Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2024
A Retrospective Comparison Between Home and in-Office NB-UVB Efficacy for Patients With Mycosis Fungoides.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garfinkel Victoria, Reisch Joan S, Goff Heather Woodworth
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study addresses the gap in research comparing the effectiveness between home and in-office narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy for the treatment of mycosis fungoides (MF). Elderly and disabled patients with this condition disproportionally lack access to home units due to insurance denial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review included patients diagnosed with MF or Sezary syndrome who underwent either in-office or home UVB between 2016 and 2023. Eighty-four patients used home NB-UVB, while 75 used in-office. Clinical characteristics, treatment response, and access were evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant difference in response rates between home and in-office NB-UVB phototherapy. Subgroup analysis based on adjuvant treatment revealed a significant difference in clinical response rates for patients using NB-UVB with topicals (p = 0.008) and NB-UVB with multiple systemic therapies (p = 0.04). Financial and time constraints were the most common cause of treatment discontinuation for in-office patients (28%).
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of home NB-UVB treatment is comparable, if not superior, to in-office treatment, likely attributed to treatment ease in access and compliance. Medicare and other health insurance companies should expand coverage to include home-based phototherapy for patients with MF, a potentially fatal cancer with a relative paucity of effective alternate therapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review included patients diagnosed with MF or Sezary syndrome who underwent either in-office or home UVB between 2016 and 2023. Eighty-four patients used home NB-UVB, while 75 used in-office. Clinical characteristics, treatment response, and access were evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant difference in response rates between home and in-office NB-UVB phototherapy. Subgroup analysis based on adjuvant treatment revealed a significant difference in clinical response rates for patients using NB-UVB with topicals (p = 0.008) and NB-UVB with multiple systemic therapies (p = 0.04). Financial and time constraints were the most common cause of treatment discontinuation for in-office patients (28%).
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of home NB-UVB treatment is comparable, if not superior, to in-office treatment, likely attributed to treatment ease in access and compliance. Medicare and other health insurance companies should expand coverage to include home-based phototherapy for patients with MF, a potentially fatal cancer with a relative paucity of effective alternate therapies.