Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo

Vadzim Reshetov,1–3 Henri-Pierre Lassalle,1,2 Aurélie François,1,2,4 Dominique Dumas,5 Sebastien Hupont,5 Susanna Gräfe,6 Vasco Filipe,7 Wim Jiskoot,7 François Guillemin,1,2,4 Vladimir Zorin,3 Lina Bezdetnaya1,2,41Université de Lorraine,...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reshetov V, Lassalle HP, François A, Dumas D, Hupont S, Gräfe S, Filipe V, Jiskoot W, Guillemin F, Zorin V, Bezdetnaya L
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/e5f7546ad2ca442bb671317af4a02acf
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:e5f7546ad2ca442bb671317af4a02acf
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:e5f7546ad2ca442bb671317af4a02acf2021-12-02T00:31:37ZPhotodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo1176-91141178-2013https://doaj.org/article/e5f7546ad2ca442bb671317af4a02acf2013-10-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/photodynamic-therapy-with-conventional-and-pegylated-liposomal-formula-a14616https://doaj.org/toc/1176-9114https://doaj.org/toc/1178-2013Vadzim Reshetov,1–3 Henri-Pierre Lassalle,1,2 Aurélie François,1,2,4 Dominique Dumas,5 Sebastien Hupont,5 Susanna Gräfe,6 Vasco Filipe,7 Wim Jiskoot,7 François Guillemin,1,2,4 Vladimir Zorin,3 Lina Bezdetnaya1,2,41Université de Lorraine, Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy, Campus Sciences, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; 2Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy, France; 3Laboratory of Biophysics and Biotechnology, Physics Faculty, Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus; 4Lorraine Cancer Institute, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France; 5Université de Lorraine, Plate forme d'Imagerie et de Biophysique Cellulaire Plate Forme IBiSA d'Imagerie et de Biophysique Cellulaire de Nancy, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; 6Biolitec Research GmbH, Research and Development, Jena, Germany; 7Division of Drug Delivery Technology, Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, the NetherlandsAbstract: A major challenge in the application of a nanoparticle-based drug delivery system for anticancer agents is the knowledge of the critical properties that influence their in vivo behavior and the therapeutic performance of the drug. The effect of a liposomal formulation, as an example of a widely-used delivery system, on all aspects of the drug delivery process, including the drug's behavior in blood and in the tumor, has to be considered when optimizing treatment with liposomal drugs, but that is rarely done. This article presents a comparison of conventional (Foslip®) and polyethylene glycosylated (Fospeg®) liposomal formulations of temoporfin (meta-tetra[hydroxyphenyl]chlorin) in tumor-grafted mice, with a set of comparison parameters not reported before in one model. Foslip® and Fospeg® pharmacokinetics, drug release, liposome stability, tumor uptake, and intratumoral distribution are evaluated, and their influence on the efficacy of the photodynamic treatment at different light–drug intervals is discussed. The use of whole-tumor multiphoton fluorescence macroscopy imaging is reported for visualization of the in vivo intratumoral distribution of the photosensitizer. The combination of enhanced permeability and retention-based tumor accumulation, stability in the circulation, and release properties leads to a higher efficacy of the treatment with Fospeg® compared to Foslip®. A significant advantage of Fospeg® lies in a major decrease in the light–drug interval, while preserving treatment efficacy.Keywords: mTHPC, liposomes, drug release, liposomal pharmacokinetics, biodistribution, photodynamic therapyReshetov VLassalle HPFrançois ADumas DHupont SGräfe SFilipe VJiskoot WGuillemin FZorin VBezdetnaya LDove Medical PressarticleMedicine (General)R5-920ENInternational Journal of Nanomedicine, Vol 2013, Iss Issue 1, Pp 3817-3831 (2013)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine (General)
R5-920
spellingShingle Medicine (General)
R5-920
Reshetov V
Lassalle HP
François A
Dumas D
Hupont S
Gräfe S
Filipe V
Jiskoot W
Guillemin F
Zorin V
Bezdetnaya L
Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
description Vadzim Reshetov,1–3 Henri-Pierre Lassalle,1,2 Aurélie François,1,2,4 Dominique Dumas,5 Sebastien Hupont,5 Susanna Gräfe,6 Vasco Filipe,7 Wim Jiskoot,7 François Guillemin,1,2,4 Vladimir Zorin,3 Lina Bezdetnaya1,2,41Université de Lorraine, Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy, Campus Sciences, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; 2Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy, France; 3Laboratory of Biophysics and Biotechnology, Physics Faculty, Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus; 4Lorraine Cancer Institute, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France; 5Université de Lorraine, Plate forme d'Imagerie et de Biophysique Cellulaire Plate Forme IBiSA d'Imagerie et de Biophysique Cellulaire de Nancy, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; 6Biolitec Research GmbH, Research and Development, Jena, Germany; 7Division of Drug Delivery Technology, Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, the NetherlandsAbstract: A major challenge in the application of a nanoparticle-based drug delivery system for anticancer agents is the knowledge of the critical properties that influence their in vivo behavior and the therapeutic performance of the drug. The effect of a liposomal formulation, as an example of a widely-used delivery system, on all aspects of the drug delivery process, including the drug's behavior in blood and in the tumor, has to be considered when optimizing treatment with liposomal drugs, but that is rarely done. This article presents a comparison of conventional (Foslip®) and polyethylene glycosylated (Fospeg®) liposomal formulations of temoporfin (meta-tetra[hydroxyphenyl]chlorin) in tumor-grafted mice, with a set of comparison parameters not reported before in one model. Foslip® and Fospeg® pharmacokinetics, drug release, liposome stability, tumor uptake, and intratumoral distribution are evaluated, and their influence on the efficacy of the photodynamic treatment at different light–drug intervals is discussed. The use of whole-tumor multiphoton fluorescence macroscopy imaging is reported for visualization of the in vivo intratumoral distribution of the photosensitizer. The combination of enhanced permeability and retention-based tumor accumulation, stability in the circulation, and release properties leads to a higher efficacy of the treatment with Fospeg® compared to Foslip®. A significant advantage of Fospeg® lies in a major decrease in the light–drug interval, while preserving treatment efficacy.Keywords: mTHPC, liposomes, drug release, liposomal pharmacokinetics, biodistribution, photodynamic therapy
format article
author Reshetov V
Lassalle HP
François A
Dumas D
Hupont S
Gräfe S
Filipe V
Jiskoot W
Guillemin F
Zorin V
Bezdetnaya L
author_facet Reshetov V
Lassalle HP
François A
Dumas D
Hupont S
Gräfe S
Filipe V
Jiskoot W
Guillemin F
Zorin V
Bezdetnaya L
author_sort Reshetov V
title Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
title_short Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
title_full Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
title_fullStr Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
title_full_unstemmed Photodynamic therapy with conventional and PEGylated liposomal formulations of mTHPC (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
title_sort photodynamic therapy with conventional and pegylated liposomal formulations of mthpc (temoporfin): comparison of treatment efficacy and distribution characteristics in vivo
publisher Dove Medical Press
publishDate 2013
url https://doaj.org/article/e5f7546ad2ca442bb671317af4a02acf
work_keys_str_mv AT reshetovv photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT lassallehp photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT franampccediloisa photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT dumasd photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT huponts photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT grampaumlfes photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT filipev photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT jiskootw photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT guilleminf photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT zorinv photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
AT bezdetnayal photodynamictherapywithconventionalandpegylatedliposomalformulationsofmthpctemoporfincomparisonoftreatmentefficacyanddistributioncharacteristicsinvivo
_version_ 1718403713894187008