Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40357651›Full record

ReviewPhotochemistry and photobiology

Treatment planning evolution: Comparing approaches in photodynamic and radiation therapies.

Tina Saeidi, Azin Mirzajavadkhan, Lothar Lilge

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Photochemistry and photobiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Tina SaeidiDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0000-8360-5889
Azin MirzajavadkhanInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6100-0237
Lothar LilgeDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5533-0005

Funding

Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade ORF 08-23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The setups of previous and ongoing clinical trials are based on prescribed PDT doses, PS concentration, and light intensity derived from averages of previous clinical or study populations. It is understood that monitoring of personalized PS and light dose is needed to improve PDT outcomes. Monitoring of photophysical, photochemical, or cytotoxic moieties is common, representing concepts of delivered, absorbed, or equivalent doses similar to those used in radiation therapy (RT). Unlike RT, these dose concepts are not equally well developed and standardized across the PDT clinical indications; however, there is potential to improve PDT treatment setup, planning, and delivery by leveraging methodologies from RT. This review summarizes dose definitions and advancements in RT treatment planning and presents the equivalent dose concepts for PDT, particularly how these concepts can expand on the existing methods for PDT treatment planning. By identifying the major limitations and areas for improvement in PDT planning, the hope is to stimulate preclinical and clinical research studies that can enhance the efficacy of PDT, improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPhotochemotherapyHumansPhotosensitizing AgentsPhotosensitizing Agents

Identifiers

PMID40357651
PMCPMC12466109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.