Skip to main content
Download PDF

Volume 1 Supplement 1

1st Scientific Meeting of the Head and Neck Optical Diagnostics Society

Fluorescence kinetics of Foscan, Fospeg and Foslip in the window-chamber model

Head & Neck Oncology volume 1, Article number: O18 (2009) Cite this article

Introduction

Foslip and Fospeg are new formulations of the photosensitzer m-THPC, intended for use in Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) of malignancies. Foslip is m-THPC bound to conventional liposomes, Fospeg consists of m-THPC bound to pegylated liposomes. Possible differences in tumour-fluorescence and vasculature kinetics between Foslip, Fospeg and Foscan were studied using the rat window-chamber model.

Materials and methods

In 18 rats a dorsal skinfold window-chamber was installed and a mammary carcinoma was transplanted in the subcutaneous tissue. The dosage used for intravenous injection was 0.15 mg of m-THPC for each formulation. At 7 time-points after injection (5 minutes – 96 hours), mTHPC-fluoresence at its absorption-peak and auto-fluorescence were detected with a CCD. After correction, m-THPC fluorescence images were achieved. Fluorescence intensities of 3 different regions of interest (ROI) were assessed; tumour-tissue, vasculature and surrounding connective tissue.

Results

Shortly after injection vascular m-THPC fluorescence was high for Foscan and Fospeg but not for Foslip. The latter showed a gradual increase in fluorescence. All photosensitizers showed different fluorescence intensity curves in time. Fospeg had higher m-THPC fluorescence in tumour tissue (p < 0.05) between 2 and 8 hours and showed this trend at later time-points compared to the other photosensitizers. Maximum tumour fluorescence is reached at 48 hours for Foslip and 24 hours for Foscan and Fospeg. No photosensitizer showed a significant difference between the tumour and surrounding tissue fluorescence.

Conclusion

There are differences in fluorescence intensities of Fospeg, Foslip and Foscan at all time-points. Pegylated liposomes showed higher uptake in tumour. No photosensitizer showed tumour-selectivity.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), The Netherlands

    Sebastiaan De Visscher, Jan LN Roodenburg & Max JH Witjes

  2. Centre of optical diagnosis and therapy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Dominic J Robinson, Slávka Kaščáková, Riette de Bruijn, Angelique van der Poeg & Henricus JCM Sterenborg

Authors
  1. Sebastiaan De Visscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominic J Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Slávka Kaščáková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riette de Bruijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Angelique van der Poeg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henricus JCM Sterenborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jan LN Roodenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Max JH Witjes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max JH Witjes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Visscher, S., Robinson, D.J., Kaščáková, S. et al. Fluorescence kinetics of Foscan, Fospeg and Foslip in the window-chamber model. Head Neck Oncol 1, O18 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-3284-1-S1-O18

Download citation

Keywords

  • Carcinoma
  • Fluorescence Intensity
  • Connective Tissue
  • Intravenous Injection
  • Gradual Increase

Head & Neck Oncology

ISSN: 1758-3284