Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2023
Revisiting the evidence of photodynamic therapy for oral potentially malignant disorders and oral squamous cell carcinoma: An overview of systematic reviews.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Schuch Lauren Frenzel, Schmidt Tuany Rafaeli, Kirschnick Laura Borges, de Arruda José Alcides Almeida, Campagnol Daniela, Martins Marco Antônio Trevizani, Santos-Silva Alan Roger, Lopes Márcio Ajudarte, Vargas Pablo Agustin, Bagnato Vanderlei Salvador, Kurachi Cristina, Guerra Eliete Neves Silva, Martins Manoela Domingues
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study summarized the available evidence about the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for the management of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).
METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews was undertaken based on the 2020 PRISMA statement. Electronic searches were performed in five databases. Studies published up to November 2022 were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool.
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies enrolling 9,245 individuals with OPMD (n = 7,487) or OSCC (n = 1,758) met the selection criteria. All studies examined the efficacy and/or safety of PDT. OPMD were investigated individually in 82.8% of the studies, the most common being oral lichen planus and actinic cheilitis. OSCC was addressed separately in 10.3% of the studies, while only 6.9% evaluated both OPMD and OSCC. Fourteen different types of photosensitizers were described. PDT was used according to the following setting parameters: 417-670 nm, 10-500 mW/cm2, 1.5-200 J/cm2, and 0.5-143 min. Regarding OPMD, leukoerythroplakia showed the best response rates, while oral lichen planus presented a partial or no response in nearly 75% of documented cases. A complete response was observed in 85.9% of OSCC cases, while 14.1% had no resolution.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the response to PDT depended on the type of OPMD/OSCC and the parameters used. Although PDT is an emerging candidate for the treatment of OPMD and OSCC, there is heterogeneity of the methodologies used and the clinical data obtained, particularly regarding the follow-up period.
METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews was undertaken based on the 2020 PRISMA statement. Electronic searches were performed in five databases. Studies published up to November 2022 were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool.
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies enrolling 9,245 individuals with OPMD (n = 7,487) or OSCC (n = 1,758) met the selection criteria. All studies examined the efficacy and/or safety of PDT. OPMD were investigated individually in 82.8% of the studies, the most common being oral lichen planus and actinic cheilitis. OSCC was addressed separately in 10.3% of the studies, while only 6.9% evaluated both OPMD and OSCC. Fourteen different types of photosensitizers were described. PDT was used according to the following setting parameters: 417-670 nm, 10-500 mW/cm2, 1.5-200 J/cm2, and 0.5-143 min. Regarding OPMD, leukoerythroplakia showed the best response rates, while oral lichen planus presented a partial or no response in nearly 75% of documented cases. A complete response was observed in 85.9% of OSCC cases, while 14.1% had no resolution.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the response to PDT depended on the type of OPMD/OSCC and the parameters used. Although PDT is an emerging candidate for the treatment of OPMD and OSCC, there is heterogeneity of the methodologies used and the clinical data obtained, particularly regarding the follow-up period.