We performed a systematic review of the current literature addressing the safety and efficacy of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in cancer patients. In this systematic review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies, which investigated the effect of PBMT on cell proliferation/differentiation, tumor growth, recurrence rate, and/or overall survival were included. The Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched through April 2020. A total of 67 studies met the inclusion criteria with 43 in vitro, 15 in vivo, and 9 clinical studies identified. In vitro studies investigating the effect of PBMT on a diverse range of cancer cell lines demonstrated conflicting results. This could be due to the differences in used parameters and the frequency of PBM applications. In vivo studies and clinical trials with a follow‐up period demonstrated that PBMT is safe with regards to tumor growth and patient advantage in the prevention and treatment of specific cancer therapy‐related complications. Current human studies, supported by most animal studies, show safety with PBMT using currently recommended clinical parameters, including in Head & Neck cancer (HNC) in the area of PBMT exposure. A significant and growing literature indicates that PBMT is safe and effective, and may even offer a benefit in patient overall survival. Nevertheless, continuing research is indicated to improve understanding and provide further elucidation of remaining questions regarding PBM use in oncology.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. A randomised, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) with 46 HNC patients who underwent radiotherapy (RT) with or without concomitant chemotherapy was set up (DERMISHEAD trial). Patients were randomised to receive PBM or placebo treatments from the first day of RT (2×/week) alongside the institutional skincare. The severity of skin reactions was assessed by the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 (NCI-CTCAE v4.03) and the Radiotherapy-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS). Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated using the Skindex-16 questionnaire. PBMT significantly reduced NCI-CTCAE grade 2-3 ARD with 49% at the end of RT. The results of the first RCT in HNC patients showed that PBMT is an effective method to prevent the development of severe ARD. These results support the implementation of PBM in the clinical oncology - radiotherapy practice.

Developing strategies to prevent breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL) is a critical unmet need because there are no effective interventions to eradicate it once it reaches a chronic state. Certain strategies such as prospective surveillance programs and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction have been reported to be effective in clinical trials. However, a large variation exists in practice based on clinician preference, organizational standards, and local resources. A two-round international Delphi consensus process was performed from February 27, 2023 to May 25, 2023 to compile opinions of 55 experts involved in the care and research of breast cancer and lymphoedema on such interventions. Axillary lymph node dissection, use of post-operative radiotherapy, relative within-arm volume increase one month after surgery, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, and high body mass index were recommended as the most important risk factors to guide selection of patients for interventions to prevent BCRAL. The panel recommended that prospective surveillance programs should be implemented to screen for and reduce risks of BCRAL where feasible and resources allow. Prophylactic compression sleeves, axillary reverse mapping and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction should be offered for patients who are at risk for developing BCRAL as options where expertise is available and resources allow. Recommendations on axillary management in clinical T1–2, node negative breast cancer patients with 1–2 positive sentinel lymph nodes were also provided by the expert panel. Routine axillary lymph node dissection should not be offered in these patients who receive breast conservation therapy. Axillary radiation instead of axillary lymph node dissection should be considered in the same group of patients undergoing mastectomy. An individualised approach based on patients' preferences, risk factors for BCRAL, availability of treatment options and expertise of the healthcare team is paramount to ensure patients at risk receive preventive interventions for BCRAL, regardless of where they are receiving care. This study was not supported by any funding. 10.13039/501100009753 RJC received investigator grant support from the 10.13039/501100000925 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194051).