INTRODUCTION: Actinic cheilitis (AC) is a lip intraepithelial neoplasia, whose cells present alterations similar to those presented by invasive squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). OBJECTIVE: To conduct clinical and laboratory evaluation by histopathology and immunohistochemistry of the efficacy of actinic cheilitis treatment using photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) and noncoherent red light. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with actinic cheilitis detected by histopathological examination were submitted to two sessions of photodynamic therapy with a two-week interval between them. They were examined immediately after the sessions, four, six, and twelve weeks after beginning treatment when a new biopsy was carried out. Clinical histopathological and immunohistochemical parameters were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: Of the 23 patients who underwent biopsy, 16 completed two photodynamic therapy sessions and the material of one patient was insufficient for immunohistochemistry. Complete clinical response was achieved in 62.5% (10 of 16 patients) and 37.5% still remained with clinical evidence of AC. In spite of this, no case of cure by histopathological analysis was found. There was no significant statistical change among the values of Ki-67, survivin, and p53 observed before and after treatment. CONCLUSION: Photodynamic therapy, as carried out in this trial, was not an efficacious therapeutic option for treating patients with actinic cheilitis included in this sample.
INTRODUCTION:Actinic cheilitis (AC) is a lip intraepithelial neoplasia, whose cells present alterations similar to those presented by invasive squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). OBJECTIVE: To conduct clinical and laboratory evaluation by histopathology and immunohistochemistry of the efficacy of actinic cheilitis treatment using photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) and noncoherent red light. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with actinic cheilitis detected by histopathological examination were submitted to two sessions of photodynamic therapy with a two-week interval between them. They were examined immediately after the sessions, four, six, and twelve weeks after beginning treatment when a new biopsy was carried out. Clinical histopathological and immunohistochemical parameters were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: Of the 23 patients who underwent biopsy, 16 completed two photodynamic therapy sessions and the material of one patient was insufficient for immunohistochemistry. Complete clinical response was achieved in 62.5% (10 of 16 patients) and 37.5% still remained with clinical evidence of AC. In spite of this, no case of cure by histopathological analysis was found. There was no significant statistical change among the values of Ki-67, survivin, and p53 observed before and after treatment. CONCLUSION: Photodynamic therapy, as carried out in this trial, was not an efficacious therapeutic option for treating patients with actinic cheilitis included in this sample.
Authors: Hanna Isa de Oliveira Bezerra; Amanda Katarinny Goes Gonzaga; Éricka Janine Dantas da Silveira; Patrícia Teixeira de Oliveira; Ana Miryam Costa de Medeiros Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 3.573