Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2005
Mild skin photosensitivity in cancer patients following injection of Photochlor (2-[1-hexyloxyethyl]-2-devinyl pyropheophorbide-a; HPPH) for photodynamic therapy.
Клиническое исследование I фазыКлиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bellnier David A, Greco William R, Nava Hector, Loewen Gregory M, Oseroff Allan R, Dougherty Thomas J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To measure skin photosensitivity in cancer patients infused with the new second-generation photodynamic sensitizer Photochlor (2-[1-hexyloxyethyl]-2-devinyl pyropheophorbide-a). A major disadvantage of using the clinically approved photosensitizer Photofrin is potentially prolonged and sometimes severe cutaneous phototoxicity.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients enrolled in Phases 1 and 2 clinical trials underwent two or more exposures to four graded doses (44.4, 66.6, 88.8 or 133.2 J/cm2) of artificial solar-spectrum light (SSL) before and after administration of Photochlor at a dose of 2.5, 3, 4, 5 or 6 mg/m2 .
RESULTS: The most severe skin response, experienced by only six of the subjects, was limited to erythema without edema and could only be elicited by exposure to the highest light dose. Conversely, eight subjects had no discernible reaction to SSL at any light dose. For nearly all the patients, the peak skin response was obtained when the interval between sensitizer injection and exposure to SSL was 1 day and, generally, their sensitivity to SSL decreased with increasing sensitizer-light interval. For example, a 2-day sensitizer-SSL interval resulted in less severe reactions than those obtained with the 1-day interval in 79% of the subjects, while 90% of the subjects exposed to SSL 3 days after Photochlor infusion had responses that were less severe than those obtained with either the 1- or 2-day sensitizer-SSL interval.
CONCLUSIONS: Photochlor, at clinically effective antitumor doses, causes only mild skin photosensitivity that declines rapidly over a few days.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients enrolled in Phases 1 and 2 clinical trials underwent two or more exposures to four graded doses (44.4, 66.6, 88.8 or 133.2 J/cm2) of artificial solar-spectrum light (SSL) before and after administration of Photochlor at a dose of 2.5, 3, 4, 5 or 6 mg/m2 .
RESULTS: The most severe skin response, experienced by only six of the subjects, was limited to erythema without edema and could only be elicited by exposure to the highest light dose. Conversely, eight subjects had no discernible reaction to SSL at any light dose. For nearly all the patients, the peak skin response was obtained when the interval between sensitizer injection and exposure to SSL was 1 day and, generally, their sensitivity to SSL decreased with increasing sensitizer-light interval. For example, a 2-day sensitizer-SSL interval resulted in less severe reactions than those obtained with the 1-day interval in 79% of the subjects, while 90% of the subjects exposed to SSL 3 days after Photochlor infusion had responses that were less severe than those obtained with either the 1- or 2-day sensitizer-SSL interval.
CONCLUSIONS: Photochlor, at clinically effective antitumor doses, causes only mild skin photosensitivity that declines rapidly over a few days.