ReviewCancers2026
Non-Invasive Assessment of Treatment Response in Actinic Keratosis: A Clinically Oriented Multimodal Review.
Review in Cancers, 2026. 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.
- The Evolving Landscape of Actinic Keratosis: Field Therapy, New Drugs, and Future Directions.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- Sequential Field Therapy in Actinic Keratosis: A Mechanism-Based Rationale for Complementary Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Real-time LC-OCT monitoring of scalp hypertrophic actinic keratosis clearance following cryotherapy, laser, and 5-fluorouracil therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn actinic keratosis (AK), clinical clearance after field-directed therapies does not necessarily correspond to histological resolution, resulting in subclinical persistence and risk of recurrence.
objectiveTo provide a practical, up-to-date framework for non-invasive monitoring of treatment response in AK, integrating clinical assessment and dermoscopy with high-resolution imaging techniques, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT), and high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS), and to discuss emerging optical biomarkers based on Raman spectroscopy.
resultsFor each modality, we summarize pre- and post-treatment imaging patterns, proposed response criteria, recommended follow-up timing, and correlations with clinical outcomes (including clearance and AKASI) and, when available, histological findings. The available evidence is derived from a limited number of observational studies, predominantly involving RCM and LC-OCT, whereas data on HFUS and Raman spectroscopy remain comparatively scarce. RCM and LC-OCT allow in vivo assessment of epidermal architectural normalization and reduction of intraepidermal keratinocyte atypia. HFUS captures quantitative trajectories of superficial dermal remodeling, including changes in the subepidermal low-echogenic band (SLEB) and dermal echogenicity after photodynamic therapy and other field treatments. Dermoscopy remains the first-line tool for routine follow-up but may fail to detect minimal subclinical persistence. Finally, we discuss the potential role of in vivo Raman spectroscopy for dynamic molecular endpoints and its possible integration with artificial intelligence-based analytical approaches.
conclusionsA standardized multimodal follow-up strategy improves the accuracy of treatment-response assessment compared with clinical evaluation alone. We propose a technique-specific checklist of minimal response criteria and a pragmatic temporal assessment scheme, and outline a research roadmap to support validation and clinical implementation of non-invasive imaging-guided monitoring in actinic keratosis.
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.