RE:RE:Of 41 patients CR @90-days, 88% demonstrated CR @180-days Eoganacht wrote:
"It's amazing how many otherwise well informed articles about photodynamic therapy do not seem to realize that the perceived deficiencies of pdt have either been solved or are on the way to being solved. The problem of patient light sensitivity post procedure is gone. The problem of insufficient selectivity to cancer cells - which led to bladder damage in patients in the earlier photofrin NMIBC trials - is also gone. In fact Dr. Lilge and colleagues have created a whole dosimetry technology to ensure maximum cancer destruction with minimal harm to healthy tissue.The problem of inefficient pdt in low oxygen environments looks like it has been solved by Dr. McFarland. There are still articles which say that because of minimal depth of penetration. Photodynamic therapy is only suitable for treating tumours which lie on the surface. In fact Dr. McFarland's recent PSs can be activated by NIR - near-infrared light - which penetrates much more deeply. She is also working on other techniques to boost depth of penetration. Theralase has also demonstrated that Rutherrin can be activated effectively by X-rays, providing the greatest penetration.
Once TLD1433 pdt receives approval it will become obvious to everyone interested in cancer treatment that a new, highly effective and safe pdt has emerged which might be of great benefit to many victims of many cancer indications.
And then all eyes will be on Theralase - the pioneer of the new oncological pdt"
Well said Eoganacht...Photofrin may have paved the way for PDT, but it certainly left some big potholes to fill. Looking forward to the day we fill them.
It is also truly alarming that so many prestigious cancer centers/teaching hospitals have yet to take note of the evolution of PDT. It's still hard for me to imagine that even the premier center of modern PDT innovation in the U.S. (Roswell Park) is still using that antiquated photosensitizer (Photofrin) in its clinical trials. I guess they're going to have to follow our lead...and considering both the recent strides we've made in the dosimetry/tech realm & the external advances being made in the field of radiotherapy (i.e. having more targeted & intensity modulated options), it's a positive we kept our ACT in house & never partnered with Roswell for the much broader cancer indication (NSCLC). Good luck.