Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24802230›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2013

Impact of treatment response metrics on photodynamic therapy planning and outcomes in a three-dimensional model of ovarian cancer.

Sriram Anbil, Imran Rizvi, Jonathan P Celli, Nermina Alagic, Brian W Pogue, Tayyaba Hasan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Applications of nanomaterials in endometriosis treatment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sriram AnbilWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Imran RizviWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jonathan P CelliWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MassachusettsbUniversity of Massachusetts Boston, Department of Physics, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nermina AlagicWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brian W PogueDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Tayyaba HasanWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Heterocellular 3D ovarian tumor arrays for imaging and mechanistic combinationsR01CA158415 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HASAN, TAYYABA · 2012 to 2016
$2.0M
Targeted Photoactivatable Nanocells to Image and Treat Metastic Ovarian CancerRC1CA146337 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HASAN, TAYYABA · 2009 to 2010
$971k
Mechanism-based therapies for pancreatic cancer informed by stromal microrheologyR00CA155045 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON · PI CELLI, JONATHAN P · 2013 to 2015
$708k
NCI NIH HHS 1RC1CA146337NCI NIH HHS R00 CA155045NCI NIH HHS R00CA155045NCI NIH HHS R01 CA158415NCI NIH HHS R01CA158415NCI NIH HHS R01CA1609998NCI NIH HHS RC1 CA146337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Common methods to characterize treatment efficacy based on morphological imaging may misrepresent outcomes and exclude effective therapies. Using a three-dimensional model of ovarian cancer, two functional treatment response metrics are used to evaluate photodynamic therapy (PDT) efficacy: total volume, calculated from viable and nonviable cells, and live volume, calculated from viable cells. The utility of these volume-based metrics is corroborated using independent reporters of photodynamic activity: viability, a common fluorescence-based ratiometric analysis, and photosensitizer photobleaching, which is characterized by a loss of fluorescence due in part to the production of reactive species during PDT. Live volume correlated with both photobleaching and viability, suggesting that it was a better reporter of PDT efficacy than total volume, which did not correlate with either metric. Based on these findings, live volume and viability are used to probe the susceptibilities of tumor populations to a range of PDT dose parameters administered using 0.25, 1, and 10 μM benzoporphyrin derivative (BPD). PDT with 0.25 μM BPD produces the most significant reduction in live volume and viability and mediates a substantial shift toward small nodules. Increasingly sophisticated bioengineered models may complement current treatment planning approaches and provide unique opportunities to critically evaluate key parameters including metrics of therapeutic response.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalCell Culture TechniquesCell Line, TumorCell SurvivalComputational BiologyFemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsPhotochemotherapyReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID24802230
PMCPMC3783041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.