Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2015
Pre-treatment protoporphyrin IX concentration in actinic keratosis lesions may be a predictive biomarker of response to aminolevulinic-acid based photodynamic therapy.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kanick S C, Davis S C, Zhao Y, Sheehan K L, Hasan T, Maytin E V, Pogue B W, Chapman M S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-induced protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective FDA-approved therapy for actinic keratosis (AK), a substantial fraction of patients (up to 25%) do not respond to treatment. This study examined the feasibility of using pre-treatment measurements of PpIX concentration in AK lesions to predict response of ALA-PpIX PDT.
METHODS: A non-invasive fiber-optic fluorescence spectroscopy system was used to measure PpIX concentration in patients undergoing standard-of-care ALA-PDT for AK. All patients provided assessments of pain at the time of treatment (n=70), and a subset reported pain and erythema 48-76 h after treatment (n=13).
RESULTS: PpIX concentration was significantly higher in lesions of patients reporting high levels of pain (VAS score ≥5) immediately after treatment vs. patients reporting pain scores below VAS=5 (p<0.022) (n=70). However, pain was not an exclusive indicator of PpIX concentration as many patients with low PpIX concentration reported high pain. In a subpopulation of patients surveyed in the days after treatment (n=13), PpIX concentration measured on the day of treatment was uncorrelated with pain-reported immediately after treatment (r=0.17, p<0.57), but positive correlations were found between PpIX concentration and patient-reported pain (r=0.55, p<0.051) and erythema (r=0.58, p<0.039) in the 48-72 h following treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in vivo optical measurements of PpIX concentration acquired before light delivery may be an objective predictor of response to ALA-PpIX PDT. Identification of non-responding patients on the day of treatment could facilitate the use of interventions that may improve outcomes.
METHODS: A non-invasive fiber-optic fluorescence spectroscopy system was used to measure PpIX concentration in patients undergoing standard-of-care ALA-PDT for AK. All patients provided assessments of pain at the time of treatment (n=70), and a subset reported pain and erythema 48-76 h after treatment (n=13).
RESULTS: PpIX concentration was significantly higher in lesions of patients reporting high levels of pain (VAS score ≥5) immediately after treatment vs. patients reporting pain scores below VAS=5 (p<0.022) (n=70). However, pain was not an exclusive indicator of PpIX concentration as many patients with low PpIX concentration reported high pain. In a subpopulation of patients surveyed in the days after treatment (n=13), PpIX concentration measured on the day of treatment was uncorrelated with pain-reported immediately after treatment (r=0.17, p<0.57), but positive correlations were found between PpIX concentration and patient-reported pain (r=0.55, p<0.051) and erythema (r=0.58, p<0.039) in the 48-72 h following treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in vivo optical measurements of PpIX concentration acquired before light delivery may be an objective predictor of response to ALA-PpIX PDT. Identification of non-responding patients on the day of treatment could facilitate the use of interventions that may improve outcomes.