Safety and Feasibility of Photodynamic Therapy for Ablation of Peripheral Lung Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Newer navigational bronchoscopy technologies render peripheral lung lesions accessible for biopsy and potential treatment. We investigated whether photodynamic therapy (PDT) delivered via navigational bronchoscopy is feasible and safe for ablation of peripheral lung tumors. METHODS: Two studies evaluated PDT in patients with solid peripheral lung tumors followed by clinical follow-up (nonresection study, N=5) or lobectomy (resection study, N=10). Porfimer sodium injection was administered 40 to 50 hours before navigational bronchoscopy. Lesion location was confirmed by radial probe endobronchial ultrasonography. An optical fiber diffuser was placed within or adjacent to the tumor under fluoroscopic guidance; laser light (630 nm wavelength) was applied at 200 J/cm of diffuser length for 500 seconds. Tumor response was assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at 3 and 6 months postprocedure (nonresection study) and pathologically (resection study). RESULTS: There were no deaths, discontinuations for adverse events, or serious or grade ≥3 adverse events related to study treatments. Photosensitivity reactions occurred in 8 of 15 patients: 6 mild, 1 moderate, 1 severe (elevated porphyrins noted in blood after treatment). Among 5 patients with clinical follow-up, 1 had complete response, 3 had stable disease, and 1 had progressive disease at 6 months follow-up. Among 10 patients who underwent lobectomy, 1 had no evidence of tumor at resection (complete response), 3 had 40% to 50% tumor cell necrosis, 2 had 20% to 35%, and 4 had 5% to 10%. CONCLUSION: PDT for nonthermal ablation of peripheral lung tumors was feasible and safe in this small study. Further study is warranted to evaluate efficacy and corroborate the safety profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".