Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016
Ingenol Mebutate for Lentigo Maligna: A Case Report.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gadaldi Karolina, Feldmeyer Laurence, Yawalkar Nikhil, Hunger Robert E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lentigo maligna (LM) is a melanoma in situ on sun-damaged skin, with a strong predilection to the head and neck area of the elderly. Many therapeutic modalities have been proposed in the treatment of this pathology, including surgery, cryotherapy, radiotherapy and topical imiquimod. Up to date surgical excision remains the treatment of choice with the lowest recurrence rate. Recently, a new topical treatment with ingenol mebutate has been described to be efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of melanoma in situ.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to demonstrate that ingenol mebutate might be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment in a patient suffering from LM on an aesthetically challenging location.
METHODS: Case report.
RESULTS: After therapeutic failure with imiquimod 5% cream, a new topical treatment with ingenol mebutate gel 0.015% once daily on 3 consecutive days was initiated. Despite visible inflammation, no macroscopic lesion clearance was observed. While the first follow-up using reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) performed at 6 weeks after the completion of the therapy showed no signs of LM, the second follow-up examination at 12 weeks using RCM and biopsy confirmed recurrence of the lesion.
CONCLUSION: Ingenol mebutate cannot be considered a standard treatment modality for all types of LM. Further studies are needed to evaluate the prerequisites that can ensure therapeutic success.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to demonstrate that ingenol mebutate might be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment in a patient suffering from LM on an aesthetically challenging location.
METHODS: Case report.
RESULTS: After therapeutic failure with imiquimod 5% cream, a new topical treatment with ingenol mebutate gel 0.015% once daily on 3 consecutive days was initiated. Despite visible inflammation, no macroscopic lesion clearance was observed. While the first follow-up using reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) performed at 6 weeks after the completion of the therapy showed no signs of LM, the second follow-up examination at 12 weeks using RCM and biopsy confirmed recurrence of the lesion.
CONCLUSION: Ingenol mebutate cannot be considered a standard treatment modality for all types of LM. Further studies are needed to evaluate the prerequisites that can ensure therapeutic success.