Perspectives on the role of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a non-invasive procedure involving a photosensitizing agent that is activated by light to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) that selectively destroy tumor cells. In recent years, PDT has been used in the treatment of pancreatic cancer (PC). The anti-tumor effects of PDT include three main mechanisms: direct tumor cell death (necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy), vascular destruction, and immune system activation. The present review systematically summarizes the effects of PDT in the treatment of PC from the experimental studies to the clinical studies and discusses the mechanisms of PDT-induced PC destruction. Introduction Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the most lethal malignant diseases and has a dismal prognosis. It is estimated that over 37,000 patients were newly diagnosed with PC, and 34,000 patients died of this disease in the United States in 2010 [1]. PC has the lowest 5-year survival rate of any gastrointestinal tumor, and the median survival rate is no more than 6 months [1-2]. Surgery remains the only way to cure this disease, but less than 20% of patients are considered for surgical resection at the time of initial diagnosis [3]. Moreover, even seemingly resectable PC often fails to cure the disease due to the microscopic systemic spread of the cancer that occurred before the operation [4]. Current treatments for inoperable patients are still limited to chemotherapy, radiation, or both (chemoradiotherapy) [5]. A new comprehensive and constructive therapy is urgently needed. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a treatment that uses non-toxic drugs or dyes (photosensitizers) that are pharmacologically active only after exposure to light in the presence of oxygen [6-7]. Due to its fundamental selectivity and specificity [8], PDT has been considered to be a possible treatment for neoplasms, including cancers of the skin [9], head and neck [10], nasopharynx [11], esophagus, lung [12], pancreas, biliary duct [13], bladder [14], and others. The four main kinds of photosensitizers are porphyrin derivatives, chlorins, phthalocyanines, and porphycenes [7, 15] (Figure 1). The photosensitizer excited triplet state undergoes two broad kinds of reactions (Type I and Type II). In a Type I reaction, the triplet photosensitizer can transfer an electron to a neighboring substrate to form free radicals and radical ions, which further interact with molecular oxygen and produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). In a Type II reaction, the triplet photosensitizer can transfer its energy directly to molecular oxygen and form excited-state singlet oxygen [16-17] (Figure 2). These two reactions constitute the core mechanism of PDT-mediated destruction of tumor tissue. In recent years, more and more research has focused on the development of PDT for the treatment of PC [18]. Experimental studies Mechanisms of pancreatic cancer cell death in PDT Cells can undergo three distinct kinds of cell death induced by PDT: necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy [7, 19]. Necrosis is morphologically characterized by increased cellular volume, swelling of organelles, plasma membrane rupture and the subsequent loss of intracellular contents [20]. It is generally believed that higher light dosage is always accompanied by cellular necrosis [21]. Using different orthotopic pancreas cancer xenograft models (AsPC-1 and Panc-1), Samkoe et al. [21] demonstrated that both Panc-1 tumors and AsPC-1 tumors became necrotic following treatment with verteporfin PDT and hematoxylin/eosin–stained tumor slices displayed increasing necrotic/edemic core with the increase of light dose. Besides, faster growing tumors (AsPC-1 cell line) were relatively easier to treat. Another in vivo experiment reported by Xie et al. [22] showed that PDT led to necrosis in cancer lesions and significantly reduced tumor volume. They observed that partial tumor necrotic tissue was exfoliated and a necrotic edge of volcano-like uplift was formed 1 week after PDT treatment. In a randomized, controlled study of implanted pancreatic cancers in Syrian golden hamsters treated with 5-aminolaevulinic acid, PDT-induced tumor necrosis of up to 8 mm in depth was achieved, and the survival time of the treated animals was significantly longer than in the untreated control group [23]. Mlkvy et al. [24] conducted experiments to assess the effects of meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin (mTHPC) in a hamster pancreatic cancer model. In their experiment, 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg mTHPC was given to the animals, and the tumor was treated 2 or 4 days later via laparotomy with red light (50 J at 650 nm, continuous or fractionated) delivered through a single fiber touching the tumor surface. The results showed that the zones of tumor necrosis, often haemorrhagic in the center, sharply demarcated from adjacent viable tumor with an inflammatory infiltrate in the surrounding area. This may be attibuted to the vascular supply pattern of the tumor or the protective role of surrounding connective tissue strips dividing tumor into lobules [23-24]. The results also elucidated that the maximum zone of tumor necrosis was 8.7 mm in diameter with continuous irradiation, which increased to 12.4 mm with fractionated treatment. In addition, PDT has also been proven to damage DNA. Hajri et al. [25] demonstrated that PDT inhibited tumor cell growth in cell culture by affecting DNA integrity. The DNA-damaging effects of PDT are related not only to variables in PDT but also to cellular repair and survival mechanisms [26]. Ferreira et al. [27] designed synthetic oligonucleotides (aptamers) that were selected to bind to unique short O-glycan-peptide signatures on the surface of pancreatic cancer cells and observed a remarkable enhancement (>500-fold increase) in toxicity of PDT in the presence of these phototoxic aptamers. Apoptosis, another type of cell death, requires ATP and is characterized by cytoplasmic shrinkage, reduction of cellular volume, condensation of the chromatin and fragmentation of the nucleus [28]. Several pathways have been proven to play a role in cellular death. For example, the classic anti-apoptotic proteins in the Bcl-2 family can be down-regulated after PDT. It is known that Bcl-2 is a molecular target of PDT using mitochondrion-targeting photosensitizers and can determine the sensitivity of cancer cells to apoptosis and the overall cancer response to PDT [29]. Lutetium Texaphyrin mediated PDT can not only downregulate the expression of Bcl-2 and upregulate the expression of Bax in bovine retinal capillary endothelial cells, but also influence Bcl-xL and Bak proteins in human retinal pigment epithelial cells [30]. Using phthalocyanine photosensitizer Pc4 mediated PDT, He et al.[31] found that parental cells displayed a high incidence of apoptosis after PDT, whereas Bcl-2-transfected cells exhibited a much lower incidence of apoptosis as assessed by DNA fragmentation. Another apoptosis-related protein, cytochrome c, was released from mitochondria upon treatment with PDT [32-33]. It is reported that the release of cytochrome c from mitochondria is controlled by proteins of the Bcl-2 family. Liu et al.[34] observed that cytochrome c was released from the mitochondria into the cytoplasm during PDT and the mitochondria membrane potential (ΔΨm) showed a loss of nearly 30% in human pancreatic cancer cells. After releasing into the cytosol, cytochrome c is able to initiate apoptotic signal events, activating caspase-9 and then caspase-6 and caspase-7, respectively [35]. A second pathway involved in cell death stems from PDT-activated caspases and the subsequent cleavage of the DNA repair protein poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase [36]. Yet another pathway involves the Fas ligand (FasL), which belongs to the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) family. When FasL binds to its receptor, apoptosis is induced. Fas/FasL system could either signal the apoptosis directly through the activation of the caspase system or through mitochondria [37]. PDT has been proven to enhance FasL expression, leading to an increase in FasL signaling-dependent cell death in cancer cells. A recent study has shown that PDT induced apoptosis of nasopharyngeal, colon and bladder cells is mediated not only by activation of Fas with the involvement of the FasL system, but also the activation of a distinct caspase cascade [38]. The activation of the caspase cascade, caspase-8 and caspase-3, follows direct activation of Fas/FasL in PDT-induced apoptosis [38]. Calcium plays an important role in photodynamic drug action. PDT-induced increases in the levels of intracellular calcium may be associated with cell apoptosis [7]. Calcium chelators were shown to inhibit the PDT-induced release of cytochrome c, caspase-3 activation and apoptosis in Chinese hamster V79 cells, indicating that calcium indeed plays a role in PDT-induced apoptosis [39]. In a recent study, Chiou et al.[40] showed that verteporfin PDT could rapidly provoke hyper-oxidative stress and caspase activity in HepG2 cells. In addition, the membrane integrity was decreased and permeability increased, resulting in a sudden influx of cytosolic calcium into the mitochondria. All these factors were treated as the arbitrator to initiate the lethal apoptotic process after verteporfin PDT. The increase in the intracellular calcium concentration upon photosensitization may occur via the influx of calcium through ion channels, the release of calcium sequestered in internal stores and/or the activation of ion exchange mechanisms [41]. Cellular adhesion is also associated with cellular apoptosis. Galaz et al. [42] demonstrated that the loss of E-cadherin-mediated cell adhesion after early photodamage triggers an apoptotic response. They also observed that the alteration in E-cadherin preceded the release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria to the cytosol as well as the activation of caspase 3. Blocking E-cadherin function with a specific antibody induced apoptosis. PDT can also down-regulate the expression of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 and intracellular cell adhesion molecule-1 [43]. A notable feature of PDT is to change the attachment between cancer cells and stroma or cancer cells themselves, which can be attributed to the damage of adhesion molecules [44]. In recent years, more and more researchers have expressed concern about the p53-mediated cytotoxicity of the PDT of cancer [45]. A direct evidence supporting the idea that p53 is involved in PDT response came from the work by Mitsunaga et al.[46]. In their research, they showed that the activition of caspase-3 and caspase-9 increased in wild-type human colon cancer cells. In contrast, it was significantly inhibited in Bax-null or p53-null cells which indicated that the caspase-dependent apoptosis induced by PDT was Bax-and p53-dependent. Lim et al. [47] evaluated the ability of PDT combined with a tumor suppressor factor, recombinant adenovirus p53 (AdCMVp53), to induce apoptosis as well as cell growth inhibition. They noticed that co-treatment with PDT and AdCMVp53 resulted in a more potent antitumor effect. Co-treatment led to elevated levels of p53, possibly causing the induction of p53-dependent apoptosis. It is generally believed that the key factors that determine the type of PDT-induced cell death are cell genotype, light dose, and the subcellular localization of the photosensitizers [7, 48]. (Figure 3) Autophagy is a process in which the abnormal cytoplasm is sequestered into double-membrane vesicles and fused by lysosomes, with the contents of the autophagosomes being digested and recycled [49-50] (Figure 4). Due to the morphological and biochemical features of autophagic cell death, it is distinct from both apoptosis and necrosis [51]. Because autophagy develops in a sequential fashion, it is classified as a second type of programmed cell death. Both autophagy and apoptosis occur following PDT [19]. It is shown that autophagy is independent of photosensitizer target, because it is observed with photosensitizers localize in endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, lysosomes and endosomes [52]. PDT can not only affect autophagy by damaging organelles (lysosomes and endosomes) but also influence proteins that are involved in this mechanism [53-54]. Using shRNA technology, Kessel et al.[55] created a Bax knockdown line. A marked decrease in apoptosis was observed after photodamage or pharmacologic inactivation of Bcl-2 function in this cell line, but the PDT efficacy was not affected because the suppression of apoptosis leaded to enhanced autophagy (a highly-vacuolated morphology). Autophagy appears to play a prosurvival role in apoptosis-competent cells and a prodeath role in apoptosis-incompetent cells [52]. Mechanisms of pancreatic tumor destruction Vascular destruction Pathological angiogenesis is a hallmark of tumor cells, and their viability depends on an adequate blood supply [56]. PDT-induced vascular damage is an important mechanism of tumor destruction. PDT-mediated vascular effects range from transient vascular spasm, vascular stasis and the formation of thrombus to permanent vessel occlusion [57]. Vascular destruction may contribute to a reduction in tissue oxygenation and further promote tumor destruction [58]. Li et al. [59] showed that the anti-tumor effects of PDT were achieved mainly by the destruction of tumor blood vessels and the formation of thrombosis at short drug–light intervals; in contrast, the tumor cells were killed directly by PDT-mediated cytotoxicity at long drug–light intervals. Although the oxygen-consuming reaction of PDT mediates the destruction of tumor vessels, the hypoxic condition within tumors can cause the release of angiogenic growth factors and cytokines that could possibly decrease the efficacy of PDT by promoting tumor regrowth [60]. Zhou et al. [61] demonstrated that the expression of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1alpha, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) were increased in PDT-treated tumors, indicating that PDT-induced damage to tumor microvasculature and the resultant hypoxia upregulated the expression of certain proangiogenic factors. Combining anti-angiogenesis inhibitors along with PDT led to greater efficacy in cancer treatment [62]. In addition, through a concept called "arterial flow focalization", which allows for controlled temporary vascular occlusion of the collateral arterial branches upstream of the tumor, it is possible to redirect blood flow through the principal artery of the downstream tumor, thereby increasing tumor arterial flow and hence oxygen supply, thus further greatly improving the efficacy of PDT [63]. Immune system activation PDT-induced necrosis of tumor cells with the subsequent induction of an inflammatory response leads to anti-tumor immune responses [64-65]. It has been reported that PDT alters the tumor microenvironment by stimulating the release or expression of various pro-inflammatory and acute phase response mediators [66-68]. In response to many kinds of stress, cells produce heat shock proteins (HSPs), and it is believed that PDT can induce the cell surface expression and release of HSPs, which in turn stimulate the inflammatory and immune responses [69]. The body recognizes PDT-inflicted tumor tissue injury, and this further provokes a strong host response with neutrophilia as one of its manifestations [67]. In a rhabdomyosarcoma-bearing rat model, de Vree et al. [70] showed that PDT resulted in an increase in circulating neutrophils and the slowing of tumor growth. Depletion of neutrophils decreased the PDT-mediated effect on tumor growth. Anti-tumor immunity depends upon the presence of activated antigen presenting cells (APCs). PDT can increase the activity of APC and stimulate T-cell proliferation and T-cell secretion of interferon-gamma [71]. The complement system is a biochemical cascade that consists of more than 30 serum and cell surface proteins [72]. The activated complement system was identified as an important element of the host response elicited by PDT [73-74]. The complement system not only acts as a direct mediator of inflammation, but it also stimulates at least a dozen secondary inflammatory molecules, such as cytokines, interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-10, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, thromboxane, prostaglandins, leukotrienes, histamine, and coagulation factors [75]. Mroz et al. [76] recently showed that an effective vascular PDT regimen that can reliably promote local tumor destruction can also lead to antigen specific anti-tumor immunity. This tumor-destructive effect was mediated by tumor antigen specific cytotoxic T-cells. Moreover, PDT combined with low-dose cyclophosphamide can produce tumor-specific cytotoxic T cells and potent memory immunity, which in turn cause a dramatic improvement in survival and remission rates in a highly metastatic mouse tumor model [77] (Figure 5). Clinical studies The first clinical trial of PDT in the treatment of locally advanced PC took place in 2002 [78]. In this phase I study, 16 inoperable patients with cancer in the head of the pancreas were treated with mTHPC (0.15 mg/kg). After 3 days, light was delivered to the cancer percutaneously using fibers positioned under ultrasound or computerized tomographic guidance. The results showed that all patients had a new non-enhancing area in the pancreas consistent with tumor necrosis (range, 9.0–60.0 cm 3 ), and the median survival time after PDT was 9.5 months (range, 4–30). PDT may be valuable for treating localized cancers in patients who are poor candidates for definitive surgery or in whom the location of the tumor makes pancreatic resection inappropriate. Abulafi et al. [79] and Tseng et al. [80] indicated that patients with pancreatic and ampullary carcinoma for whom surgery is not appropriate should be treated with PDT, which is both feasible and safe for small tumors. Verteporfin, a derivative of a benzoporphyrin, has been proposed for the treatment of PC due to its short metabolic half-life, excitation by near-infrared wavelengths and clinical approval for PDT [81]. Only 3 verteporfin PDT studies for PC have been undertaken. Ayaru et al. [82] concluded that the safety profile of verteporfin is very similar to mTHPC, with the advantages of a shorter drug-light interval and drug elimination time. Yusuf et al. [83] showed that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided PDT of porcine pancreas with verteporfin led to pancreatic tissue damage. In different orthotopic PC xenograft models, Samkoe et al. [21] reported that both Panc-1 tumor and AsPC-1 tumor cells were killed by treatment with verteporfin PDT. Verteporfin PDT is now entering a Phase I/II clinical trial at the University College London Hospital [82]. Surgery remains the primary method of treatment for malignancies. However, more than 80% of PC patients have locally advanced or metastatic disease and thus are not amenable for resection at the time of diagnosis [3]. PDT has great potential when combined with surgical resection in the eradication of residual malignant tissues [84]. Surgical resection can clean the tumor bed within the obvious delineation while PDT may destroy the peripheral tissue and in turn enhance the efficiency of cancer removal [85]. PDT has many advantages, including its selective effect on malignant cancer cells of the pancreas versus normal tissue [18]. The precise reason for this phenomenon is still unclear, but it has been assumed to be related to an immunologic reaction [86]. Another advantage is that PDT does not lead to the accumulation of toxicity in patients [7, 87]. Furthermore, the combination of PDT with chemotherapy and other treatments can lead to significant additive benefits [22]. However, PDT also has some disadvantages. Side effects such as gastrointestinal bleeding and duodenal obstruction [78] have been noted. In addition, large tumor masses prevent PDT from penetrating the full depth of the cancerous tissue and thus diminish its efficiency [88]. Conclusions and future perspectives PC remains one of the most devastating neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. New therapeutic tools for PC are urgently needed. It is generally believed that the most common therapies for cancer, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and ionizing radiation, are accompanied by immuno-suppression. However, PDT does not share this characteristic and thus presents an attractive alternative to these therapies [65]. PDT in combination with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy or anti-angiogenic therapy has become a subject of research in recent years. This strategy still faces challenges, such as the reduction of side effects and the optimization of the method of treatment (i.e., multiple interstitial optical fibers to increase treated tumor volume), but it may become a superior method for treating PC. Another way to improve PDT is through the development of new photosensitizers. Well-designed experimental studies and clinical studies will be needed for further improving PDT. Acknowledgments This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation (Grant serial No.30900705), 13115 Major Project (2010ZDKG-49),Scientific Grant of Xi'an City (2009 No.SF09027), and ND EPSCoR funds. References1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al.: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60: 277-300, 2010.2. Herszenyi L and Tulassay Z: Epidemiology of gastrointestinal and liver tumors. Eur Rev MedPharmacol Sci 14: 249-258, 2010.3. Wray CJ, Ahmad SA, Matthews JB, et al.: Surgery for pancreatic cancer: recent controversiesand current practice. Gastroenterology 128: 1626-1641, 2005.4. Castellanos EH, Cardin DB and Berlin JD: Treatment of early-stage pancreatic cancer.Oncology (Williston Park) 25: 182-189, 2011.5. Campen CJ, Dragovich T and Baker AF: Management strategies in pancreatic cancer. Am JHealth Syst Pharm 68: 573-584, 2011.6. Moore CM, Pendse D and Emberton M: Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer--a reviewof current status and future promise. Nat Clin Pract Urol 6: 18-30, 2009.7. Robertson CA, Evans DH and Abrahamse H: Photodynamic therapy (PDT): a short review oncellular mechanisms and cancer research applications for PDT. J Photochem Photobiol B 96:1-8, 2009.8. Alexiades-Armenakas M: Laser-mediated photodynamic therapy. Clin Dermatol 24: 16-25,2006.9. Zhao B and He YY: Recent advances in the prevention and treatment of skin cancer usingphotodynamic therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10: 1797-1809, 2010.10. Jerjes W, Upile T, Akram S, et al.: The surgical palliation of advanced head and neck cancerusing photodynamic therapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 22: 785-791, 2010.11. Wildeman MA, Nyst HJ, Karakullukcu B, et al.: Photodynamic therapy in the therapy forrecurrent/persistent nasopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck Oncol 1: 40, 2009.12. Chen M, Pennathur A and Luketich JD: Role of photodynamic therapy in unresectableesophageal and lung cancer. Lasers Surg Med 38: 396-402, 2006.13. Ayaru L, Bown SG and Pereira SP: Photodynamic therapy for pancreatic and biliary tractcarcinoma. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 35: 1-13, 2005.14. Jain S and Kockelbergh RC: The role of photodynamic diagnosis in the contemporarymanagement of superficial bladder cancer. BJU Int 96: 17-21, 2005.15. Stockert JC, Canete M, Juarranz A, et al.: Porphycenes: facts and prospects in photodynamictherapy of cancer. Curr Med Chem 14: 997-1026, 2007. 16. Kochevar IE and Redmond RW: Photosensitized production of singlet oxygen. MethodsEnzymol 319: 20-28, 2000.17. Kolarova H, Nevrelova P, Tomankova K, et al.: Production of reactive oxygen species afterphotodynamic therapy by porphyrin sensitizers. Gen Physiol Biophys 27: 101-105, 2008.18. Fan BG and Andren-Sandberg A: Photodynamic therapy for pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 34:385-389, 2007.19. Kessel D, Vicente MG and Reiners JJ, Jr.: Initiation of apoptosis and autophagy byphotodynamic therapy. Lasers Surg Med 38: 482-488, 2006.20. Kroemer G, Galluzzi L, Vandenabeele P, et al.: Classification of cell death: recommendationsof the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2009. Cell Death Differ 16: 3-11, 2009.21. Samkoe KS, Chen A, Rizvi I, et al.: Imaging tumor variation in response to photodynamictherapy in pancreatic cancer xenograft models. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76: 251-259,2010.22. Xie Q, Jia L, Liu YH, et al.: Synergetic anticancer effect of combined gemcitabine andphotodynamic therapy on pancreatic cancer in vivo. World J Gastroenterol 15: 737-741, 2009.23. Regula J, Ravi B, Bedwell J, et al.: Photodynamic therapy using 5-aminolaevulinic acid forexperimental pancreatic cancer--prolonged animal survival. Br J Cancer 70: 248-254, 1994.24. Mikvy P, Messman H, MacRobert AJ, et al.: Photodynamic therapy of a transplantedpancreatic cancer model using meta-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin (mTHPC). Br J Cancer 76:713-718, 1997.25. Hajri A, Coffy S, Vallat F, et al.: Human pancreatic carcinoma cells are sensitive tophotodynamic therapy in vitro and in vivo. Br J Surg 86: 899-906, 1999.26. Ketabchi A, MacRobert A, Speight PM, et al.: Induction of apoptotic cell death byphotodynamic therapy in human keratinocytes. Arch Oral Biol 43: 143-149, 1998.27. Ferreira CS, Cheung MC, Missailidis S, et al.: Phototoxic aptamers selectively enter and killepithelial cancer cells. Nucleic Acids Res 37: 866-876, 2009.28. Blank M and Shiloh Y: Programs for cell death: apoptosis is only one way to go. Cell Cycle 6:686-695, 2007.29. Usuda J, Hirata T, Ichinose S, et al.: Tailor-made approach to photodynamic therapy in thetreatment of cancer based on Bcl-2 photodamage. Int J Oncol 33: 689-696, 2008.30. Renno RZ, Delori FC, Holzer RA, et al.: Photodynamic therapy using Lu-Tex inducesapoptosis in vitro, and its effect is potentiated by angiostatin in retinal capillary endothelialcells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41: 3963-3971, 2000.31. He J, Agarwal ML, Larkin HE, et al.: The induction of partial resistance to photodynamictherapy by the protooncogene BCL-2. Photochem Photobiol 64: 845-852, 1996.32. Chen X, Zhao P, Chen F, et al.: Effect and mechanism of 5-aminolevulinic acid-mediatedphotodynamic therapy in esophageal cancer. Lasers Med Sci 26: 69-78, 2011.33. Yow CM, Mak NK, Leung AW, et al.: Induction of early apoptosis in human nasopharyngealcarcinoma cells by mTHPC-mediated photocytotoxicity. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 6:122-127, 2009.34. Liu ZW, Zhao YP, Liao Q, et al.: [Relationship between apoptosis induced by2-butylamino-2-demethoxy-hypocrellin B in human pancreatic cancer cells Capan-1 andphotosensitization of mitochondria]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 44: 36-39, 2006.35. Kessel D and Luo Y: Photodynamic therapy: a mitochondrial inducer of apoptosis. Cell Death Differ 6: 28-35, 1999.36. Jeong YM, Li H, Kim SY, et al.: Photo-activated 5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid inducesapoptosis of prostate and bladder cancer cells. J Photochem Photobiol B 103: 50-56, 2011.37. O'Brien DI, Nally K, Kelly RG, et al.: Targeting the Fas/Fas ligand pathway in cancer. ExpertOpin Ther Targets 9: 1031-1044, 2005.38. Olivo M and Ali-Seyed M: Apoptosis signalling mechanisms in human cancer cells inducedby Calphostin-PDT. Int J Oncol 30: 537-548, 2007.39. Inanami O, Yoshito A, Takahashi K, et al.: Effects of BAPTA-AM and forskolin on apoptosisand cytochrome c release in photosensitized Chinese hamster V79 cells. Photochem Photobiol70: 650-655, 1999.40. Chiou JF, Wang YH, Jou MJ, et al.: Verteporfin-photoinduced apoptosis in HepG2 cellsmediated by reactive oxygen and nitrogen species intermediates. Free Radic Res 44: 155-170,2010.41. Almeida RD, Manadas BJ, Carvalho AP, et al.: Intracellular signaling mechanisms inphotodynamic therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta 1704: 59-86, 2004.42. Galaz S, Espada J, Stockert JC, et al.: Loss of E-cadherin mediated cell-cell adhesion as anearly trigger of apoptosis induced by photodynamic treatment. J Cell Physiol 205: 86-96,2005.43. Volanti C, Gloire G, Vanderplasschen A, et al.: Downregulation of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1expression in endothelial cells treated by photodynamic therapy. Oncogene 23: 8649-8658,2004.44. Buytaert E, Dewaele M and Agostinis P: Molecular effectors of multiple cell death pathwaysinitiated by photodynamic therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta 1776: 86-107, 2007.45. Zawacka-Pankau J, Krachulec J, Grulkowski I, et al.: The p53-mediated cytotoxicity ofphotodynamic therapy of cancer: recent advances. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 232: 487-497,2008.46. Mitsunaga M, Tsubota A, Nariai K, et al.: Early apoptosis and cell death induced byATX-S10Na (II)-mediated photodynamic therapy are Baxand p53-dependent in human coloncancer cells. World J Gastroenterol 13: 692-698, 2007.47. Lim DS, Bae SM, Kwak SY, et al.: Adenovirus-mediated p53 treatment enhancesphotodynamic antitumor response. Hum Gene Ther 17: 347-352, 2006.48. Wang JB and Liu LX: Use of photodynamic therapy in malignant lesions of stomach, bile duct,pancreas, colon and rectum. Hepatogastroenterology 54: 718-724, 2007.49. Yorimitsu T and Klionsky DJ: Autophagy: molecular machinery for self-eating. Cell DeathDiffer 12 Suppl 2: 1542-1552, 2005.50. Kroemer G and Jaattela M: Lysosomes and autophagy in cell death control. Nat Rev Cancer 5:886-897, 2005.51. Kroemer G, El-Deiry WS, Golstein P, et al.: Classification of cell death: recommendations ofthe Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death. Cell Death Differ 12 Suppl 2: 1463-1467, 2005.52. Reiners JJ, Jr., Agostinis P, Berg K, et al.: Assessing autophagy in the context ofphotodynamic therapy. Autophagy 6: 7-18, 2010.53. Criollo A, Maiuri MC, Tasdemir E, et al.: Regulation of autophagy by the inositoltrisphosphate receptor. Cell Death Differ 14: 1029-1039, 2007.54. Weyergang A, Berg K, Kaalhus O, et al.: Photodynamic therapy targets the mTOR signaling network in vitro and in vivo. Mol Pharm 6: 255-264, 2009.55. Kessel D and Arroyo AS: Apoptotic and autophagic responses to Bcl-2 inhibition andphotodamage. Photochem Photobiol Sci 6: 1290-1295, 2007.56. Carmeliet P and Jain RK: Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature 407: 249-257,2000.57. Fingar VH, Wieman TJ, Wiehle SA, et al.: The role of microvascular damage in photodynamictherapy: the effect of treatment on vessel constriction, permeability, and leukocyte adhesion.Cancer Res 52: 4914-4921, 1992.58. Woodhams JH, Kunz L, Bown SG, et al.: Correlation of real-time haemoglobin oxygensaturation monitoring during photodynamic therapy with microvascular effects and tissuenecrosis in normal rat liver. Br J Cancer 91: 788-794, 2004.59. Li LB and Luo RC: Effect of drug-light interval on the mode of action of Photofrinphotodynamic therapy in a mouse tumor model. Lasers Med Sci 24: 597-603, 2009.60. Bhuvaneswari R, Yuen GY, Chee SK, et al.: Hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy incombination with Avastin (bevacizumab) improves tumor response by downregulatingangiogenic proteins. Photochem Photobiol Sci 6: 1275-1283, 2007.61. Zhou Q, Olivo M, Lye KY, et al.: Enhancing the therapeutic responsiveness of photodynamictherapy with the antiangiogenic agents SU5416 and SU6668 in murine nasopharyngealcarcinoma models. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 56: 569-577, 2005.62. Bhuvaneswari R, Gan YY, Yee KK, et al.: Effect of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapyon the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Int J Mol Med 20: 421-428, 2007.63. Reyal J: Arterial flow focalization could increase tissue oxygen partial pressure, or triggerendothelial shear stress a new concept to overcome cancer hypoxia-induced radiotherapyresistance, or stimulate liver regeneration during fulminant hepatitis. Med Hypotheses 74:301-308, 2010.64. Henderson BW and Dougherty TJ: How does photodynamic therapy work? PhotochemPhotobiol 55: 145-157, 1992.65. Agarwal ML, Larkin HE, Zaidi SI, et al.: Phospholipase activation triggers apoptosis inphotosensitized mouse lymphoma cells. Cancer Res 53: 5897-5902, 1993.66. Gollnick SO, Evans SS, Baumann H, et al.: Role of cytokines in photodynamictherapy-induced local and systemic inflammation. Br J Cancer 88: 1772-1779, 2003.67. Cecic I, Stott B and Korbelik M: Acute phase response-associated systemic neutrophilmobilization in mice bearing tumors treated by photodynamic therapy. Int Immunopharmacol6: 1259-1266, 2006.68. Korbelik M, Cecic I, Merchant S, et al.: Acute phase response induction by cancer treatmentwith photodynamic therapy. Int J Cancer 122: 1411-1417, 2008.69. Korbelik M, Sun J and Cecic I: Photodynamic therapy-induced cell surface expression andrelease of heat shock proteins: relevance for tumor response. Cancer Res 65: 1018-1026,2005.70. de Vree WJ, Essers MC, de Bruijn HS, et al.: Evidence for an important role of neutrophils inthe efficacy of photodynamic therapy in vivo. Cancer Res 56: 2908-2911, 1996.71. Gollnick SO, Owczarczak B and Maier P: Photodynamic therapy and anti-tumor immunity.Lasers Surg Med 38: 509-515, 2006. 72. Walport MJ: Complement. First of two parts. N Engl J Med 344: 1058-1066, 2001.73. Stott B and Korbelik M: Activation of complement C3, C5, and C9 genes in tumors treated byphotodynamic therapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother 56: 649-658, 2007.74. Korbelik M and Cecic I: Complement activation cascade and its regulation: relevance for theresponse of solid tumors to photodynamic therapy. J Photochem Photobiol B 93: 53-59, 2008.75. Cecic I and Korbelik M: Mediators of peripheral blood neutrophilia induced by photodynamictherapy of solid tumors. Cancer Lett 183: 43-51, 2002.76. Mroz P, Szokalska A, Wu MX, et al.: Photodynamic therapy of tumors can lead todevelopment of systemic antigen-specific immune response. PLoS One 5: e15194, 2010.77. Castano AP, Mroz P, Wu MX, et al.: Photodynamic therapy plus low-dose cyclophosphamidegenerates antitumor immunity in a mouse model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 5495-5500,2008.78. Bown SG, Rogowska AZ, Whitelaw DE, et al.: Photodynamic therapy for cancer of thepancreas. Gut 50: 549-557, 2002.79. Abulafi AM, Allardice JT, Williams NS, et al.: Photodynamic therapy for malignant tumoursof the ampulla of Vater. Gut 36: 853-856, 1995.80. Tseng WW, Saxton RE, Deganutti A, et al.: Infrared laser activation of indocyanine greeninhibits growth in human pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 27: e42-45, 2003.81. Huang Z: A review of progress in clinical photodynamic therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 4:283-293, 2005.82. Ayaru L, Wittmann J, Macrobert AJ, et al.: Photodynamic therapy using verteporfinphotosensitization in the pancreas and surrounding tissues in the Syrian golden hamster.Pancreatology 7: 20-27, 2007.83. Yusuf TE, Matthes K and Brugge WR: EUS-guided photodynamic therapy with verteporfinfor ablation of normal pancreatic tissue: a pilot study in a porcine model (with video).Gastrointest Endosc 67: 957-961, 2008.84. Pass HI, DeLaney TF, Tochner Z, et al.: Intrapleural photodynamic therapy: results of a phaseI trial. Ann Surg Oncol 1: 28-37, 1994.85. Momma T, Hamblin MR, Wu HC, et al.: Photodynamic therapy of orthotopic prostate cancerwith benzoporphyrin derivative: local control and distant metastasis. Cancer Res 58:5425-5431, 1998.86. Nuutinen PJ, Chatlani PT, Bedwell J, et al.: Distribution and photodynamic effect ofdisulphonated aluminium phthalocyanine in the pancreas and adjacent tissues in the Syriangolden hamster. Br J Cancer 64: 1108-1115, 1991.87. De Rosa FS and Bentley MV: Photodynamic therapy of skin cancers: sensitizers, clinicalstudies and future directives. Pharm Res 17: 1447-1455, 2000.88. Wilson BC: Potential applications of photodynamic therapy in regenerative medicine. JCraniofac Surg 14: 278-283, 2003.