Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26961864›Full record

ReviewPhysics in medicine and biology2016

Revisiting photodynamic therapy dosimetry: reductionist & surrogate approaches to facilitate clinical success.

Brian W Pogue, Jonathan T Elliott, Stephen C Kanick, Scott C Davis, Kimberley S Samkoe, Edward V Maytin, Stephen P Pereira, Tayyaba Hasan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physics in medicine and biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Special Issue "Molecular Advances in Oncological Photodynamic Therapy".International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Brian W PogueThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. Department of Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Jonathan T Elliott
Stephen C Kanick
Scott C Davis
Kimberley S Samkoe
Edward V Maytin
Stephen P Pereira
Tayyaba Hasan

Funding

Small Molecule Enhancers of Photodynamic Therapy for Skin CancerP01CA084203 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Brian William Pogue · 2001 to 2026
$27.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA084203NCI NIH HHS P01CA084203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) can be a highly complex treatment, with many parameters influencing treatment efficacy. The extent to which dosimetry is used to monitor and standardize treatment delivery varies widely, ranging from measurement of a single surrogate marker to comprehensive approaches that aim to measure or estimate as many relevant parameters as possible. Today, most clinical PDT treatments are still administered with little more than application of a prescribed drug dose and timed light delivery, and thus the role of patient-specific dosimetry has not reached widespread clinical adoption. This disconnect is at least partly due to the inherent conflict between the need to measure and understand multiple parameters in vivo in order to optimize treatment, and the need for expedience in the clinic and in the regulatory and commercialization process. Thus, a methodical approach to selecting primary dosimetry metrics is required at each stage of translation of a treatment procedure, moving from complex measurements to understand PDT mechanisms in pre-clinical and early phase I trials, towards the identification and application of essential dose-limiting and/or surrogate measurements in phase II/III trials. If successful, identifying the essential and/or reliable surrogate dosimetry measurements should help facilitate increased adoption of clinical PDT. In this paper, examples of essential dosimetry points and surrogate dosimetry tools that may be implemented in phase II/III trials are discussed. For example, the treatment efficacy as limited by light penetration in interstitial PDT may be predicted by the amount of contrast uptake in CT, and so this could be utilized as a surrogate dosimetry measurement to prescribe light doses based upon pre-treatment contrast. Success of clinical ALA-based skin lesion treatment is predicted almost uniquely by the explicit or implicit measurements of photosensitizer and photobleaching, yet the individualization of treatment based upon each patients measured bleaching needs to be attempted. In the case of ALA, lack of PpIX is more likely an indicator that alternative PpIX production methods must be implemented. Parsimonious dosimetry, using surrogate measurements that are clinically acceptable, might strategically help to advance PDT in a medical world that is increasingly cost and time sensitive. Careful attention to methodologies that can identify and advance the most critical dosimetric measurements, either direct or surrogate, are needed to ensure successful incorporation of PDT into niche clinical procedures.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageMultimodal ImagingPhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsPhotosensitizing Agents

Identifiers

PMID26961864
PMCPMC12153017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.