Cargando…

How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results

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 contr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steeb, Theresa, Wessely, Anja, Petzold, Anne, Schmitz, Lutz, Dirschka, Thomas, Berking, Carola, Heppt, Markus V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34682859
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204736
_version_ 1784588543734054912
author Steeb, Theresa
Wessely, Anja
Petzold, Anne
Schmitz, Lutz
Dirschka, Thomas
Berking, Carola
Heppt, Markus V.
author_facet Steeb, Theresa
Wessely, Anja
Petzold, Anne
Schmitz, Lutz
Dirschka, Thomas
Berking, Carola
Heppt, Markus V.
author_sort Steeb, Theresa
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8538594
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85385942021-10-24 How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results Steeb, Theresa Wessely, Anja Petzold, Anne Schmitz, Lutz Dirschka, Thomas Berking, Carola Heppt, Markus V. J Clin Med Review 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. MDPI 2021-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8538594/ /pubmed/34682859 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204736 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Steeb, Theresa
Wessely, Anja
Petzold, Anne
Schmitz, Lutz
Dirschka, Thomas
Berking, Carola
Heppt, Markus V.
How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
title How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
title_full How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
title_fullStr How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
title_full_unstemmed How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
title_short How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results
title_sort how to assess the efficacy of interventions for actinic keratosis? a review with a focus on long-term results
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34682859
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204736
work_keys_str_mv AT steebtheresa howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults
AT wesselyanja howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults
AT petzoldanne howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults
AT schmitzlutz howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults
AT dirschkathomas howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults
AT berkingcarola howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults
AT hepptmarkusv howtoassesstheefficacyofinterventionsforactinickeratosisareviewwithafocusonlongtermresults