BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radiation dermatitis occurs in a majority of patients with breast cancer who receiveradiation therapy (RT), causes significant pain, and may necessitate treatment delay. Light emitting diode (LED) photomodulation has been reported to minimize radiation dermatitis. This study sought to further evaluate the efficacy of LED photomodulation in lessening radiation dermatitis. MATERIALS & METHODS: After surgery, patients with breast cancer received LED photomodulation or sham treatments in conjunction with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reactions were evaluated using standardized photographs graded according to National Cancer Institute criteria. RESULTS: In the LED treatment group (n=18), no patients had grade 0 reactions, six (33.3%) had grade 1 reactions, 12 (66.7%) had grade 2 reactions, and none had a grade 3 reaction. In the sham treatment group (n=15), one (6.6%) patient had a grade 0 reaction, four (26.7%) had grade 1 reactions, 9 (60.0%) had grade 2 reactions, and one (6.7%) had a grade 3 reaction. Two (11.1%) patients in the LED treatment group and one (6.7%) in the control group had to interrupt treatment. Differences between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LED photomodulation did not reduce the incidence of radiation-induced skin reactions or interruptions in therapy. .
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radiation dermatitis occurs in a majority of patients with breast cancer who receive radiation therapy (RT), causes significant pain, and may necessitate treatment delay. Light emitting diode (LED) photomodulation has been reported to minimize radiation dermatitis. This study sought to further evaluate the efficacy of LED photomodulation in lessening radiation dermatitis. MATERIALS & METHODS: After surgery, patients with breast cancer received LED photomodulation or sham treatments in conjunction with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reactions were evaluated using standardized photographs graded according to National Cancer Institute criteria. RESULTS: In the LED treatment group (n=18), no patients had grade 0 reactions, six (33.3%) had grade 1 reactions, 12 (66.7%) had grade 2 reactions, and none had a grade 3 reaction. In the sham treatment group (n=15), one (6.6%) patient had a grade 0 reaction, four (26.7%) had grade 1 reactions, 9 (60.0%) had grade 2 reactions, and one (6.7%) had a grade 3 reaction. Two (11.1%) patients in the LED treatment group and one (6.7%) in the control group had to interrupt treatment. Differences between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LED photomodulation did not reduce the incidence of radiation-induced skin reactions or interruptions in therapy. .
Authors: Rebecca K S Wong; René-Jean Bensadoun; Christine B Boers-Doets; Jane Bryce; Alexandre Chan; Joel B Epstein; Beth Eaby-Sandy; Mario E Lacouture Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Judith A E M Zecha; Judith E Raber-Durlacher; Raj G Nair; Joel B Epstein; Sharon Elad; Michael R Hamblin; Andrei Barasch; Cesar A Migliorati; Dan M J Milstein; Marie-Thérèse Genot; Liset Lansaat; Ron van der Brink; Josep Arnabat-Dominguez; Lisette van der Molen; Irene Jacobi; Judi van Diessen; Jan de Lange; Ludi E Smeele; Mark M Schubert; René-Jean Bensadoun Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jolien Robijns; Sandrine Censabella; Stefan Claes; Luc Pannekoeke; Lore Bussé; Dora Colson; Iris Kaminski; Joy Lodewijckx; Paul Bulens; Annelies Maes; Leen Noé; Marc Brosens; An Timmermans; Ivo Lambrichts; Veerle Somers; Jeroen Mebis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sandrine Censabella; Stefan Claes; Jolien Robijns; Paul Bulens; Jeroen Mebis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Daniel R Opel; Erika Hagstrom; Aaron K Pace; Krisanne Sisto; Stefanie A Hirano-Ali; Shraddha Desai; James Swan Journal: J Clin Aesthet Dermatol Date: 2015-06