A comparison of novel light sources for photodynamic therapy.

ABSTRACT

A diode laser, light-emitting diode (LED) array bandwidth 25 nm, full width half maximum (FWHM) and filtered arc lamp (bandwidth 40 nm, FWHM), all with peak emission at about 650 nm, suitable for the photosensitizer tetra(meta-hydroxyphenyl)chlorin (mTHPC), were compared with a copper vapour laser pumped dye laser, using depth of necrosis in normal rat liver as a measure of photodynamic effect.A three-way comparison between a DL10K dye laser, the LED array and the filtered arc lamp resulted in mean depths of necrosis of 4.64, 4.29 and 4.04 mm, respectively, at 20 J cm(-2), the values for the laser and arc lamp being significantly different at the 5% level. A further comparison of a narrower linewidth DL20K dye laser with the LED array, using a light dose of 20 J cm(-2), showed a significant difference between the mean depths of necrosis of 4.97 and 4.05 mm, respectively (p=0.01).A final study, comparing the DL20K dye laser with the diode laser and a light dose of 10 J cm(-2), demonstrated no significant difference in depths of necrosis (3.23 and 3.25 mm, respectively). The results obtained in the three studies are attributed to the relative bandwidths of light emission for the various sources. A simple mathematical model is presented explaining the results in terms of the relative activation of the photosensitizer and the consequent threshold fluence required for the induction of necrosis.It is concluded that, in order to achieve the same depth of effect as a laser when using the broad band sources, the incident fluence would have to be approximately doubled. However, when the low cost and ease of use of the non-laser sources are taken into consideration, these devices are likely to find widespread applications in clinical photodynamic therapy.