A total of 0.2 mL of the prepared cell suspension (4 × 105 HepG2 cells) was injected into the right armpit of each nude mouse and tumor growth observed every other day. Typically, subcutaneous foreleg tumors became visible after 5 to 7 days. At this time, tumor sizes were measured with Vernier calipers, and the long diameter, short diameter, and height of each tumor were recorded. Treatment AZD5363 in vitro started when tumor volumes reached approximately 0.5 cm3. The mice were randomly divided into the following groups (n = 15): normal control animals (neither photosensitizer nor light treatment), and nanoscale photosensitizer and

conventional photosensitizer treatment groups. Each animal in the treatment groups received an intraperitoneal injection of 10 mg photosensitizer per kilogram. Four hours later, animals were irradiated with a 63-nm laser (500 mW, 10 min). The subcutaneous xenograft tumors were ellipsoid selleck compound in shape; thus, tumor volumes were calculated using the equation for ellipsoid volume: V = a × b × c × π × 4/3 (a: long diameter of the tumor; b: short diameter of the tumor; c: tumor height). After treatment, tumor sizes were measured every other day with Vernier calipers. Tumor dimensions were determined by averaging three repeated measurements. Lag phases

in tumor growth before and after treatment and final mouse survival times were recorded. Statistical analyses Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical software version 12.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All data were

expressed as mean ± SD. Comparison of Selleckchem CH5424802 multiple independent samples were performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Discussion Cytotoxic effects of conventional and nanoscale photosensitizer PDT on human hepatoma cells At fixed photosensitizer not concentrations and laser irradiation doses, cell viability was significantly affected by the incubation time. In addition, cell viability was significantly lower in cells subjected to nanoscale photosensitizer-mediated PDTs than in cells treated with conventional photosensitizers. In HepG2 cells treated with 5 mg/L conventional Photosan and irradiated at 10 J/cm2, viability declined from 0 to 4 h and remained stable thereafter. In the nanoscale Photosan group, significant differences in cell viability were observed after 1 and 2 h of incubation, whereas cells treated for more than 2 h exhibited no significant differences in cell viability (Figure 1A). According to these data, 4 and 2 h were used in subsequent experiments for conventional and nanoscale photosensitizers, respectively. Figure 1 The impacts of (A) incubation times, (B) Photosan concentrations, and (C) light dose on cytotoxic effects of PDT. (B) Conventional Photosan and nanoscale Photosan concentrations on cytotoxic effects of PDT. *Significant difference (P < 0.05) of cell viability was detected between two groups at the time point.