Premium
SU‐C‐303‐05: Photosensitizer Determination for PDT Using Interstitial and Surface Measurements of Fluorescence
Author(s) -
Kim M,
Finlay J,
Zhu T
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4923822
Subject(s) - photosensitizer , fluorescence , photodynamic therapy , materials science , ex vivo , imaging phantom , fluorescence spectroscopy , optical fiber , dosimetry , in vivo , optics , analytical chemistry (journal) , chemistry , biomedical engineering , nuclear medicine , photochemistry , chromatography , medicine , physics , microbiology and biotechnology , organic chemistry , biology
Purpose: Photosensitizer concentration during photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an important parameter for accurate dosimetry. Fluorescence signal can be used as a measure of photosensitizer concentration. Two methods of data acquisition were compared to an ex vivo study both for in vivo and phantom models. Methods: Fluorescence signal of commonly used photosensitizer benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid ring A (BPD) was obtained in phantoms and mouse tumors using an excitation light of 405 nm. Interstitial fluorescence signal was obtained using a side‐cut fiber inserted into the tumor tissue of interest. Using a previously developed multi‐fiber probe, tumor surface fluorescence measurements were also collected. Signals were calibrated according to optical phantoms with known sensitizer fluorescence. Optical properties for each sample were determined and the influence of different absorption and scattering properties on the fluorescence signals was investigated. Using single value decomposition of the spectra, the sensitizer concentration was determined using the two different measurement geometries. An ex vivo analysis was also performed for tumor samples to determine the sensitizer concentration. Results: The two fluorescence signals obtained from the surface multi‐fiber probe and the interstitial measurements were compared and were corresponding for both phantoms and mouse models. The values obtained were comparable to the ex vivo measurements as well. Despite the difference in geometry, the surface probe measurements can still be used as a metric for determining the presence of sensitizer in small volume tumors. Conclusion: The multi‐fiber contact probe can be used as a tool to measure fluorescence at the surface of the treatment area for PDT and predict sensitizer concentration throughout the tumor. This is advantageous in that the measurement does not damage any tissue. Future work will include investigating the dependence of these results on intratumor sensitizer distribution.