Feasibility of pressurized intra peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy using an ultrasound aerosol generator (usPIPAC)

使用超声气雾剂发生器 (usPIPAC) 进行腹腔内加压气雾剂化疗的可行性

阅读:7
作者:Phil Höltzcke, Iaroslav Sautkin, Samuel Clere, Arianna Castagna, Alfred Königsrainer, Peter P Pott, Marc A Reymond

Background

We tested the feasibility of ultrasound technology for generating pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (usPIPAC) and compared its performance vs. comparator (PIPAC). Material and

Discussion

usPIPAC is feasible, but its performance as a drug delivery system remains currently inferior to PIPAC, in particular for lipophilic solutions.

Material and methods

A piezoelectric ultrasound aerosolizer (NextGen, Sinaptec) was compared with the available technology (Capnopen, Capnomed). Granulometry was measured for water, Glc 5%, and silicone oil using laser diffraction spectrometry. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) spraying patterns were determined with methylene blue. Tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) was measured by fluorescence microscopy in the enhanced inverted Bovine Urinary Bladder model (eIBUB). Tissue DOX concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Methods

A piezoelectric ultrasound aerosolizer (NextGen, Sinaptec) was compared with the available technology (Capnopen, Capnomed). Granulometry was measured for water, Glc 5%, and silicone oil using laser diffraction spectrometry. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) spraying patterns were determined with methylene blue. Tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) was measured by fluorescence microscopy in the enhanced inverted Bovine Urinary Bladder model (eIBUB). Tissue DOX concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Results

The droplets median aerodynamic diameter was (usPIPAC vs. PIPAC): H20: 40.4 (CI 10-90%: 19.0-102.3) vs. 34.8 (22.8-52.7) µm; Glc 5%: 52.8 (22.2-132.1) vs. 39.0 (23.7-65.2) µm; Silicone oil: 178.7 (55.7-501.8) vs. 43.0 (20.2-78.5) µm. 2D and 3D blue ink distribution pattern of usPIPAC was largely equivalent with PIPAC, as was DOX tissue concentration (usPIPAC: 0.65 (CI 5-95%: 0.44-0.86) vs. PIPAC: 0.88 (0.59-1.17) ng/ml, p = 0.29). DOX tissue penetration with usPIPAC was inferior to PIPAC: usPIPAC: 60.1 (CI 5.95%: 58.8-61.5) µm vs. PIPAC: 1172 (1157-1198) µm, p < 0.001). The homogeneity of spatial distribution (top, middle and bottom of the eIBUB) was comparable between modalities.

特别声明

1、本文转载旨在传播信息,不代表本网站观点,亦不对其内容的真实性承担责任。

2、其他媒体、网站或个人若从本网站转载使用,必须保留本网站注明的“来源”,并自行承担包括版权在内的相关法律责任。

3、如作者不希望本文被转载,或需洽谈转载稿费等事宜,请及时与本网站联系。

4、此外,如需投稿,也可通过邮箱info@biocloudy.com与我们取得联系。