S. Nanoparticles for drug delivery prepared from amphiphilic PLGA zwitterionic block copolymers with sharp contrast in polarity between two blocks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2010, 49, 3771–3776.
  53. Lin, W.; Ma, G.; Ji, F.; Zhang, J.; Wang, L.; Sun, H.; Chen, S. Biocompatible long-circulating star carboxybetaine polymers. J. Mater. Chem. B 2015, 3, 440–448.
  54. Lin, W.; Ma, G.; Kampf, N.; Yuan, Z.; Chen, S. Development of Long-Circulating Zwitterionic Cross-Linked Micelles for Active-Targeted Drug Delivery. Biomacromolecules 2016, 17, 2010–2018.
  55. Goda, T.; Miyahara, Y.; Ishihara, K. Phospholipid-mimicking cell-penetrating polymers: Principles and applications. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 7633–7641.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback