Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2023
Hemoporfin-mediated photodynamic therapy for the treatment of port-wine stain: A multicenter, retrospective study.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhang Xiaofeng, Yuan Chen, Xiao Xuemin, Yin Rui, Lei Hongzhao, Li Yan, Zheng Shumao, Wen Sijian, Li Dongsheng, Wang Xuejun, Lu Zhong, Zhang Yunfeng, Zeng Weihui, He Sijin, Li Yuzhen, Jian Dan, Yang Jun, Zhong Hua, Han Dawei, Chen Xiaoying, Zhou Junfeng, Cai Yantao, Peng Xi, Li Zhiming, Liu Xueying, Lin Tong, Zhang Ruzhi, Li Guang, Zhuang Yin, Liu Ling, Yan Yan, Wang Baoxi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hemoporfin-mediated photodynamic therapy (Hemoporfin-PDT) has been approved for port-wine stain (PWS) in China in 2017. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of Hemoporfin-PDT for PWS in a real life setting and investigated factors that influence the efficacy.
METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study included patients with PWS who underwent Hemoporfin-PDT in 29 hospitals across China and completed at least two months of follow-up. The efficacy was evaluated based on patien photographs.
RESULTS: A total of 1679 patients were included. After the first and second sessions of Hemoporfin-PDT, 63.5 and 75.3% of patients responded, respectively. The response rate of purple-type PWS was significantly lower than that of pink-type PWS (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94, P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between thick- and pink-type (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.42-1.22, P > 0.05). The response rate of PWS on the limbs was significantly lower than that on the mid-face (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23-0.53, P < 0.0001), while no significant difference was observed between PWS on the peripheral part of the face, neck or other parts of the body and PWS on the mid-face (P > 0.05). The response rate was lower in male patients with an age > 3 years or ≤ 6 years (P < 0.05). Previous treatment history did not affect the efficacy (P > 0.05). Hemoporfin-PDT was well tolerated.
CONCLUSION: Patients with PWS have a good response and good tolerance to Hemoporfin-PDT.
METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study included patients with PWS who underwent Hemoporfin-PDT in 29 hospitals across China and completed at least two months of follow-up. The efficacy was evaluated based on patien photographs.
RESULTS: A total of 1679 patients were included. After the first and second sessions of Hemoporfin-PDT, 63.5 and 75.3% of patients responded, respectively. The response rate of purple-type PWS was significantly lower than that of pink-type PWS (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94, P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between thick- and pink-type (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.42-1.22, P > 0.05). The response rate of PWS on the limbs was significantly lower than that on the mid-face (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23-0.53, P < 0.0001), while no significant difference was observed between PWS on the peripheral part of the face, neck or other parts of the body and PWS on the mid-face (P > 0.05). The response rate was lower in male patients with an age > 3 years or ≤ 6 years (P < 0.05). Previous treatment history did not affect the efficacy (P > 0.05). Hemoporfin-PDT was well tolerated.
CONCLUSION: Patients with PWS have a good response and good tolerance to Hemoporfin-PDT.