One of the main challenges of photodynamic therapy is that biological tissues absorb and scatter the light used in the therapy.[1] This seems to limit the effectiveness of such therapies to tissue depths less than 1-2cm.
The review article cites three studies as examples of in vivo photodynamic therapy; however, none of these overcome the challenge of tissue penetration. The first study [2] is a skin xenograft model (which needs very little tissue penetration and does not seem obviously superior to topical therapy), the second [3] pre-treats virus before inoculation (technically not an in vivo model of photodynamic therapy), and the third [4] was in oysters and used curcumin[5].
One of the main challenges of photodynamic therapy is that biological tissues absorb and scatter the light used in the therapy.[1] This seems to limit the effectiveness of such therapies to tissue depths less than 1-2cm.
The review article cites three studies as examples of in vivo photodynamic therapy; however, none of these overcome the challenge of tissue penetration. The first study [2] is a skin xenograft model (which needs very little tissue penetration and does not seem obviously superior to topical therapy), the second [3] pre-treats virus before inoculation (technically not an in vivo model of photodynamic therapy), and the third [4] was in oysters and used curcumin[5].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-infrared_window_in_biological_tissue
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459584/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22153019/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26117199/
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/curcumin-will-waste-your-time
Thanks for adding this.
I’m still optimistic because it sounds plausible that a device / procedure can be developed to deliver the light to tissues from inside the airway.