How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
| Autor: | Theresa Steeb, Anja Wessely, Lutz Schmitz, Carola Berking, Thomas Dirschka, Anne Petzold, Markus V. Heppt |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
squamous cell carcinoma
medicine.medical_specialty Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma Psychological intervention Review law.invention Randomized controlled trial prevention law medicine actinic keratosis follow-up ddc:610 Intensive care medicine core outcomes business.industry Actinic keratosis methodology General Medicine Actinic keratoses Long term results medicine.disease long-term efficacy surveillance Medicine Sun exposure business |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Clinical Medicine, Vol 10, Iss 4736, p 4736 (2021) Journal of Clinical Medicine |
| ISSN: | 2077-0383 |
| Popis: | Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions of the skin caused by cumulative sun exposure. Since AK may progress to invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), guidelines uniformly recommend early and consequent treatment. A variety of interventions are available; however, most randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and guidelines focus on outcomes that are usually evaluated 8–12 weeks after the end of treatment. Importantly, these assessments can capture the short-term, transient outcomes, but do not allow any conclusions about long-term results to be drawn and do not reflect the probability of transition towards cSCC. Until now, few studies have assessed the long-term results of interventions for AK. Indeed, finding the most appropriate end-point and adjunct time point for determining the long-term results of interventions for AK remains a challenge. Here, we provide an overview of the different ways of measuring the efficacy of AK treatments, such as using recurrence rates or sustained clearance rates, and discuss methodological aspects. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of evidence from post-marketing surveillance trials for the detection of efficacy values and safety signals. Additionally, we emphasize that a follow-up period of 12 months might not be sufficient to reflect the long-term results and stress the urgent need for a longer follow-up period and regular risk-stratified surveillance. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|