Abstract: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has emerged as an alternative modality for cancer treatment. PDT works by initiating damaging oxidation or redox-sensitive pathways to trigger cell death. PDT can also regulate tumor angiogenesis and modulate systemic antitumor immunity. The drawbacks to PDT -- photosensitizer toxicity, a lack of selectivity and efficacy of photosensitizers, and a limited penetrance of light through deep tissues -- are the same pitfalls associated with diagnostic imaging. Developments in the field of nanotechnology have generated novel platforms for optimizing the advantages while minimizing the disadvantages of PDT. Calcium phosphosilicate nanoparticles (CPSNPs) represent an optimal nano-system for both diagnostic imaging and PDT. In this review, we will discuss how CPSNPs can enhance optical agents and serve as selective, non-toxic, and functionally stable photosensitizers for PDT. We will also examine novel applications of CPSNPs and PDT for the treatment of leukemia to illustrate their potential utility in cancer therapeutics.
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has emerged as an alternative strategy for treating cancer. PDT consists of three main components: a photosensitizer, light, and oxygen. PDT takes advantage of an appropriate wavelength of light that excites a photosensitizer to a triplet energy state (Juarranz et al., 2008; Ortel et al., 2009; Wainwright, 2008). In the presence of molecular oxygen, energy is transferred to relax the excited state of the photosensitizer (Figure 1). This energy transfer in turn excites molecular oxygen to form excited, singlet state oxygen (Figure 2). Singlet oxygen induces cell death via damaging oxidation or redox-sensitive cellular signaling pathways, thus mediating the effects of PDT (Dolmans et al., 2003; Huang et al., 2008; Juarranz et al., 2008). Intriguingly, PDT has also been shown to regulate processes beyond tumor cell death including tumor angiogenesis and modulation of the immune system (Dolmans et al., 2003; Gollnick et al., 2010; Juarranz et al., 2008; Reddy et al., 2006). It has been speculated that PDT, when effective, can actually restrict tumor nutrient supply by the ablation of tumor blood vessels and by triggering an immune response that can afford systemic antitumor immunity (Gollnick et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2010; 2011; Mroz et al., 2010; 2011; Tammela et al., 2011). For these reasons, PDT continues to garner considerable interest, as technologies develop to overcome potential limitations. Disadvantages of current PDT include photosensitizer toxicity, a lack of efficacious and selective photosensitizers, and an inability of light to sufficiently penetrate through tissues to reach tumors deep within the body (Chatterjee et al., 2008; Donnelly et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2006; Sibani et al., 2008; Wainwright, 2008). For these reasons, PDT is primarily utilized to treat cancers of the skin and esophagus (Ficheux, 2009; Gross et al., 2010; Kotimaki, 2009; Nyst et al., 2009). Interestingly, the pitfalls of PDT are the same as those associated with diagnostic imaging. Advances in the field of nanotechnology may therefore overcome the hurdles associated with both diagnostic imaging and PDT. In this review, we will focus on the development of our novel nanotechnology and its application for both diagnostic imaging and PDT. It is important to note that although we focus on our technology, other considerable advances within the fields of nanotechnology and photobiology are also reinvigorating the field of PDT research. In particular, various polymeric and nonpolymeric nanoparticles have been reported to encapsulate photosensitizers and have demonstrated efficacy in both in vitro and in vivo models while decreasing toxicity (Cheng et al., 2011; Hocine et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2011a; Lee et al., 2011b; Ohulchanskyy et al., 2007; Qin et al., 2011; Reddy et al., 2006; Rungta et al., 2011).
Calcium phosphosilicate nanoparticles (CPSNPs) were initially developed to improve the optical and quantum properties of encapsulated dyes (Altinoglu et al., 2008; Kester et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2008). CPSNPs were also engineered to protect agents during systemic delivery, ensuring a pH-dependent release following endocytosis (Kester et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2008). CPSNPs are very small (approximately 20 nm diameter) (Adair et al., 2010; Tabakovic et al., 2012). They offer an advantage over other nanoparticles, because dyes, drugs, or other molecules of interest are encapsulated within a calcium phosphosilicate nanomatrix. This is in contrast to surface decoration of the nanoparticle, which can be the case for a variety of other nanoparticles, including other calcium phosphate-based systems (Graham et al., 1973). Calcium and phosphate are also advantageous materials for nanoparticles because they are both abundant in physiological systems and pose no inherent toxicity (Tabakovic et al., 2012). This is in stark contrast to other nanoparticles composed of cadmium, selenium, heavy metals, or hydrocarbons that are significantly toxic and cannot be used effectively in biomedical applications (Adair et al., 2010; Tabakovic et al., 2012). Additionally, the calcium phosphosilicate nanomatrix is stable at physiological pH, allowing these nanoparticles to protect their “payloads” during systemic circulation. CPSNPs are engulfed by cells during endocytosis and ultimately trafficked via the endosomal-lysosomal pathway (Altinoglu et al., 2008; Barth et al., 2010; 2011; Kester et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2008; Muddana et al., 2009; Tabakovic et al., 2012). Local acidic pH changes cause the CPSNPs to degrade and release their contents. This controlled release ensures that free-dye, or free-drug, is not exposed in systemic circulation where the free-dye/free-drug can do considerable harm. Improvements to CPSNPs, such as selective targeting, further ensure that these nanoparticles only go where they are intended, thus protecting the body’s tissues from unintended and off-target effects (Barth et al., 2010; 2011). Our design of CPSNPs also includes surface functionalization with polyethylene glycol (PEG) (Altinoglu et al., 2008; Barth et al., 2010; 2011; Kester et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2008). PEGylation of nanoparticles, such as CPSNPs, helps to permit longer systemic retention and reduce nanoparticle clearance by the immune system (stealth characteristic). Additionally, PEGylated nanoparticles have the ability to accumulate within solid tumors via a process known as the enhanced permeation and retention (EPR) (Altinoglu et al., 2008). This effect is due to the unique and disorganized vasculature of tumors, in addition to poor lymphatic drainage, which allows small nano-sized materials to accumulate within tumors (Fang et al., 2011; Hirsjarvi et al., 2011). In a diagnostic imaging trial using CPSNPs, we showed that the accumulation of CPSNPs within tumors is dependent upon PEGylation of the nanoparticles; because non-PEGylated CPSNPs failed to accumulate and retain within breast cancer tumors in vivo (Altinoglu et al., 2008). This imaging study also revealed that CPSNPs primarily leave the body via hepatobiliary clearance, further minimizing toxicity. Altogether, CPSNPs represent an optimal nano-system for biomedical applications because of eight key achievements: (1) CPSNPs are made of non-toxic materials, (2) CPSNPs are truly nano-sized, (3) CPSNPs completely encapsulate payloads, (4) CPSNPs are colloidally stable in physiological conditions, (5) CPSNPs have increased retention times due to surface PEGylation, (6) CPSNPs clear via hepatobiliary excretion, (7) CPSNPs offer controlled pH-mediated release of payloads, and (8) CPSNPs can be functionalized to selectively target specific cells (Adair et al., 2010).
CPSNPs for Diagnostic Imaging of Cancer
One of the distinct goals of CPSNP development was to improve the optical properties of fluorescent dyes to allow for better imaging for cancer diagnostics. We have developed CPSNPs that encapsulate a range of fluorescent dyes, and we have tested these in various experimental settings including cell and animal imaging. For whole animal imaging, we chose to encapsulate the near-infrared fluorescent dye indocyanine green (ICG) (Altinoglu et al., 2008; Barth et al., 2010; 2011). For biological tissues, light scattering is a serious drawback to effective imaging. Near-infrared fluorescing probes, such as ICG, offer an advantage in that their excitation and emission wavelengths are long enough to pass through biological tissues with minimal to no light scattering. As mentioned, the optical properties of fluorescent dyes, such as ICG, are vastly improved by encapsulation within the nanomatrix of CPSNPs (Altinoglu et al., 2008). ICG is currently used as an FDA-approved contrast agent in imaging applications (Bennett et al., 2009). However, the use of ICG suffers considerably from a short plasma half-life (2-4 minutes), photobleaching, and nonspecific quenching due to binding with serum proteins (Desmettre et al., 2000). Encapsulation of ICG within CPSNPs overcame these drawbacks and vastly improved its optical properties. In our initial diagnostic imaging trial we compared the ability of free (non-encapsulated) ICG and CPSNPs loaded with ICG to image mice implanted with breast cancer tumors (Altinoglu et al., 2008). In this study, free ICG was not able to effectively image tumors, whereas ICG-loaded CPSNPs (PEGylated) effectively accumulated in tumors and imaged tumors up to 96 hours following systemic injection (Altinoglu et al., 2008). The improvements to ICG-mediated imaging are directly reflective of the enhanced fluorescence quantum efficiency (ΦF) and photostability of ICG when encapsulated within CPSNPs. In a subsequent study, the ΦF of free ICG and nano-encapsulated ICG were directly compared (Russin et al., 2010). It was demonstrated that the ΦF in PBS for free ICG was 0.027 +/- 0.001, a typical CPSNP loaded with ICG was 0.053 +/- 0.003, and ICG molecules encapsulated within CPSNPs were 0.066 +/- 0.004 (Russin et al., 2010). This study also found that 6 +/- 2 ICG molecules were encapsulated per typical CPSNP (Russin et al., 2010). The specific optical improvements described for ICG-loaded CPSNPs also potentially expand the use of ICG beyond imaging to therapeutic applications such as PDT.
Our original diagnostic imaging study relied on the EPR effect to allow for effective imaging of implanted breast cancer tumors (Altinoglu et al., 2008). This allowed for good CPSNP accumulation, but we questioned if this would be the most effective imaging modality. Furthermore, more selective targeting was of interest to improve the potential for therapeutic delivery to a cell population. In a subsequent study, we improved in vivo imaging by targeting CPSNPs specifically to CD71 on breast cancer tumors or to the gastrin receptor on pancreatic cancer tumors (Barth et al., 2010). The transferrin receptor (CD71) is found predominately on proliferating cells with elevated metabolic levels, including many cancerous cells (e.g., breast cancer cells), brain capillary endothelial cells, and hematopoietic cells (Daniels et al., 2006a; 2006b; Gosk et al., 2004; Shindelman et al., 1981; Sutherland et al., 1981). Similarly, gastrin receptors have prevalence within particular tissues within the gastrointestinal and central nervous systems (Wank et al., 1992). These G-protein-coupled receptors, also known as the cholecystokinin-2 (CCK2 or CCK-B) receptor family, are often increased in many cases of gastrointestinal cancer (Smith et al., 1996; 1998). In pancreatic cancer, there can be a particular increase in the expression of a specific splice variant (CCK2i4sv or CCK-C) of the receptor (Smith et al., 1994; 1995; 2002). Our study evaluated different methods for attaching ligands, fragments of ligands, or antibodies to CPSNPs to permit targeting of either CD71 or gastrin receptors (Barth et al., 2010). We found that targeting CD71 improved the imaging capability of CPSNPs for subcutaneously implanted breast cancer tumors. Furthermore, and more profoundly, targeting CPSNPs to gastrin receptors permitted robust imaging of orthotopically implanted pancreatic cancer in vivo. This was particularly exciting because these tumors are diffuse and occur in regions with poor blood supply to allow for nanoparticle accumulation. While non-targeted CPSNPs were able to image orthotopic pancreatic tumors, gastrin receptor-targeted CPSNPs were able to robustly image the entire extent of the orthotopic tumor (Figure 3). Owing to the prevalence of gastrin receptors in the central nervous system, these targeted CPSNPs were also able to cross the blood brain barrier and image the brain (Barth et al., 2010; Wank et al., 1992). Other groups have described actively targeted nanoparticles that cross the blood brain barrier, suggesting that targeted CPSNPs could be engineered to diagnose and treat tumors of the central nervous system (Madhankumar et al., 2009).
Photodynamic Therapy Utilizing Indocyanine Green-loaded CPSNPs
The limitations of the photosensitizers used for PDT are similar to those of optical agents used for diagnostic imaging. Furthermore, ICG has previously been evaluated as a photosensitizer for PDT in various models of cancer (Abels et al., 2000; Baumler et al., 1999; Bozkulak et al., 2009; Crescenzi et al., 2004; Fickweiler et al., 1997; Mamoon et al., 2009; Rungta et al., 2011; Tseng et al., 2003; Urbanska et al., 2002). Therefore, we hypothesized that the improvements we achieved for diagnostic imaging using ICG-loaded CPSNPs could translate to utility as a photosensitizer for PDT of cancer. Both improvements in optical properties and the ability to selectively target CPSNPs were essential to the development of ICG-loaded CPSNPs as effective photosensitizers (Altinoglu et al., 2008; Barth et al., 2010; Russin et al., 2010). As described below, our initial and published work validated the utility of ICG-loaded CPSNPs for PDT of leukemia (Barth et al., 2011). Moreover, we were able to selectively target our CPSNPs to leukemia stem cells (LSCs), eradicating the specific cells responsible for the maintenance and progression of the disease. Finally, we will discuss briefly our unpublished work that has started to evaluate PDT utilizing ICG-loaded CPSNPs in solid tumors. This work is more specifically related to our initial imaging studies and has centered on the utility of ICG-loaded CPSNPs as “theranostic” agents based on the ability to simultaneously diagnose and treat.
Photodynamic therapy of leukemia
Leukemia, a cancer of the blood and bone marrow, is a rather broad term used to describe many different hematological malignancies (Perrotti et al., 2010; Radhi et al., 2010; Roboz et al., 2009). Typically, leukemia is sub-classified by cell origin (myeloid or lymphoid), and by disease onset or progression (acute or chronic). Even a given subtype, such as acute myeloid leukemia, characterizes many different hematological malignancies that can be further described based on cytogenetic or molecular markers. The treatment of leukemia typically consists of high dose chemotherapy, which in itself can pose significant risk to the patient. These risks are more profound when considering that leukemia is both one of the most common pediatric cancers and one of the more common cancers in the elderly (Perrotti et al., 2010; Radhi et al., 2010; Roboz et al., 2009). In these populations, these aggressive treatments can lead to serious complications or even be fatal. Additionally, high dose chemotherapeutics also carry the risk of being carcinogens that may possibly lead to therapy-induced leukemia in the patient’s future. Therefore, better therapeutics for the treatment of leukemia, both with improved efficacy and lower toxicity, are needed.
The potential treatment of leukemia with PDT is an intriguing idea, in part because the side effects of PDT are modest in comparison to current leukemia chemotherapeutics. Due to the short lifetime of singlet oxygen, it is thought that little opportunity exists during PDT for carcinogenic transformation to occur, leaving cell death as the only outcome (Juarranz et al., 2008; Robertson et al., 2009). Unfortunately, PDT has never been used clinically to treat leukemia. This is likely due to the nature of leukemia as a systemic disease with little opportunity for photosensitizers to accumulate in circulating leukemic cells. Furthermore, the inability to penetrate appropriate light throughout the body to activate photosensitizers is another limitation. Generally, the published laboratory reports of PDT utility for leukemia have almost exclusively been performed in cell culture (Feuerstein et al., 2009; Furre et al., 2005; Gamaleia et al., 2008; Pluskalova et al., 2006).
To our knowledge, there are currently three published studies where PDT was studied in vivo for the treatment of leukemia (Huang et al., 2006; Barth et al., 2011; Wen et al., 2011). The first was a hybrid study which reported the utility of PDT to purge leukemic cells from autologous hematopoietic stem cells ex vivo prior to transplant in animal models (Huang et al., 2006). The other two studies, including our study, evaluated more traditional PDT, occurring exclusively in vivo (Barth et al., 2011; Wen et al., 2011). Simultaneous with our publication, Wen et al. published a report of in vivo PDT in a murine model of B cell lymphoma. In that study, the photosensitizer Photodithazine was injected systemically into the tail vein and then photofibers were inserted into the tail vein, via the same needle, to perform PDT using a diode laser. There is some question, from our perspective, as to whether or not the experimental methods may have attributed to the reported therapeutic efficacy. Namely, “successful” PDT was performed only one day following the initial injection of leukemic cells. In contrast, PDT was unsuccessful when it was performed five days following initial injection of the leukemic cells. This raises an important question as to whether or not the leukemia had actually engrafted in the study by Wen et al. Furthermore, the method of inserting photofibers into the tail vein of mice for over an hour of laser irradiation treatment implies an invasive procedure that may be necessitated by the limitation of light penetration. Indeed, this is similar to laboratory animal trials and human clinical trials of PDT for abdominal and other internal malignancies where laser fiber optics are introduced into the body via a surgical procedure (Allison et al., 2009; Friedberg, 2009; Huang et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2009; Ortner, 2009).
The third instance of PDT being used in vivo for the treatment of leukemia is our recently published study evaluating ICG-loaded CPSNPs (Barth et al., 2011). We studied selectively targeted CPSNPs compared to non-targeted CPSNPs. We evaluated several physical properties of the nanoparticles, including size, charge, and the ability to label and internalize into cells of interest. We also studied the specific ability of ICG-loaded CPSNPs to generate reactive oxygen species (singlet oxygen and superoxide) in cellular models in response to laser treatment. Additionally, we evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of our ICG-loaded CPSNP version of PDT in cellular models of murine chronic myeloid leukemia and in human samples from patients with acute myeloid leukemia. For our in vivo work, we used a murine model of blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia (32D-P210-GFP cells engrafted in C3H/HeJ mice), which behaves similarly to acute myeloid leukemia when in blast crisis (Barth et al., 2011; Daley et al., 1990; Greenberger et al., 1983; Keasey et al., 2010; Ling et al., 2006). We confirmed engraftment of the disease via flow cytometry before treatments were commenced. In our model, laser treatment was performed completely outside of the body with the laser directed at the spleen (Barth et al., 2011). In addition to a profound extension of life, using targeted CPSNPs, we also observed disease-free survival of some treated animals. Importantly, we were also able to monitor disease progression by analyzing blood for GFP+ leukemic cells.
The success of our study using the 32D-P210-GFP model was due in large part to the ability to target CPSNPs (described in more detail below). We have also recently duplicated this work in a different animal model of myelomonocytic leukemia, in which we implanted WEHI-3B-GFP cells into BALB/cJ mice. In this model, the disease does not progress robustly in the blood but rather forms masses throughout the abdominal cavity (Keasey et al., 2010). Although the tumor growth characteristics are similar to those reported in the model used by Wen et al. (and differ from the tumors in our original work) (Wen et al., 2011; Barth et al., 2011), we were able to significantly extend the survival of mice given PDT using non-targeted ICG-loaded CPSNPs and laser light directed only at the spleen (Figure 4). The anti-leukemia efficacy that we have observed with our nanotechnology is a reflection of the enhanced optical properties associated with encapsulating the near-infrared fluorescing probe ICG within CPSNPs. Moreover, despite laser treatment of only the spleen, the efficacy of these studies may also have been due to the idea that PDT can often trigger systemic anticancer immune responses. This idea has been put forward by many PDT researchers and presents another distinct advantage of PDT over traditional anticancer therapies; since an immune response to cancer can be both highly effective and minimally destructive to normal tissues.
Targeting leukemia stem cells by CPSNP-mediated photodynamic therapy
Recently, the presence of small populations of cells within solid and non-solid malignancies with stem cell-like properties has been characterized (Misaghian et al., 2009; Perl et al., 2011; Roboz et al., 2009; Sloma et al., 2010). These cancer stem cells exhibit markers resembling embryonic and adult stem cells, and they are fully capable of initiating malignant growth in vivo (Misaghian et al., 2009; Roboz et al., 2009). Interestingly, these distinct cell populations are associated with multidrug resistance and are believed to be primarily responsible for relapse due to their inherent resistance to conventional chemotherapeutics (Misaghian et al., 2009). Normal hematopoietic stem cells contain unique cellular surface markers, and these same markers, CD34+ and CD38-, are also present on LSCs. In addition, other surface markers have been identified that specifically define the LSC, such as CD96 for the identification of CD34+CD38-CD96+ LSCs in acute myeloid leukemia (Hosen et al., 2007). Likewise, studies have also indicated that LSCs can be defined by the presence of CD117 in patients and animal models of chronic myeloid leukemia (Chen et al., 2009; 2010; Gerber et al., 2011). Importantly, these surface features offer the opportunity to specifically target therapeutics, such as CPSNPs, to LSCs.
In our recently published study, we evaluated the utility of ICG-loaded CPSNPs for PDT of leukemia. We engineered CPSNPs targeted to either CD96 or CD117 (Barth et al., 2011). Both CPSNPs preparations were verified by an increase in size as determined by dynamic light scattering and transmission electron microscopy. Our CPSNP preparations were also neutral-charged. We evaluated CPSNPs targeted to CD96 in human patient samples of acute myeloid leukemia. Our LSC-targeted nanoparticles were necessary to achieve cell death in an in vitro assay whereas non-targeted nanoparticles showed no utility. We further evaluated CD117-targeted CPSNPs both in vitro and in vivo using the 32D-P210-GFP murine model of chronic myeloid leukemia. We initially demonstrated that these CD117-targeted CPSNPs had increased uptake kinetics, owing in large part to the internalization of CD117/c-kit upon receptor binding. In both in vitro and in vivo models, we achieved therapeutic efficacy. In vivo this was reflected by a decreased (or non-existent) peripheral blood GFP count (measured via flow cytometry) or by profound extension of survival (Barth et al., 2011). Monitoring blood GFP counts also allowed us to assess normal myeloid populations of our treated animals. CD117 is expressed on normal hematopoietic cells, thus off-target effects from therapy leading to myelosuppression were considered. Although modest myelosuppression was observed following initial treatment, myelosuppression never became complete and resolved in most mice (Barth et al., 2011). We additionally utilized the imaging capabilities of the ICG-loaded CPSNPs to show that the major targeting in normal leukemia-free mice was confined to the spleen, where many normal CD117+ cells reside (Fossati et al., 2010; Pelayo et al., 2005).
Taken together, our study shows that PDT utilizing ICG-loaded CPSNPs may be used as an effective non-invasive therapy for leukemia. We found that the efficacy of PDT was most robust by targeting the CPSNPs to LSCs (Barth et al., 2011). It is our opinion that this study is the first successful in vivo demonstration of PDT for leukemia. The development of ICG-loaded CPSNPs targeted to LSCs was essential for this success.
Photodynamic therapy of solid tumors
As mentioned, we have started to assess the utility of ICG-loaded CPSNPs for PDT in solid tumor models. Our ultimate goals are to demonstrate therapeutic efficacy and to fully describe the mechanisms associated with solid tumor PDT using ICG-loaded CPSNPs. To date, we have tested our nanoparticles in models of breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and metastatic osteosarcoma. We have begun an in-depth analysis of immune regulation by PDT utilizing ICG-loaded CPSNPs. The idea that PDT can initiate a systemic antitumor immune response is a concept that persists among PDT researchers (Gollnick et al., 2010; Mroz et al., 2010; 2011). We have embraced this concept, and are now investigating regulation of tumor immunology whereby PDT may regulate both immunosuppressive cells and immune effector cells. Immunosuppresssive cells are a normal part of the functioning immune system and usually prevent aberrant autoimmune reactions (Frumento et al., 2006; Gabrilovich et al., 2009; Leao et al., 2008; Ostrand-Rosenberg, 2010; Whiteside, 2010a; 2010b; Yang et al., 2010). Unfortunately, tumor-driven factors, such as inflammation, can prevent the antitumor immune response from occurring (Ostrand-Rosenberg et al., 2009). Immunosuppressive cells can interfere with immune effectors, such as T cells, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and B cells, via a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms. Immunosuppression is becoming increasingly recognized as a hallmark of many advanced malignancies and as a serious hurdle to effective therapy. Our studies conducted in solid tumor models demonstrated that PDT utilizing ICG-loaded CPSNPs triggers a therapeutic response. Following PDT, we observed a decrease in the immunosuppressive milieu and a concomitant increase in immune effector cells (Figure 5). We speculate that this mechanism of therapeutic efficacy occurs due to traditional singlet oxygen-mediated cell death. The generation of singlet oxygen is likely responsible for a therapeutic effect following even a single treatment regime. We hypothesize that this immune-modulating effect of PDT using ICG-loaded CPSNPs is due to singlet oxygen-mediated production of specific bioactive immune modulators. We are currently in the process of verifying this hypothesis. We are also working to identify the unique bioactive mediators involved and to reinforce the currently held position in the field of PDT that immune regulation is an essential component of effective treatment. ICG-loaded CPSNPs can successfully overcome previous limitations of PDT, such as non-specific targeting and poor optical properties of photosensitizers. In our opinion, the development ICG-loaded CPSNPs will enable detailed mechanistic research and novel cancer therapeutics.
The authors would like to thank James M. Kaiser, Erhan I. Altinoglu, and Christopher McGovern for assistance with the initial development of ICG-loaded CPSNPs for PDT of cancer, as well as during the completion of the original published research studies.
J.H.A. and M.K. serve as CSO and CMO, respectively, of Keystone Nano, Inc. The Pennsylvania State University Research Foundation has licensed CPSNPs, and PDT utilizing CPSNPs, to Keystone Nano, Inc.
Brian M. Barth, Ph.D., Departments of Pharmacology and Medicine and Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033, USA.
Abels C, Fickweiler S, Weiderer P, Baumler W, Hofstadter F, Landthaler M, Szeimies RM. Indocyanine green (ICG) and laser irradiation induce photooxidation. Arch Dermatol Res 292(8):404-411, 2000.
Adair JH, Parette MP, Altinoglu EI, Kester M. Nanoparticulate alternatives for drug delivery. ACS Nano 4(9):4967-4970, 2010.
Allison RR, Zervos E, Sibata CH. Cholangiocarcinoma: an emerging indication for photodynamic therapy. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 6(2):84-92, 2009.
Altinoglu EI, Russin TJ, Kaiser JM, Barth BM, Eklund PC, Kester M, Adair JH. Near-infrared emitting fluorophore-doped calcium phosphate nanoparticles for in vivo imaging of human breast cancer. ACS Nano 2(10):2075-2084, 2008.
Barth BM, Altinoglu EI, Shanmugavelandy SS, Kaiser JM, Crespo-Gonzalez D, DiVittore NA, McGovern C, Goff TM, Keasey NR, Adair JH, Loughran TP, Jr, Claxton DF, Kester M. Targeted indocyanine-green-loaded calcium phosphosilicate nanoparticles for in vivo photodynamic therapy of leukemia. ACS Nano 5(7):5325-5337, 2011.
Barth BM, Sharma R, Altinoglu EI, Morgan TT, Shanmugavelandy SS, Kaiser JM, McGovern C, Matters GL, Smith JP, Kester M, Adair JH. Bioconjugation of calcium phosphosilicate composite nanoparticles for selective targeting of human breast and pancreatic cancers in vivo. ACS Nano 4(3):1279-1287, 2010.
Baumler W, Abels C, Karrer S, Weiss T, Messmann H, Landthaler M, Szeimies RM. Photo-oxidative killing of human colonic cancer cells using indocyanine green and infrared light. Br J Cancer 80(3-4):360-363, 1999.
Bennett TJ, Barry CJ. Ophthalmic imaging today: an ophthalmic photographer’s viewpoint - a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 37(1):2-13, 2009.
Bozkulak O, Yamaci RF, Tabakoglu O, Gulsoy M. Photo-toxic effects of 809-nm diode laser and indocyanine green on MDA-MB231 breast cancer cells. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 6(2):117-121, 2009.
Chatterjee DK, Fong LS, Zhang Y. Nanoparticles in photodynamic therapy: an emerging paradigm. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60(15):1627-1637, 2008.
Chen Y, Hu Y, Zhang H, Peng C, Li S. Loss of the Alox5 gene impairs leukemia stem cells and prevents chronic myeloid leukemia. Nat Genet 41(7):783-792, 2009.
Chen Y, Peng C, Sullivan C, Li D, Li S. Critical molecular pathways in cancer stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 24(9):1545-1554, 2010.
Cheng Y, Meyers JD, Broome AM, Kenney ME, Basilion JP, Burda C. Deep penetration of a PDT drug into tumors by noncovalent drug-gold nanoparticle conjugates. J Am Chem Soc 133(8):2583-2591, 2011.
Crescenzi E, Varriale L, Iovino M, Chiaviello A, Veneziani BM, Palumbo G. Photodynamic therapy with indocyanine green complements and enhances low-dose cisplatin cytotoxicity in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther 3(5):537-544, 2004.
Daley GQ, Van Etten RA, Baltimore D. Induction of chronic myelogenous leukemia in mice by the P210bcr/abl gene of the Philadelphia chromosome. Science 247(4944):824-830, 1990.
Daniels TR, Delgado T, Helguera G, Penichet ML. The transferrin receptor part II: targeted delivery of therapeutic agents into cancer cells. Clin Immunol 121(2):159-176, 2006a.
Daniels TR, Delgado T, Rodriguez JA, Helguera G, Penichet ML. The transferrin receptor part I: Biology and targeting with cytotoxic antibodies for the treatment of cancer. Clin Immunol 121(2):144-158, 2006b.
Desmettre T, Devoisselle JM, Mordon S. Fluorescence properties and metabolic features of indocyanine green (ICG) as related to angiography. Surv Ophthalmol 45(1):15-27, 2000.
Dolmans DE, Fukumura D, Jain RK. Photodynamic therapy for cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 3(5):380-387, 2003.
Donnelly RF, McCarron PA, Morrow DI, Sibani SA, Woolfson AD. Photosensitiser delivery for photodynamic therapy. Part 1: Topical carrier platforms. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 5(7):757-766, 2008.
Fang J, Nakamura H, Maeda H. The EPR effect: Unique features of tumor blood vessels for drug delivery, factors involved, and limitations and augmentation of the effect. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63(3):136-151, 2011.
Feuerstein T, Schauder A, Malik Z. Silencing of ALA dehydratase affects ALA-photodynamic therapy efficacy in K562 erythroleukemic cells. Photochem Photobiol Sci 8(10):1461-1466, 2009.
Ficheux H. Photodynamic therapy: principles and therapeutic indications. Ann Pharm Fr 67(1):32-40, 2009.
Fickweiler S, Szeimies RM, Baumler W, Steinbach P, Karrer S, Goetz AE, Abels C, Hofstadter F, Landthaler M. Indocyanine green: intracellular uptake and phototherapeutic effects in vitro. J Photochem Photobiol B 38(2-3):178-183, 1997.
Fossati V, Kumar R, Snoeck HW. Progenitor cell origin plays a role in fate choices of mature B cells. J Immunol 184(3):1251-1260, 2010.
Friedberg JS. Photodynamic therapy as an innovative treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 21(2):177-187, 2009.
Frumento G, Piazza T, Di Carlo E, Ferrini S. Targeting tumor-related immunosuppression for cancer immunotherapy. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets 6(3):233-237, 2006.
Furre IE, Shahzidi S, Luksiene Z, Moller MT, Borgen E, Morgan J, Tkacz-Stachowska K, Nesland JM, Peng Q. Targeting PBR by hexaminolevulinate-mediated photodynamic therapy induces apoptosis through translocation of apoptosis-inducing factor in human leukemia cells. Cancer Res 65(23):11051-11060, 2005.
Gabrilovich DI, Nagaraj S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 9(3):162-174, 2009.
Gamaleia NF, Shishko ED, Gluzman DF, Sklyarenko LM. Sensitivity of normal and malignant human lymphocytes to 5-aminolevulinic acid-mediated photodynamic damage. Exp Oncol 30(1):65-69, 2008.
Gerber JM, Qin L, Kowalski J, Smith BD, Griffin CA, Vala MS, Collector MI, Perkins B, Zahurak M, Matsui W, Gocke CD, Sharkis SJ, Levitsky HI, Jones RJ. Characterization of chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells. Am J Hematol 86(1):31-37, 2011.
Gollnick SO, Brackett CM. Enhancement of anti-tumor immunity by photodynamic therapy. Immunol Res 46(1-3):216-226, 2010.
Gosk S, Vermehren C, Storm G, Moos T. Targeting anti-transferrin receptor antibody (OX26) and OX26-conjugated liposomes to brain capillary endothelial cells using in situ perfusion. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 24(11):1193-1204, 2004.
Greenberger JS, Sakakeeny MA, Humphries RK, Eaves CJ, Eckner RJ. Demonstration of permanent factor-dependent multipotential (erythroid/neutrophil/basophil) hematopoietic progenitor cell lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 80(10):2931-2935, 1983.
Gross SA, Wolfsen HC. The role of photodynamic therapy in the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 20(1):35-53, vi, 2010.
Hirsjarvi S, Passirani C, Benoit JP. Passive and active tumour targeting with nanocarriers. Curr Drug Discov Technol 8(3):188-196, 2011.
Hocine O, Gary-Bobo M, Brevet D, Maynadier M, Fontanel S, Raehm L, Richeter S, Loock B, Couleaud P, Frochot C, Charnay C, Derrien G, Smaihi M, Sahmoune A, Morere A, Maillard P, Garcia M, Durand JO. Silicalites and mesoporous silica nanoparticles for photodynamic therapy. Int J Pharm 402(1-2):221-230, 2010.
Hosen N, Park CY, Tatsumi N, Oji Y, Sugiyama H, Gramatzki M, Krensky AM, Weissman IL. CD96 is a leukemic stem cell-specific marker in human acute myeloid leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(26):11008-11013, 2007.
Hu Z, Rao B, Chen S, Duanmu J. Selective and effective killing of angiogenic vascular endothelial cells and cancer cells by targeting tissue factor using a factor VII-targeted photodynamic therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126(3):589-600, 2011.
Hu Z, Rao B, Chen S, Duanmu J. Targeting tissue factor on tumour cells and angiogenic vascular endothelial cells by factor VII-targeted verteporfin photodynamic therapy for breast cancer in vitro and in vivo in mice. BMC Cancer 10:235, 2010.
Huang HF, Chen YZ, Wu Y, Chen P. Purging of murine erythroblastic leukemia by ZnPcS2P2-based-photodynamic therapy. Bone Marrow Transplant 37(2):213-217, 2006.
Huang Z, Xu H, Meyers AD, Musani AI, Wang L, Tagg R, Barqawi AB, Chen YK. Photodynamic therapy for treatment of solid tumors–potential and technical challenges. Technol Cancer Res Treat 7(4):309-320, 2008.
Juarranz A, Jaen P, Sanz-Rodriguez F, Cuevas J, Gonzalez S. Photodynamic therapy of cancer. Basic principles and applications. Clin Transl Oncol 10(3):148-154, 2008.
Keasey N, Herse Z, Chang S, Liggitt DH, Lay M, Fairman J, Claxton DF. A non-coding cationic lipid DNA complex produces lasting anti-leukemic effects. Cancer Biol Ther 10(6):625-631, 2010.
Kester M, Heakal Y, Fox T, Sharma A, Robertson GP, Morgan TT, Altinoglu EI, Tabakovic A, Parette MR, Rouse SM, Ruiz-Velasco V, Adair JH. Calcium phosphate nanocomposite particles for in vitro imaging and encapsulated chemotherapeutic drug delivery to cancer cells. Nano Lett 8(12):4116-4121, 2008.
Kotimaki J. Photodynamic therapy of eyelid basal cell carcinoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 23(9):1083-1087, 2009.
Leao IC, Ganesan P, Armstrong TD, Jaffee EM. Effective depletion of regulatory T cells allows the recruitment of mesothelin-specific CD8 T cells to the antitumor immune response against a mesothelin-expressing mouse pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Clin Transl Sci 1(3):228-239, 2008.
Lee SJ, Koo H, Jeong H, Huh MS, Choi Y, Jeong SY, Byun Y, Choi K, Kim K, Kwon IC. Comparative study of photosensitizer loaded and conjugated glycol chitosan nanoparticles for cancer therapy. J Control Release 152(1):21-29, 2011a.
Lee YE, Kopelman R. Polymeric nanoparticles for photodynamic therapy. Methods Mol Biol 726:151-178, 2011b.
Ling X, Wang Y, Dietrich MF, Andreeff M, Arlinghaus RB. Vaccination with leukemia cells expressing cell-surface-associated GM-CSF blocks leukemia induction in immunocompetent mice. Oncogene 25(32):4483-4490, 2006.
Madhankumar AB, Slagle-Webb B, Wang X, Yang QX, Antonetti DA, Miller PA, Sheehan JM, Connor JR. Efficacy of interleukin-13 receptor-targeted liposomal doxorubicin in the intracranial brain tumor model. Mol Cancer Ther 8(3):648-654, 2009.
Mamoon AM, Gamal-Eldeen AM, Ruppel ME, Smith RJ, Tsang T, Miller LM. In vitro efficiency and mechanistic role of indocyanine green as photodynamic therapy agent for human melanoma. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 6(2):105-116, 2009.
Misaghian N, Ligresti G, Steelman LS, Bertrand FE, Basecke J, Libra M, Nicoletti F, Stivala F, Milella M, Tafuri A, Cervello M, Martelli AM, McCubrey JA. Targeting the leukemic stem cell: the Holy Grail of leukemia therapy. Leukemia 23(1):25-42, 2009.
Moore CM, Pendse D, Emberton M. Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer–a review of current status and future promise. Nat Clin Pract Urol 6(1):18-30, 2009.
Morgan TT, Muddana HS, Altinoglu EI, Rouse SM, Tabakovic A, Tabouillot T, Russin TJ, Shanmugavelandy SS, Butler PJ, Eklund PC, Yun JK, Kester M, Adair JH. Encapsulation of organic molecules in calcium phosphate nanocomposite particles for intracellular imaging and drug delivery. Nano Lett 8(12):4108-4115, 2008.
Mroz P, Hashmi JT, Huang YY, Lange N, Hamblin MR. Stimulation of anti-tumor immunity by photodynamic therapy. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 7(1):75-91, 2011.
Mroz P, Szokalska A, Wu MX, Hamblin MR. Photodynamic therapy of tumors can lead to development of systemic antigen-specific immune response. PLoS One 5(12):e15194, 2010.
Muddana HS, Morgan TT, Adair JH, Butler PJ. Photophysics of Cy3-encapsulated calcium phosphate nanoparticles. Nano Lett 9(4):1559-1566, 2009.
Ohulchanskyy TY, Roy I, Goswami LN, Chen Y, Bergey EJ, Pandey RK, Oseroff AR, Prasad PN. Organically modified silica nanoparticles with covalently incorporated photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy of cancer. Nano Lett 7(9):2835-2842, 2007.
Ortel B, Shea CR, Calzavara-Pinton P. Molecular mechanisms of photodynamic therapy. Front Biosci 14:4157-4172, 2009.
Ortner MA. Photodynamic therapy for cholangiocarcinoma: overview and new developments. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 25(5):472-476, 2009.
Ostrand-Rosenberg S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: more mechanisms for inhibiting antitumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Immunother 59(10):1593-1600, 2010.
Ostrand-Rosenberg S, Sinha P. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: linking inflammation and cancer. J Immunol 182(8):4499-4506, 2009.
Pelayo R, Welner R, Perry SS, Huang J, Baba Y, Yokota T, Kincade PW. Lymphoid progenitors and primary routes to becoming cells of the immune system. Curr Opin Immunol 17(2):100-107, 2005.
Perrotti D, Jamieson C, Goldman J, Skorski T. Chronic myeloid leukemia: mechanisms of blastic transformation. J Clin Invest 120(7):2254-2264, 2010.
Pluskalova M, Peslova G, Grebenova D, Halada P, Hrkal Z. Photodynamic treatment (ALA-PDT) suppresses the expression of the oncogenic Bcr-Abl kinase and affects the cytoskeleton organization in K562 cells. J Photochem Photobiol B 83(3):205-212, 2006.
Qin M, Hah HJ, Kim G, Nie G, Lee YE, Kopelman R. Methylene blue covalently loaded polyacrylamide nanoparticles for enhanced tumor-targeted photodynamic therapy. Photochem Photobiol Sci 10(5):832-841, 2011.
Radhi M, Meshinchi S, Gamis A. Prognostic factors in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 5(4):200-206, 2010.
Reddy GR, Bhojani MS, McConville P, Moody J, Moffat BA, Hall DE, Kim G, Koo YE, Woolliscroft MJ, Sugai JV, Johnson TD, Philbert MA, Kopelman R, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD. Vascular targeted nanoparticles for imaging and treatment of brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res 12(22):6677-6686, 2006.
Robertson CA, Evans DH, Abrahamse H. Photodynamic therapy (PDT): a short review on cellular mechanisms and cancer research applications for PDT. J Photochem Photobiol B 96(1):1-8, 2009.
Roboz GJ, Guzman M. Acute myeloid leukemia stem cells: seek and destroy. Expert Rev Hematol 2(6):663-672, 2009.
Rungta P, Bandera YP, Roeder RD, Li Y, Baldwin WS, Sharma D, Sehorn MG, Luzinov I, Foulger SH. Selective imaging and killing of cancer cells with protein-activated near-infrared fluorescing nanoparticles. Macromol Biosci 11(7):927-937, 2011.
Russin TJ, Altinoglu EI, Adair JH, Eklund PC. Measuring the fluorescent quantum efficiency of indocyanine green encapsulated in nanocomposite particulates. J Phys Condens Matter 22(33):334217, 2010.
Shindelman JE, Ortmeyer AE, Sussman HH. Demonstration of the transferrin receptor in human breast cancer tissue. Potential marker for identifying dividing cells. Int J Cancer 27(3):329-334, 1981.
Sibani SA, McCarron PA, Woolfson AD, Donnelly RF. Photosensitiser delivery for photodynamic therapy. Part 2: systemic carrier platforms. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 5(11):1241-1254, 2008.
Sloma I, Jiang X, Eaves AC, Eaves CJ. Insights into the stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 24(11):1823-1833, 2010.
Smith JP, Fantaskey AP, Liu G, Zagon IS. Identification of gastrin as a growth peptide in human pancreatic cancer. Am J Physiol 268(1 Pt 2):R135-R141, 1995.
Smith JP, Liu G, Soundararajan V, McLaughlin PJ, Zagon IS. Identification and characterization of CCK-B/gastrin receptors in human pancreatic cancer cell lines. Am J Physiol 266(1 Pt 2):R277-R283, 1994.
Smith JP, Shih AH, Wotring MG, McLaughlin PJ, Zagon IS. Characterization of CCK-B/gastrin-like receptors in human gastric carcinoma. Int J Oncol 12(2):411-419, 1998.
Smith JP, Stock EA, Wotring MG, McLaughlin PJ, Zagon IS. Characterization of the CCK-B/gastrin-like receptor in human colon cancer. Am J Physiol 271(3 Pt 2):R797-805, 1996.
Smith JP, Verderame MF, McLaughlin P, Martenis M, Ballard E, Zagon IS. Characterization of the CCK-C (cancer) receptor in human pancreatic cancer. Int J Mol Med 10(6):689-694, 2002.
Sutherland R, Delia D, Schneider C, Newman R, Kemshead J, Greaves M. Ubiquitous cell-surface glycoprotein on tumor cells is proliferation-associated receptor for transferrin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78(7):4515-4519, 1981.
Tabakovic A, Kester M, Adair JH. Calcium phosphate-based composite nanoparticles in bioimaging and therapeutic delivery applications. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 4(1):96-112, 2012.
Tammela T, Saaristo A, Holopainen T, Yla-Herttuala S, Andersson LC, Virolainen S, Immonen I, Alitalo K. Photodynamic ablation of lymphatic vessels and intralymphatic cancer cells prevents metastasis. Sci Transl Med 3(69):69ra11, 2011.
Tseng WW, Saxton RE, Deganutti A, Liu CD. Infrared laser activation of indocyanine green inhibits growth in human pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 27(3):e42-5, 2003.
Urbanska K, Romanowska-Dixon B, Matuszak Z, Oszajca J, Nowak-Sliwinsk P, Stochel G. Indocyanine green as a prospective sensitizer for photodynamic therapy of melanomas. Acta Biochim Pol 49(2):387-391, 2002.
Wainwright M. Photodynamic therapy: the development of new photosensitisers. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 8(3):280-291, 2008.
Wank SA, Pisegna JR, de Weerth A. Brain and gastrointestinal cholecystokinin receptor family: structure and functional expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89(18):8691-8695, 1992.
Wen LY, Bae SM, Chun HJ, Park KS, Ahn WS. Therapeutic effects of systemic photodynamic therapy in a leukemia animal model using A20 cells. Lasers Med Sci 27(2):445-452, 2011.
Whiteside TL. Immune responses to malignancies. J Allergy Clin Immunol 125(2 Suppl 2):S272-S283, 2010a.
Whiteside TL. Inhibiting the inhibitors: evaluating agents targeting cancer immunosuppression. Expert Opin Biol Ther 10(7):1019-1035, 2010b.
Yang Z, Zhang B, Li D, Lv M, Huang C, Shen GX, Huang B. Mast cells mobilize myeloid-derived suppressor cells and Treg cells in tumor microenvironment via IL-17 pathway in murine hepatocarcinoma model. PLoS One 5(1):e8922, 2010.
[Discovery Medicine; ISSN: 1539-6509; Discov Med 13(71):275-285, April 2012. Copyright © Discovery Medicine. All rights reserved.]