Effectiveness of photodynamic therapy on treatment response and survival in patients with recurrent oral squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in patients with recurrent oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Clinical studies on recurrent OSCC treated with PDT alone were included. Combined treatment strategies were excluded. The search was performed on Medline/Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov, manual search, and grey literature. The eleven included studies were observational. The risk of bias and methodological quality were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The studies reported the use of hematoporphyrin derivative, Photofrin®, Foscan® and 5-aminolevulinic acid. Data on treatment response and survival was collected. Secondarily, postoperative courses and patient's quality of life/acceptance were reported whenever available. Photofrin® and Foscan® were the most used photosensitisers, counting more complete responses. Lesions responding less favourably were on posterior regions or deep-seated in the tissue. Although treatment response differs between treatment protocols, PDT stands as a viable treatment option to be considered, as it can achieve therapeutic results and disease-free, long-lasting periods. Partial treatment responses may be of interest when achieving eligibility for other treatment strategies. Despite this study's limitations considering four photosensitisers, Photofrin® was the most used but more recent photosensitisers like Foscan have greater chemical stability, tissue penetration, and may be more efficacious on recurrent OSCC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".