-
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Jun 2023Phototherapy has gained popularity in the recent decades for the treatment of various immune-mediated dermatological conditions since it is more-cost effective and less...
Phototherapy has gained popularity in the recent decades for the treatment of various immune-mediated dermatological conditions since it is more-cost effective and less toxic compared to systemic therapies. This systematic review aims to inform dermatology providers of the risks and benefits of phototherapy, especially in patients at risk for malignancies. Ionizing energy from phototherapy results in DNA photolesions, namely of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6-4 photoproducts (6-4PPs). Without adequate repair, these mutations increase the risk for carcinogenesis. Additionally, phototherapy can also indirectly cause DNA damage through the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which damage of several structural and functional proteins and DNA. When choosing a phototherapy modality, it also important to take into consideration the side effect profiles associated with each modality. For instance, a 10-fold higher dose of NB-UVB is required to produce a similar amount of CPDs compared with BB-UVB. Patients who undergo UVA with psoralen (PUVA) can be susceptible to developing skin malignancies up to 25 years after receiving their last treatment. It would behoove providers to consider optimal radiation dosage given each patients' level of skin pigmentation and potential for photoadaptation. Additionally, there are measures have been proposed to minimize deleterious skin changes, such as a 42-degree Celsius heat treatment using a 308nm excimer laser prior to UVB phototherapy and low frequency, low intensity electromagnetic fields along with UVB. However, as performing routine skin exams, remain paramount in the prevention of phototherapy-induced neoplasia.
PubMed: 37361361
DOI: No ID Found -
Intestinal and extraintestinal neoplasms in patients with NTHL1 tumor syndrome: a systematic review.Familial Cancer Oct 2022Germline biallelic pathogenic variants (PVs) in NTHL1 have since 2015 been associated with the autosomal recessive tumor predisposition syndrome: NTHL1 tumor syndrome or... (Review)
Review
Germline biallelic pathogenic variants (PVs) in NTHL1 have since 2015 been associated with the autosomal recessive tumor predisposition syndrome: NTHL1 tumor syndrome or NTHL1-associated polyposis. In this systematic review, we aim to systematically investigate the phenotypic and genotypic spectrum of the condition including occurrence of both benign and malignant tumors. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched. The search was conducted the 25th of august 2021. We included patients with germline PVs, both heterozygous and homo-/compound heterozygous carriers. Twenty-one papers were selected including 47 patients with biallelic PVs in NTHL1 in 32 families. Twenty-three out of 47 patients (49%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) (mean age: 55, range: 31-73) and 12 out of 22 female patients (55%) were diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age: 49, range: 36-63). Apart from three, all patients who underwent a colonoscopy, had colonic adenomas (93%), and three patients (6%) had duodenal adenomatosis. We also identified 158 heterozygous carriers of germline PVs in NTHL1. Twenty-six out of 68 (38%) heterozygous carriers, who underwent colonoscopy, had colonic polyps or adenomas. Twenty-nine heterozygous carriers (18%) were diagnosed with CRC and 59 (49%) with breast cancer. We observed a high frequency of early onset CRC and breast cancer in patients with NTHL1 tumor syndrome. Subsequently, colorectal, breast, and endometrial cancer screening programs are recommended for NTHL1 biallelic carriers. Trial registry PROSPERO: CRD42021275159.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Adenoma; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Breast Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Deoxyribonuclease (Pyrimidine Dimer); Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Germ-Line Mutation; Male; Adult; Aged
PubMed: 35292903
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-022-00291-3 -
International Journal of Health Sciences 2020The study aimed to review the literature on the use of ultraviolet-C (UV-C) sterilization to assess its clinical efficacy in reducing risk and transmission of nosocomial... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to review the literature on the use of ultraviolet-C (UV-C) sterilization to assess its clinical efficacy in reducing risk and transmission of nosocomial infections as well as its associated health safety or hazards.
METHODS
Four main search engines were used to identify potential studies which included: (1) Google Scholar, (2) ScienceDirect, (3) PubMed, and (4) Cochrane. Studies in English and published from 2010 to 2020 were considered. Studies on efficacy were limited to those in unseeded hospital environments, examining environmental disinfection, and with true experimental, randomized controlled trial, or quasi-experimental study designs. No additional criterion was used for safety studies due to the scarcity of literature. In the end, a total of 17 studies were selected. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Risk of bias assessment and manual data extraction and tabulation were done.
RESULTS
Twelve eligible efficacy studies were identified together with five safety studies. It was found that UV-C irradiation had positive results when used as an adjunct for existing cleaning protocols. The germicidal effect of UV-C is potent against microorganisms including viruses, methicillin-resistant , and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Safety study results showed dermal effects of UV-C exposure including DNA lesions, formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers in cells, and effects on the skin's stratum corneum.
CONCLUSION
It was found that UV-C can be utilized as an adjunct to terminal manual cleaning because of its efficacy as a germicidal agent. Further studies must still be done to exact a standard for safe exposure dose, especially for 222 nm germicidal lamps. Direct evidence is needed for any targeted implementation of UV-C during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
PubMed: 33192232
DOI: No ID Found -
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology &... Nov 2020DNA damage is one of the main factors responsible for photoageing and is predominantly attributed to ultraviolet irradiation (UV-R). Photoprotection by conventional...
BACKGROUND
DNA damage is one of the main factors responsible for photoageing and is predominantly attributed to ultraviolet irradiation (UV-R). Photoprotection by conventional sunscreens is exclusively prophylactic, and of no value, once DNA damage has occurred. As a result, the demand for DNA repair mechanisms inhibiting, reversing or delaying the pathologic events in UV-exposed skin has sparked research on anti-photoageing and strategies to improve the effect of conventional sunscreens. This review provides an overview of recent developments in DNA repair enzymes used in sunscreens and their impact on photoageing.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature, up to March 2019, was conducted using the electronic databases, PubMed and Web of Science. Quality assessment was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) to ensure inclusion of adequate quality studies only (NOS > 5).
RESULTS
Out of the 352 publications, 52 were considered relevant to the key question and included in the present review. Two major enzymes were found to play a major role in DNA damage repair in sunscreens: photolyase and T4 endonuclease V. These enzymes are capable of identifying and removing UV-R-induced dimeric photoproducts. Clinical studies revealed that sunscreens with liposome-encapsulated types of photolyase and/or T4 endonuclease V can enhance these repair mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
There is a lack of randomized controlled trials demonstrating the efficacy of DNA repair enzymes on photoageing, or a superiority of sunscreens with DNA repair enzymes compared to conventional sunscreens. Further studies are mandatory to further reveal pathogenic factors of photoageing and possible therapeutic strategies against it.
Topics: Animals; DNA Damage; DNA Repair; Deoxyribodipyrimidine Photo-Lyase; Deoxyribonuclease (Pyrimidine Dimer); Humans; Skin Aging; Sunscreening Agents; Ultraviolet Rays; Viral Proteins
PubMed: 32772409
DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12597