RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Any Opinions...Macer wrote: Hempdoc wrote: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the preclinical studies showed Rutherrin to be effective only to a certain depth of the smooth muscle layer (3 mm) & not the deepest muscle layers. This suggests an alternative form of treatment may be needed, including intravenous delivery & increasing light wavelength &/or beam width to maximize both deeper absorption of Rutherrin & its activation by PDT.
In the orthotopic rat studies they induced tumors in the bladder muscle wall (I.e. invasive)
they treated the bladder by intravesicular instillation and the used light to activate it.
the were able to demonstrate full thickness tumor necrosis in the bladder muscle. The tumors were 2-3 mm in depth.
My point is that 1433 demonstrated destruction of muscle invasive bladder cancer. Depth is not important in a limited preclinical study. The bladder is not a super thick muscle to begin with.
macer
Just catching up on the weekend posts and see both bj johnie and bencro have posted, so I think I'm getting back into the single malt scotch liquor cabinet now.
Anyhow, no political opinions for me, just going to clarify one thing from google :
The normal bladder wall had a mean thickness of 2.76 mm when the bladder is almost empty and 1.55 mm when it is distended. There is a linear relationship between bladder fullness and bladder wall thickness; the upper limits are 3 and 5 mm for a full or empty bladder respectively. Coop