Loading…

In vivo Optical Properties of Normal Canine Prostate at 732 nm Using Motexafin Lutetium–mediated Photodynamic Therapy

The optical properties (absorption [μa], transport scattering [μ′s] and effective attenuation [μeff] coefficients) of normal canine prostate were measured in vivo using interstitial isotropic detectors. Measurements were made at 732 nm before, during and after motexafin lutetium (MLu)–mediated photo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Photochemistry and photobiology 2003-01, Vol.77 (1), p.81-88
Main Authors: Zhu, Timothy C., Hahn, Stephen M., Kapatkin, Amy S., Dimofte, Andreea, Rodriguez, Carmen E., Vulcan, Teodor G., Glatstein, Eli, Hsi, R. Alex
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The optical properties (absorption [μa], transport scattering [μ′s] and effective attenuation [μeff] coefficients) of normal canine prostate were measured in vivo using interstitial isotropic detectors. Measurements were made at 732 nm before, during and after motexafin lutetium (MLu)–mediated photodynamic therapy (PDT). They were derived by applying the diffusion theory to the in vivo peak fluence rates measured at several distances (3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 mm) from the central axis of a 2.5 cm cylindrical diffusing fiber (CDF). μa and μ′s varied between 0.03–0.58 and 1.0–20 cm−1, respectively. μa was proportional to the concentration of MLu. μeff varied between 0.33 and 4.9 cm−1 (mean 1.3 ± 1.1 cm−1), corresponding to an optical penetration depth (δ = 1/μeff) of 0.5–3 cm (mean 1.3 ± 0.8 cm). The mean light fluence rate at 0.5 cm from the CDF was 126 ± 48 mW/cm2 (N = 22) when the total power from the fiber was 375 mW (150 mW/cm). This study showed significant inter- and intraprostatic differences in the optical properties, suggesting that a real-time dosimetry measurement and feedback system for monitoring light fluences during treatment should be advocated for future PDT studies. However, no significant changes were observed before, during and after PDT within a single treatment site.
ISSN:0031-8655
1751-1097
DOI:10.1562/0031-8655(2003)077<0081:IVOPON>2.0.CO;2