Immunosuppressive effects of silicon phthalocyanine photodynamic therapy.

The purpose of this study was to determine if silicon phthalocyanine 4 (Pc 4), a second-generation photosensitizer being evaluated for the photodynamic therapy (PDT) of solid tumors, was immunosuppressive. Mice treated with Pc 4 PDT 3 days before dinitrofluorobenzene sensitization showed significant suppression of their cell-mediated immune response when compared to mice that were not exposed to PDT. The response was dose dependent, required both Pc 4 and light and occurred at a skin site remote from that exposed to the laser. The immunosuppression could not be reversed by in vivo pre-treatment of mice with antibodies to tumor necrosis factor-alpha or interleukin-10. These results provide evidence that induction of cell-mediated immunity is suppressed after Pc 4 PDT. Strategies that prevent PDT-mediated immunosuppression may therefore enhance the efficacy of this therapeutic modality.

A comparative analysis of silicon phthalocyanine photosensitizers for in vivo photodynamic therapy of RIF-1 tumors in C3H mice.

Photofrin photodynamic therapy (PDT) has recently received FDA approval for the palliative treatment of totally and partially obstructing esophageal malignancies. However, there is a need for new PDT photosensitizers because Photofrin has a number of undesirable features. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of four amine-bearing silicon phthalocyanines--Pc4, Pc10, Pc12 and Pc18--as potential PDT photosensitizers. Equimolar concentrations of these Pc were found to be highly effective at causing the regression of RIF-1 tumors transplanted to C3H/HeN mice. The amount of Pc4 necessary to cause an equivalent amount of tumor regression in this model system was substantially less than the amount of Photofrin. The cutaneous phototoxicity of the silicon Pc photosensitizer was assessed by the utilization of the murine ear-swelling model. When C3H mice were exposed to 167 J/cm2 of polychromatic visible light from a UVB-filtered solar simulator, which emitted UV radiation and visible light above 320 nm, the Pc produced little, if any, cutaneous photosensitivity. These results indicate that Pc4, Pc10, Pc12 and Pc18 are at least as effective as Photofrin in PDT protocols, while at the same time addressing many of the drawbacks of Photofrin.