A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study of Light Emitting Diode Photomodulation for the Prevention of Radiation Dermatitis in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background and objectivesRadiation dermatitis occurs in a majority of patients with breast cancer who receive radiation therapy (RT), causes significant pain, and may necessitate treatment delay. Light emitting diode (LED) photomodulation has been reported to minimize radiation dermatitis. This study sought to further evaluate the efficacy of LED photomodulation in lessening radiation dermatitis.Materials & methodsAfter surgery, patients with breast cancer received LED photomodulation or sham treatments in conjunction with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reactions were evaluated using standardized photographs graded according to National Cancer Institute criteria.ResultsIn the LED treatment group (n=18), no patients had grade 0 reactions, six (33.3%) had grade 1 reactions, 12 (66.7%) had grade 2 reactions, and none had a grade 3 reaction. In the sham treatment group (n=15), one (6.6%) patient had a grade 0 reaction, four (26.7%) had grade 1 reactions, 9 (60.0%) had grade 2 reactions, and one (6.7%) had a grade 3 reaction. Two (11.1%) patients in the LED treatment group and one (6.7%) in the control group had to interrupt treatment. Differences between groups were not statistically significant.ConclusionLED photomodulation did not reduce the incidence of radiation-induced skin reactions or interruptions in therapy.

A randomized, controlled, double-blind study of light emitting diode photomodulation for the prevention of radiation dermatitis in patients with breast cancer.

Background and objectivesRadiation dermatitis occurs in a majority of patients with breast cancer who receive radiation therapy (RT), causes significant pain, and may necessitate treatment delay. Light emitting diode (LED) photomodulation has been reported to minimize radiation dermatitis. This study sought to further evaluate the efficacy of LED photomodulation in lessening radiation dermatitis.Materials & methodsAfter surgery, patients with breast cancer received LED photomodulation or sham treatments in conjunction with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reactions were evaluated using standardized photographs graded according to National Cancer Institute criteria.ResultsIn the LED treatment group (n=18), no patients had grade 0 reactions, six (33.3%) had grade 1 reactions, 12 (66.7%) had grade 2 reactions, and none had a grade 3 reaction. In the sham treatment group (n=15), one (6.6%) patient had a grade 0 reaction, four (26.7%) had grade 1 reactions, 9 (60.0%) had grade 2 reactions, and one (6.7%) had a grade 3 reaction. Two (11.1%) patients in the LED treatment group and one (6.7%) in the control group had to interrupt treatment. Differences between groups were not statistically significant.ConclusionLED photomodulation did not reduce the incidence of radiation-induced skin reactions or interruptions in therapy.

A randomized, controlled, double-blind study of light emitting diode photomodulation for the prevention of radiation dermatitis in patients with breast cancer.

Background and objectivesRadiation dermatitis occurs in a majority of patients with breast cancer who receive radiation therapy (RT), causes significant pain, and may necessitate treatment delay. Light emitting diode (LED) photomodulation has been reported to minimize radiation dermatitis. This study sought to further evaluate the efficacy of LED photomodulation in lessening radiation dermatitis.Materials & methodsAfter surgery, patients with breast cancer received LED photomodulation or sham treatments in conjunction with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reactions were evaluated using standardized photographs graded according to National Cancer Institute criteria.ResultsIn the LED treatment group (n=18), no patients had grade 0 reactions, six (33.3%) had grade 1 reactions, 12 (66.7%) had grade 2 reactions, and none had a grade 3 reaction. In the sham treatment group (n=15), one (6.6%) patient had a grade 0 reaction, four (26.7%) had grade 1 reactions, 9 (60.0%) had grade 2 reactions, and one (6.7%) had a grade 3 reaction. Two (11.1%) patients in the LED treatment group and one (6.7%) in the control group had to interrupt treatment. Differences between groups were not statistically significant.ConclusionLED photomodulation did not reduce the incidence of radiation-induced skin reactions or interruptions in therapy.

Evaluation of a long pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser for improvement in appearance of cellulite

BackgroundCellulite is a common, unwanted condition, which is challenging to treat.ObjectivesThe objective of this investigation was to evaluate safety and effectiveness of a long-pulsed 1064 Nd:YAG laser as a method for improvement in cellulite appearance and to evaluate parameter selection.Materials and methodsTwenty-two female subjects with posterior leg cellulite were randomly assigned to treatment of left or right thigh with higher energy treatment with cryogen spray cooling (CSC) (10-mm spot size; 50 J/cm(2); 50-ms pulse duration and CSC settings of 30-ms duration with a 20-ms delay) or lower energy treatment with no CSC (10 mm; 20 J/cm(2); 50 ms). Subjects received three treatments at 4 weeks intervals. Digital photographs and circumference measurements were taken pre-treatment and up to 6 months post-treatment.ResultsNineteen subjects completed three treatments and 16 subjects completed 6-month follow-up. Circumference measurements pre- and post-treatment were not significantly different. Blinded evaluators noted mild improvement in three of seven subjects in high energy group and moderate improvement in two of nine subjects in low energy group.ConclusionMultiple passes with a long-pulsed 1064 Nd:YAG achieved mild or moderate improvement in some subjects as rated by blinded evaluators