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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |