Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2020
Three photobiomodulation protocols in the prevention/treatment of radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis.
Протокол клинического исследованияСтатьяНазвание 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.
de Carvalho Paulo André Gonçalves, Lessa Roberta Cardim, Carraro Dirce Maria, Assis Pellizzon Antonio Cássio, Jaguar Graziella Chagas, Alves Fábio A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare three Photobiomodulation protocols to prevent/treat oral mucositis associated to radiotherapy.
METHODS: Seventy-three patients with cancer in oral cavity, oropharynx, and nasopharynx, who underwent RT with dose in facial fields equal or higher than 6000 cGy were randomized into three groups (mean RT dose = 66 cGy ±4.9). Protocols of Group 1 was 660 nm, 15 mW, 3.8 J/cm2, Group 2 660 nm, 25 mW, 6.3 J/cm2 both starting on the first day of radiotherapy, and group 3 660 nm, 15 mW, 3.8 J/cm2 for therapeutic purpose. The patients of group 1 and 2 were irradiated at 40 points daily covering non-keratinizing oral mucosa. The spot size (probe's tip surface size) was 0.040 cm2 for all groups. Oral mucositis was evaluated according to both WHO and NCI scales, and pain related to oral mucositis was scored using the VAS.
RESULTS: Patients from group 1 presented with grade II oral mucositis later than groups 2 and 3 (p < 0.001). Moreover, groups 2 and 3 also presented with a mean higher of oral mucositis grade than group 1, p < 0.001. Pain scores were lower in group 1 (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The Photobiomodulation used in Group 1 was more effective than the protocols used in groups 2 and 3 in controlling the grade II oral mucositis intensity, and mean pain scores.
METHODS: Seventy-three patients with cancer in oral cavity, oropharynx, and nasopharynx, who underwent RT with dose in facial fields equal or higher than 6000 cGy were randomized into three groups (mean RT dose = 66 cGy ±4.9). Protocols of Group 1 was 660 nm, 15 mW, 3.8 J/cm2, Group 2 660 nm, 25 mW, 6.3 J/cm2 both starting on the first day of radiotherapy, and group 3 660 nm, 15 mW, 3.8 J/cm2 for therapeutic purpose. The patients of group 1 and 2 were irradiated at 40 points daily covering non-keratinizing oral mucosa. The spot size (probe's tip surface size) was 0.040 cm2 for all groups. Oral mucositis was evaluated according to both WHO and NCI scales, and pain related to oral mucositis was scored using the VAS.
RESULTS: Patients from group 1 presented with grade II oral mucositis later than groups 2 and 3 (p < 0.001). Moreover, groups 2 and 3 also presented with a mean higher of oral mucositis grade than group 1, p < 0.001. Pain scores were lower in group 1 (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The Photobiomodulation used in Group 1 was more effective than the protocols used in groups 2 and 3 in controlling the grade II oral mucositis intensity, and mean pain scores.