// Kazuhide Sato 1 , Rira Watanabe 1 , Hirofumi Hanaoka 1 , Takahito Nakajima 1 , Peter L. Choyke 1 , Hisataka Kobayashi 1 1 Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA Correspondence to: Hisataka Kobayashi, e-mail: Kobayash@mail.nih.gov Keywords: near infrared photoimmunotherapy, light emitting diode (LED), light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (Laser), epidermal growth factor receptor, super-enhanced permeability and retention (SUPR) effect Received: December 03, 2015 Accepted: January 29, 2016 Published: February 13, 2016 ABSTRACT Near infrared photoimmunotherapy (NIR-PIT) is a new cancer treatment that combines the specificity of antibodies for targeting tumors with the toxicity induced by photosensitizers after exposure to near infrared (NIR) light. Herein we compare two NIR-light sources; light emitting diodes (LEDs) and Lasers, for their effectiveness in NIR-PIT. A photosensitizer, IRDye-700DX, conjugated to panitumumab (pan-IR700), was incubated with EGFR-expressing A431 and MDA-MB-468-luc cells. NIR-light was provided by LEDs or Lasers at the same light dose. Laser-light produced more cytotoxicity and greater reductions in IR700-fluorescence intensity than LED-light. Laser-light also produced more cytotoxicity in vivo in both cell lines. Assessment of super-enhanced permeability and retention (SUPR) effects were stronger with Laser than LED. These results suggest that Laser-light produced significantly more cytotoxic effects compared to LEDs. Although LED is less expensive, Laser-light produces superior results in NIR-PIT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sato et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: