DisclaimerThis article is based on recommendations from the 12th WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.ObjectiveThis position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).BackgroundThere is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients’ quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.MethodsA literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.ResultsThere is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.ConclusionsThere is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.

HP at 20 degrees C is equally effective in preserving liver function and preventing hepatocellular injury under TVE as compared with HP at 28 degrees C. HP at 28 degrees C is advised, because of the lesser perfusion volume necessary for cooling of the liver.

Background Hypothermic perfusion (HP) of the liver is applied during total vascular exclusion (TVE) to reduce ischemic injury during liver resection. No studies have been performed comparing different perfusion solutions for HP. The aim of this experimental study was to compare Ringerlactate solution (RL) with Celsior solution (Cs) for HP in a pig model of 60-min TVE. Method Twenty pigs underwent 60-min TVE of the liver. Groups were TVE without HP (no-HP, n=9), TVE with HP using RL (n=6), and TVE with HP using Cs (n=5). Blood and liver tissue samples were taken before TVE and during 24-h reperfusion. Results In the no-HP group, plasma aspartate aminotransferase values were significantly increased during reperfusion (p<0.05), while liver tissue pO 2 levels (p< 0.01) were decreased when compared to the HP groups. After 24-h reperfusion, bile production and liver tissue glutathione content were significantly higher (p<0.05) in the Cs group (42.0±1.7 mL/h and 44.9±2.2 nmol/mg, respectively) as compared to the RL group (31.5±3.5 mL/h and 19.6±1.8 nmol/mg, respectively). ConclusionThe protective effect of HP during TVE was confirmed in this study. HP with Cs was more effective in reducing ischemic injury as compared to HP with RL.