ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative response to PDT with methyl-aminolevulinate and temoporfin in cutaneous and oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photodynamic therapy modulates proliferation in carcinoma and melanoma: from clonogenic survival to tumor development.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2026Article
- Nanoplatform-Enhanced Photodynamic Therapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Advances and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cutaneous and Head and Neck squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC, HNSCC) are among the most prevalent cancers. Both types of cancer can be treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT) by using the photosensitizer Temoporfin in HNSCC and the prodrug methyl-aminolevulinate (MAL) in CSCC. However, PDT is not always effective. Therefore, it is mandatory to correctly approach the therapy according to the characteristics of the tumour cells. For this reason, we have used cell lines of CSCC (A431 and SCC13) and HNSCC (HN5 and SCC9). The results obtained indicated that the better response to MAL-PDT was related to its localization in the plasma membrane (A431 and HN5 cells). However, with Temoporfin all cell lines showed lysosome localization, even the most sensitive ones (HN5). The expression of mesenchymal markers and migratory capacity was greater in HNSCC lines compared to CSCC, but no correlation with PDT response was observed. The translocation to the nucleus of β-catenin and GSK3β and the activation of NF-κβ is related to the poor response to PDT in the HNSCC lines. Therefore, we propose that intracellular localization of GSK3β could be a good marker of response to PDT in HNSCC. Although the molecular mechanism of response to PDT needs further elucidation, this work shows that the most MAL-resistant line of CSCC is more sensitive to Temoporfin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.