Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Support Care Cancer ; 28(7): 3287-3290, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31754836

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether photobiomodulation (PBM) might be effective for chemotherapy-induced palmo-plantar erythrodyesthesia (PPED), as it is for mucositis or radio dermatitis; no standard therapy exists for PPED. Patients were allocated to PBM or sham irradiation and were blindly assessed after 2 weeks. Pain and satisfaction with treatment were also evaluated. We found a significant benefit from PBM in comparison with sham treatment (p < 0.03) and a decrease of pain in 49% of the patients. No adverse reactions were observed. We concluded that PBM might represent a useful approach for the management of PPED.


Subject(s)
Hand-Foot Syndrome/therapy , Low-Level Light Therapy/methods , Neoplasms/complications , Female , Hand-Foot Syndrome/etiology , Hand-Foot Syndrome/pathology , Humans , Male , Pilot Projects
2.
Support Care Cancer ; 28(7): 3015-3022, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31502227

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The standard therapeutic approach for locally advanced head and neck cancer is optimal use of radiation therapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy. The most common and distressing acute complication of such therapies is oral/pharyngeal mucositis that may be associated with severe morbidity and can interfere with the planned administration of therapy. METHODS: We have identified all patients diagnosed with head/neck cancer between 2005 and 2009, having received radiotherapy with or without cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Radiotherapy consisted of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in all patients. In patients with grade > 2 mucositis, photobiomodulation (PBM) consisted of three sessions of low-level laser irradiation weekly, in accordance with recently published recommendations for PBM. Patients who did not receive PBM were those for whom that approach was not requested by the radiotherapists and those who declined it. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two patients (62%) received PBM and 139 did not (39%). The patient's characteristics were equally distributed between the two groups. For overall survival, time to local recurrence, and progression-free survival, there was no statistical evidence for a difference in prognosis between patients with and without PBM. In a multivariate analysis, after adjusting for known prognostic factors, we found no statistical evidence that PBM was related to overall survival, progression-free survival, or local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show evidence of no effect of PBM upon overall survival, time to local recurrences, and disease-free survival of patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy with/without chemotherapy.


Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Low-Level Light Therapy/adverse effects , Low-Level Light Therapy/methods , Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Chemoradiotherapy , Cisplatin/administration & dosage , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/drug therapy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mucositis/etiology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Progression-Free Survival , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/adverse effects , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...