Whole Bladder Photodynamic Therapy for Orthotopic Superficial Bladder Cancer in Rats: A Study of Intravenous and Intravesical Administration of Photosensitizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Photodynamic therapy after intravenous injection of Photofrin (QLT Phototherapeutics, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) results in a contracted bladder and skin photosensitivity, which limits its clinical application. In an attempt to overcome these limitations photodynamic therapy after intravesical instillation of Photofrin or 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) in an orthotopic rat bladder tumor model was explored and compared with intravenous Photofrin for photodynamic therapy efficacy and phototoxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At 2 weeks after bladder implantation of 1.5 x 10(6) AY-27 tumor cells animals were randomly grouped. Photofrin was administered (5 mg./kg. intravenously and 2 mg./ml. intravesically). The ALA concentration for intravesical instillation was 300 mM. Whole bladder photodynamic therapy with graded doses of light (lambda = 630 nm.) was performed 4 hours after drug administration. Tumor control and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Photodynamic therapy with intravenous Photofrin plus 100 J./cm.(2) light resulted in severe bladder damage. Of 10 rats 6 died and 2 of the 10 that received 50 J./cm.(2) died. There were no photodynamic therapy related deaths in groups receiving intravesical instillation of Photofrin or ALA that also received 50 to 100 J./cm.(2) Median survival in rats treated with ALA intravesically plus 75 J./cm.(2) (77 days), Photofrin intravesically plus 50 (67) or 100 J./cm.(2) (76) and Photofrin intravenously plus 50 J./cm.(2) (60) were significantly different from that in controls (44). CONCLUSIONS: Intravesical instillation of Photofrin or ALA can achieve the same photodynamic therapy efficacy as intravenous Photofrin in this orthotopic rat bladder tumor model with less phototoxicity to normal tissues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".