MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117569034 · doi:10.21037/tlcr-2025-662

Radiotherapy vs. photodynamic therapy: a comparison of antitumor effects and pulmonary toxicity in preclinical models

2025· article· en· W7117569034 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshihisa Hiraishi, T. Koga, Hiroyuki Ogawa, Andrew Effat, J. Chen, Jonathan Allen, Takahiro Yanagihara, Fumi Yokote, Nicholas Bernards, Masato Aragaki, Kate Kazlovich, Nadia Mohammed, Tsukasa Ishiwata, Akira Saito, Hidenori Kage, Jonathan Yeung, Gang Zheng, K Yasufuku

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Lung Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary toxicityToxicityLung cancerRadiation therapyLungPhotodynamic therapyMaximum tolerated dose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) and lung cancer are often associated, and ILD-associated lung cancer is a difficult condition to treat. Radiotherapy (RTx) is one of a standard therapeutic modalities for lung cancer, but pre-existing ILD is known to be a significant risk factor for developing severe radiation pneumonitis (RP) after treatment. In this context, there is a demand for alternative treatment modalities for ILD-associated localized lung cancer. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a minimally invasive treatment modality for lung cancer that can be performed endoscopically. In this study, we investigated proof-of-concept animal studies comparing RTx vs. PDT for (I) anti-tumor effects in a mouse xenograft model; and (II) pulmonary toxicity in a rat ILD model. Methods: For the mouse tumor study, NCr-Foxn1nu athymic mice were subcutaneously inoculated with A549 or H460 human lung cancer cells to unilateral thigh and followed for growth until 8–12 mm sized. Ultrasmall nanostructured nanoparticle porphylipoprotein (PLP) was used in this study. The mice were divided into three intervention groups; control, RTx, and PDT. RTx group received a single 20 Gy local irradiation, while PDT group received an intravenous PLP (4 mg/kg) 24 hours before treatment, followed by laser ablation (671 nm) at 100 J/cm2. For the rat ILD study, Sprague-Dawley immunocompetent rats were given an intratracheal single dose of bleomycin (BLM; 2 mg/kg) or vehicle control, and were followed up for 3 weeks to develop ILD. RTx group received a single 20 Gy irradiation, while PDT group had PLP administration (4 mg/kg), laser fiber delivered to the left lung base under computed tomography (CT) guidance with mechanical ventilation support and PDT performed at 100 J/cm2. Chest CT was evaluated monthly and an autopsy was done after 1- or 3-month follow-up. Results: In the mouse xenograft model, PLP biodistribution showed the best tumor-to-contralateral background muscle ratio at 24 hours post-injection. In day 7, both RTx and PDT showed a significant tumor volume difference in A549 and H460 xenografts over control, while PDT showed a significant tumor volume difference in A549 xenograft compared to RTx. In rat ILD model, chest CT showed that BLM + RTx exhibited increased lung infiltrates at week 15 compared to BLM + PDT. Leukocyte cell fractionation of bronchoalveolar lavage at 15 weeks showed that BLM + RTx had significantly higher cell counts than BLM + PDT or control in total leukocyte, neutrophil, and macrophage. In Ashcroft’s lung fibrosis pathology score, BLM + RTx showed more significant score increases over control, BLM, or BLM + PDT. Conclusions: Despite the differences in dose delivery between RTx and PDT, PDT demonstrated comparable antitumor efficacy to RTx in mouse xenograft model and a safer pulmonary toxicity profile than RTx in rat ILD model. PDT is possibly a promising treatment modality for lung cancer associated with ILD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Lung Cancer ResearchSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207