Abstract
Photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy is an increasingly popular modality for aesthetic skin rejuvenation. PBM induces genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic processes within target cells, but such manipulation of cell behavior has led to concerns about oncologic safety. This article presents a summary of the clinical and preclinical evidence for the oncologic safety of PBM for aesthetic skin rejuvenation. A focused systematic review was performed, in which safety data from clinical trials of PBM for skin rejuvenation was supplemented by analyses of in vitro data obtained from cells derived from human skin and human neoplastic cells and in vivo data of tumors of the skin, oral cavity, and breast. Within established parameters, red and near infrared light mainly enhances proliferation of healthy cells without a clear pattern of influence on cell viability. The same light parameters mainly reduce neoplastic cell proliferation and viability or else make no difference. Invasiveness potential (appraised by cell migration assays and/or differential gene expression) is equivocal. PBM does not induce dysplastic change in healthy cells. In vivo tumor models yield varied results with no clear pattern emerging. There are no relevant clinical trial data linking PBM with any significant adverse events, including the finding of a new or recurrent malignancy.
Current clinical and preclinical evidence suggests that PBM is oncologically safe for skin rejuvenation, and there is no evidence to support the proposition that it should be avoided by patients who have previously undergone treatment for cancer.
Level of Evidence: 4
Photobiomodulation (PBM), synonymous with low-level light (laser) therapy (LLLT) has gained traction as a noninvasive therapy for skin rejuvenation, including treatment of facial rhytids, dyschromias, and acne vulgaris; wound healing including scar management; body contouring (either alone or as a means of enhancing the removal of fat during liposculpture); and androgenic alopecia.1 The therapeutic potential of PBM is becoming generally accepted as clinical trial data continues to provide evidence of efficacy and safety. However, controversies remain.2-4 One of the most pertinent discussion points is the issue of oncologic safety, with theoretical concerns expressed on account of the upregulation of cellular metabolic activity on exposure to red and near infrared laser light.5-8
The reason for taking this question seriously lies in the complex physiological responses to low-level laser light. Red and near infrared light energy is absorbed by intramitochondrial chromophores including cytochrome c oxidase (CcO) and perhaps one or more flavoenzymes. The absorption of light by CcO (an important enzyme in the electron transport chain) facilitates electron transport and drives adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. ATP, in turn, drives cell metabolomics.9 Moreover, in a localized environment of oxidative stress, red and near infrared light dissociates nitric oxide (NO), competitively bound to CcO at the expense of oxygen, restoring functionality to the electron transport chain and releasing NO to induce localized vasodilation, thereby improving localized oxygen delivery and the migration of cells of innate immunity. Simultaneously the absorption of light by flavoenzymes such as flavin dehydrogenase alters the reduction/oxidation (redox) state of the intracellular microenvironment. Not only does the balance of reactive oxygen species influence mitochondrial ATP production as detailed above, it alters the transcriptome to favor the expression of genes implicated in regeneration and repair and, thereby, the recruitment of cells of innate and adaptive immunity implicated in the coordination of tissue repair.10-13 A more detailed description of the role of PBM on cell signaling, immune modulation, and regulation of microcirculation is provided elsewhere.14,15
In a sense we have now come full circle, because the first experiments with low-energy red laser light were actually performed for the purpose of establishing oncologic safety over 50 years go; experiments that yielded incidental evidence of accelerated hair regrowth and enhanced wound healing but, it should be noted, no evidence of neoplastic change.16,17 With a large body of clinical and experimental evidence now behind us and the popularity of PBM booming, it is time to reexamine the evidence to establish whether this therapy is safe for our aesthetic patients, including those who have previously undergone treatment for cancer or those with an undiagnosed dysplasia or neoplasia, and to enable us to address the queries and concerns of our well-informed and curious patients.
METHODS
Search Strategy
A literature review was conducted to identify articles pertaining to the oncologic safety of PBM when utilized for aesthetic skin rejuvenation, including scar management. The study was performed by GG and repeated by AH and JB (see acknowledgments). Thus, 3 independent searches were performed. Discrepancies were handled by the sole author (GG), who made the final decisions on source inclusion. The search was conducted with Google Scholar (1997 to May 2022; Google, Mountain View, CA); PubMed (1997 to October 2022; US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD); OVID Medline (January 1997 to October 2022; Wolters Kluwer, Alphen van den Rijn, the Netherlands); and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews and the Cochrane controlled trials register (searched July 18, 2022; Wiley, Hoboken, NJ). A 25-year range was chosen because it was felt that this best encapsulated the contemporary literature on the subject. Both preclinical (experimental) in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical trials were included. The search was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).18 The search strategy is summarized in Supplemental Table 1 and the PRISMA checklist is provided in Supplemental Table 2.
Inclusion Criteria
All evidence was sought for the oncologic safety of PBM when utilized for skin rejuvenation. In vitro studies were included if they employed human primary cells, stem cells, or tumor cell lines derived from skin, breast, fat, salivary or oral mucosa, endothelium, or hair follicles. These included mesenchymal stem cells, adipocytes, fibroblasts, keratinocytes, melanocytes, Langerhans cells, endothelial cells, ductal epithelial cells, and lobular epithelial cells and the associated precursor cells.
With in vivo studies, investigators address the shortcomings of in vitro study design by examining tumor cell response in the context of tissue architecture and host immune response. By their nature, most in vivo studies use animal models and cell lines. However, when the cell line and in vivo model afforded the opportunity of a direct comparison with a neoplastic process of clinical relevance to the use of PBM, the inclusion of such studies was thought to be relevant. In vivo studies of relevance to our investigation included oral squamous cell carcinoma (and other tumors of the head and neck); melanoma; and breast (adeno)carcinoma. The fact that this was the only section containing animal data meant that it could be evaluated on its own merits without clouding the overall picture.
Clinical trials were included if the data they contained related to the oncologic safety of PBM or could be extrapolated to draw inferences about oncologic safety when employed for skin rejuvenation. Only PBM applied with light of wavelengths at the red (625-700 nm) and infrared (700-1100 nm) end of the spectrum were included, because this represented the spectrum of light utilized in PBM for skin rejuvenation commercially.
Exclusion Criteria
In vitro studies utilizing nonhuman cells and nonhuman (veterinarian) clinical trials were excluded. Similarly, in vitro and in vivo studies using primary cells or tumor cell lines with no direct or indirect correlation to skin rejuvenation (eg, diabetic fibroblasts and keratinocytes, bone marrow–derived stem cells, endothelial cells) and nonrelevant clinical studies (eg, PBM for radiation mucositis) were excluded. Studies that did correlate with skin rejuvenation but reported only on the efficacy of PBM and not on oncologic safety were also excluded because they have been considered elsewhere.1 Only experimental data were considered; therefore reviews were excluded from the analyses. Thermal light exposures, including high-energy laser, intermittent pulsed light, and photodynamic therapy, as well as PBM with light of wavelengths other than those in the red/near infrared end of the spectrum were also excluded. Low quality clinical trials, letters, or short reports that relied exclusively on subjective data were not considered.
Data Extraction
In accordance with the recommendations of Jenkins and Carroll (2011) on the minimum reporting standards for PBM, the following irradiation parameters were noted when available: source of light, wavelength, power, beam area, duration of exposure (therefore, by calculation, fluence), and continuous or pulsed wave, as well as the characteristics of the study including participants, therapeutic protocol, objective outcome measures, and findings.19 The nature of the clinical safety data or the experimental data on which safety conclusions could be drawn was noted.
Data Analysis
Following extraction of the raw data, analysis revealed a large number of variables with respect to both light and experimental model. These included light source, wavelength, power, fluence (energy per unit area), and exposure protocol; and model cell type and source, species, culture conditions including the presence of additional experimental variables, experimental protocol, and methods of evaluation of effect.
For this reason, it was felt that an attempt to perform quantitative analysis would achieve little in terms of clarity. Although systematic review methodology was observed, synthesis of the evidence took the form of a narrative review. The narrative synthesis was constructed with a specific focus on the need of the aesthetic practitioner to understand the evidence for the oncologic safety of PBM in clinical practice.
RESULTS
A total of 57 papers were included for analysis, comprising 41 in vitro studies, 9 in vivo studies, and 7 clinical trials.20-74 Study selection is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study selection.
In Vitro Studies
The Influence of PBM on Normal Human Cell Behavior in Culture
The features of normal human cell behavior in culture that might be altered by PBM include proliferation, migration, differentiation, and viability. The present research identified 18 relevant in vitro studies in the last 25 years that utilized primary human cells or cell lines of interest in the context of skin rejuvenation; in which PBM was investigated by exposing the cells in culture to monochromatic light with or without other alterations in the culture protocols; and which examined one or more of these 4 cellular responses. The important light variables included light source, wavelength, total energy density per exposure, and number of exposures. The cells utilized were most commonly fibroblasts and keratinocytes. The culture conditions sometimes included the addition of pharmacologic or physiologic agents to the culture medium to permit examination of the influence of PBM in the presence of another variable.
Seventeen of 18 studies employed laser light, and a single study utilized LED light. Wavelengths of 450 to 880 nm were examined, although most studies used laser light at between 630 and 660 nm. In 13 of 18 studies enhanced cell proliferation under at least one PBM parameter was observed. In the 3 studies in which diminished cell proliferation in at least one PBM parameter was observed, 1 was the study employing LED light at 450 and 530 nm (wavelengths above 530 nm appeared to exert no effect on cell proliferation), 1 utilized infrared laser light (880 nm), and in the third diminished cell proliferation with a high-energy density (≥10J/cm2) of red light (632.8 nm) was observed. Two of the 3 studies in which migration was evaluated reported enhanced cell migration within a narrow energy density of 0.5-5J/cm2. Of the 13 studies in which cell viability was evaluated, 6 described changes in cell viability associated with PBM, either in isolation or in the context of a second experimental variable, whereas no change was observed in 7. A summary of the evidence for the effects of PBM on human cells in culture is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Summary of Evidence for Effects of PBM on Normal Human Cells In Vitro
Reference | Year | Human cells | Source | Light source | Λ (nm) | Power (mW) | Fluence (J/cm2) | PBM protocol | Proliferation | Migration | Viability | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chen et al20 | 2021 | Fibroblasts | Human embryos | Laser | 635 | 40 | 1.5, 3, 6, 12 | 3 exposures Cells cultured in high-glucose medium to induce oxidative stress |
Increased | NA | PBM attenuated oxidative stress and inhibited apoptosis | Optimized at 3J/cm2 |
Flores Luna et al21 | 2020 | HFF1 cells | Human dermis | Laser | 660 | 40 | 0.45-3.61 | 1-3 exposures | Increased at 0.45 and 0.75J/cm2 | NA | Enhanced at 0.45 and 0.75J/cm2 | |
Khorsandi et al22 | 2020 | Fibroblasts | Dermis | Laser | 660 | ? | 3 | 1 exposure ± Gallic acid |
NA | NA | No change | |
Diniz et al23 | 2020 | HaCat | Keratinocytes | Laser | 660 | ? | 11.7 | one exposure | NA | NA | Enhanced cisplatin-induced apoptosis | |
Mignon et al24 | 2018 | Reticular and papillary Fibroblasts | Human dermis | LED | 450, 490, 550,590, 650, 850 | ? | One exposure | Decreased at 450 and 490 nm; No change at ≥550nm | NA | Inhibitory at 450 nm and 30J/cm2; stimulatory at 850 nm and 20J/cm2 | Reticular fibroblasts more sensitive than papillary fibroblasts | |
Basso et al25 | 2016 | Fibroblasts | Human oral cavity | Laser | 780 | 25 | 0.5-3 | 3 exposures | Increased | Increased | NA | Migration and proliferation attenuated by high doses of pro-inflammatory cytokines |
Esmaeelinejad et al26 | 2014 | Fibroblasts | Human dermis | Laser | 632.8 | 1.5 | 0.5, 1, 2 | 3 exposures Cells cultured in standard or high glucose media |
Increased at 0.5 and 1J/cm2 (standard) and at 0.5, 1 and 2J/cm2 in high glucose media | NA | No change in standard glucose; Enhanced in high glucose | |
Basso et al27 | 2013 | HaCat | Keratinocytes | Laser | 780 | 40 | 0.5-7 | 3 exposures | Increased from 0.5-5J/cm2 | NA | NA | Enhanced expression of Col1A and VEGF to 1.5J/cm2 |
Mvula et al28 | 2010 | ADSC | Human adipose tissue | Laser | 636 | 110 | 5 | One exposure Cells cultured with EGF |
Increased | NA | No change | Cell proliferation optimized with EGF |
Mvula et al29 | 2008 | ADSC | Human adipose tissue | Laser | 635 | 50 | 5 | One exposure | Increased | NA | No change | PBMT increased β1-integrin expression |
Hawkins & Abrahamse30 | 2007 | CRL1502 cells | Human fibroblast cell line | Laser | 632.8 830 1064 | ? | 5 | One exposure | Increased | NA | NA | 633 nm more effective with no background light |
Hawkins & Abrahamse31 | 2006 | CRL1502 cells | Human fibroblast cell line | Laser | 632.8 | ? | 0.5-16 | Two exposures | Increased at 5J/cm2 Decreased above 10J/cm2 |
Increased at 5J/cm2 | Increased at 5J/cm2 Decreased above 10J/cm2 |
|
Webb & Dyson32 | 2003 | Fibroblasts | Human dermis and hypertrophy scar | Laser | 880 | 16 | 2.4, 4 | One exposure | Decreased | NA | NA | |
Kreisler et al33 | 2002 | Fibroblasts | Human gingiva | Laser | 809 | 10 | 1.96-7.84 | 1-3 exposures | Increased | NA | No change | All exposures increased proliferation initially |
Almeida-Lopes et al34 | 2001 | Fibroblasts | Human gingiva | Laser | 670, 692, 780, 786 | 10-50 | 2 | One exposure | Increased | NA | No change | Optimal increase at 780 nm in nutritionally deficient medium |
Grossman et al35 | 1999 | Keratinocytes | Human foreskin | Laser | 780 | 6.5 | 0-3.6 | One exposure | Increased at 0.45-0.95J/cm2 | NA | No change within optimized range | Enhanced proliferation attenuated by antioxidants |
Webb et al36 | 1998 | Fibroblasts | Human dermis | Laser | 660 | 17 | 2.4, 4 | One exposure | Increased | NA | NA | Fibroblasts derived from hypertrophic scars |
Pogrel et al37 | 1997 | Keratinocytes | Human foreskin | Laser | 830 | 5-100 | 0.12-4.24 | Various exposure profiles | No change | No change | No change | No PBM identified in this study |
ADSC, adipose-derived stem cells; COL1A, collagen-1-A; EGF, epidermal growth factor; LED, light-emitting diode; NA, information not available; PBM, photobiomodulation; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.
The Influence of PBM on Neoplastic Human Cell Behavior in Culture
In the context of PBM, relevant neoplastic cell behaviors that can be investigated in vitro include cell viability, proliferation, and invasiveness potential, which include cell migration and the expression of gene products that might serve to confer invasiveness. A total of 23 relevant studies with 34 relevant cell types were identified that met the search criteria. In these studies, 16 head and neck (including oral) squamous cell carcinoma cell lines, 10 breast adenocarcinoma or ductal carcinoma cell lines, 6 melanoma cell lines, and 2 laryngeal carcinoma cell lines were investigated. In four studies, LED light sources were employed, and the remainder used lasers. Although blue (410 nm) and infrared (1064 nm) light were investigated as part of the protocols of some studies, in most studies the effects of low-level red and near infrared light were examined, as was done in the in vitro studies on normal human cells.
In 16 studies with 25 cell lines, the influence of PBM on neoplastic cell viability was examined. PBM was found to reduce the viability of 13 of 25 neoplastic cell lines either in isolation or in the presence of another experimental agent, and PBM was found not to influence the viability of a further 8 cell lines. Of the remaining 4 cell lines, the viability of 3 was found to be dependent on total energy per unit area (fluence), whereas the viability of the remaining cell line was dependent on wavelength of light, exhibiting reduced viability when exposed to blue light only.
In 14 studies with 21 cell lines, the effect of PBM on neoplastic cell proliferation was investigated. The results were mixed. PBM suppressed proliferation in 5 experimental protocols and made no observable difference in another 5. PBM enhanced cell proliferation in 3 experimental protocols. In the remaining 8 experimental protocols, the effect of PBM was observed to vary depending on the experimental parameters, particularly total energy density (fluence) on 5 occasions. In single experimental protocols, cellular proliferation was noted to be dependent on total energy (number of light exposures), wavelength of light, and a mix of wavelength and fluence respectively.
In 4 studies with 4 cell lines, the effect of PBM on the invasiveness potential of neoplastic cells was examined; 3 by way of cell migration assays and 1 by way of investigating differential gene expression. In 2 studies it was concluded that PBM reduced neoplastic cell migration; specifically, red and near infrared light in two studies and blue light in the third. In one study red light appeared to enhance cell migration but the energy density utilized to achieve this result was unclear. In the remaining study, red light (660 nm) was associated with increased expression of MMP-9 and reduced expression of E-cadherin which, together, increase the potential for cell mobilization within the extracellular matrix. A summary of the evidence for the effects of PBM on neoplastic cells in culture is presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Summary of Evidence for Effects of PBM on Neoplastic Cells In Vitro
Reference | Year | Human cells | Source | Light source | Λ (nm) | Power (mW) | Fluence (J/cm2) | PBM protocol | Proliferation | Invasiveness potential | Viability | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Austin et al38 | 2022 | A375 MNT-1 |
Melanoma Melanoma |
LED LED |
633 633 |
? ? |
640 1280 640 1280 |
One exposure One exposure |
Decreased (1280 > 640) Decreased |
NA NA |
PBM enhanced apoptosis at 1280J/cm2 PBM enhanced apoptosis at 1280J/cm2 |
PBM enhanced ROS production in tumor cells PBM enhanced ROS production in tumor cells |
Mansourian et al39 | 2022 | Primary tumor sample | Oral SCC | Laser | 635 810 940 |
200 | 4 | One exposure | NA | NA | PBM reduced cell viability at 24 and 48 hrs (810 > 940 > 635 nm) | PBM increased IL-6 expression |
Khorsandi et al22 | 2020 | MDA-MB-231 A375 |
Breast DC Melanoma |
Laser Laser |
660 660 |
? ? |
3 3 |
One exposure ± GA One exposure ± GA |
NA NA |
NA NA |
PBM enhanced GA-induced cell death PBM enhanced GA-induced cell death |
PBM enhanced ROS production in tumor cells PBM enhanced ROS production in tumor cells |
Kianmehr et al40 | 2020 2020 |
SK-MEL-37 A375 |
Melanoma Melanoma |
Laser Laser |
660 660 |
? ? |
1-6 1-6 |
One exposure ± P-coumaric acid One exposure ± P-coumaric acid |
NA NA |
NA NA |
Decreased SK-MEL-37 (but not dermal fibroblasts) Decreased A375 (but not dermal fibroblasts) |
Pretreatment with PBM most effective Pretreatment with PBM most effective |
Diniz et al23 | 2020 | SCC25 HN12 |
Head & neck SCC × 2 | Laser | 660 | 60 | 11.7 | Single exposure ± Cisplatin |
NA | NA | Decreased viability after 12 hrs in presence of cisplatin | PBM enhanced cisplatin-induced apoptosis |
Shakibaie et al41 | 2020 | MCF7 | Breast AC | LED | 435, 629 | ? | 17.5 (435 nm); 7.9 (629 nm) |
5 exposures | NA | NA | Decreased at 435 nm; No change at 629 nm | Did higher fluence at 435 nm influence result? |
Kiro et al42 | 2019 | MCF7 CSC |
Breast AC MCF7 subpopulation |
Laser Laser |
636 825 1060 636 825 1060 |
75 94 75 75 94 75 |
5, 10, 20, 40 5, 10, 20, 40 |
1 exposure 1 exposure |
Increased Increased |
NA NA |
No change No change |
Increased proliferation observed at all wavelengths and fluences Increased proliferation observed at all wavelengths and fluences |
Dias Schalch et al43 | 2019 | SCC9 | Oral SCC | Laser | 660 780 |
40, 70 | 4 | 1 exposure | No change | Decreased migration at 660 and 780 nm | Decreased viability at 660 and 780nm | Apoptosis mechanism activated by PBM |
Matsuo et al44 | 2019 | HSC-3 | Oral SCC | LED | 630 | ? | ? | 1 exposure | No change | Increased migration | NA | Reversed by IL-6 inhibition |
Bamps et al45 | 2018 | SCC154, SCC61, SQD9 |
Head & neck SCC × 3 | Laser | 830 | 150 | 1-2 | 1 exposure | Increased at 1J/cm2; No change at 2J/cm2 |
NA | No change | |
Ramos-Silva et al46 | 2016 | MDA-MB-231 | Breast DC | Laser | 660 | 40 | 30 -150 | 1 exposure ± IR (γ radiation at 2.5, 10 Gy) | NA | NA | PBM did not enhance the viability of irradiated cells | PBM did enhance viability of irradiated fibroblast controls |
Dias Schalch et al47 | 2016 | SCC9 | Oral SCC | Laser | 660 780 |
10-150 | 2-6 | 1 exposure | No change | Decreased migration optimized at 70 mW and 4J/cm2 | Decreased viability optimized at 40 mW and 4J/cm2 | PBM induced apoptosis (optimized at 30 mW and 2J/cm2) |
Cialdai et al48 | 2015 | MCF7 MDA-MB-361 |
Breast AC Breast DC |
Laser | 808 905 |
? | 9 | 3 exposures | No change | NA | No change | Fibroblast controls |
Gomes-Henriques et al49 | 2014 | SCC25 | Oral SCC | Laser | 660 | ? | 0.5, 1 | 2 exposures | Increased at 1J/cm2 | Increased: MMP9↑ E-cadherin ↓ |
NA | No effect at < 1J/cm2 |
Sperandio et al50 | 2013 | SCC9 SCC25 |
Oral SCC × 2 | Laser | 660 780 |
40 | 2.05-6.15 | 1 exposure | NA | NA | Decreased viability of both cell types at both wavelengths by 72 hrs | PBM induced increased viability of dysplastic oral keratinocytes |
Magrini et al51 | 2012 | MCF7 | Breast AC | Laser | 633 | 1.3-15 | 0.05-1 | 1 exposure | NA | NA | Decreased at 0.05J/cm2 Increased at 1J/cm2 |
Findings attributed to dose specific changes in cell metabolism |
Schartinger et al52 | 2012 | SCC25 | Oral SCC | Laser | 660 | ? | ? | 3 exposures of 15 minutes | Decreased | NA | Decreased | Fibroblast controls exhibited increased proliferation |
Powell et al53 | 2010 | MCF7 MDA-MB-435S |
Breast AC Melanoma |
Laser Laser |
780 830 904 780 830 904 |
50 30 90 50 30 90 |
0.5-12 0.5-15 0.5-15 0.5-12 0.5-15 0.5-15 |
1-3 exposures 1 exposure |
Overall increase with 1 exposure and decreases with 3 exposures at 780 nm; overall increase up to 4J/cm2 at 830 and 904nm Increased at 1J/cm2 for 780 and 904 nm; reduced at 2-3J/cm2 for 830nm |
NA NA |
NA NA |
Results are cell- and dose-specific |
De Castro et al54 | 2005 | KB cells | Oral SCC | Laser | 635 830 |
31 34.5 |
4 | 2 exposures | NA | NA | Decreased | Control cells also demonstrated decreased viability |
Kreisler et al55 | 2003 | Primary tumor sample | Laryngeal SCC | Laser | 809 | 10 | 1.96-7.84 | Single exposure | Increased | NA | NA | Enhanced proliferation lasted 72 hrs post exposure |
Pinheiro et al56 | 2002 | HEp-2 | Laryngeal SCC | Laser | 635 670 |
5 | 0.04-0.48 | 7 exposures | Increased at 670nm | NA | NA | No change at 635nm |
Sroka et al57 | 1999 | ZMK MCF7 |
Oral SCC Breast AC |
Laser | 410, 488, 630, 635, 640, 830, 1064 | 0-20 | ? | One exposure | Decreased to 8J/cm2, then plateaued | NA | NA | Decreased mitotic rate independent of wavelength |
Schaffer et al58 | 1997 | ZMK | Oral SCC | Laser | 805 | 2-20 | One exposure | Decreased at 4 & 20J/cm2 | NA | NA | No change at 2 J/cm2 |
AC: adenocarcinoma; DC: ductal carcinoma; GA: gallic acid; IR: interventional radiology; LED: light-emitting diode; MMP: matrix metalloproteinase; NA: information not available; PBM: photobiomodulation; ROS: reactive oxygen species; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma.
Evidence for Pro-oncogenic Effects of PBM on Normal Human Cells in Culture
Having evaluated the influence of PBM on normal and neoplastic human cells, evidence was sought to establish whether PBM has been implicated in dysplastic or neoplastic change in healthy human cell lines. No human cell in vitro experimental evidence was found to support this view.
In Vivo Preclinical Studies
The Influence of PBM on (Solid) Tumor
Evidence was next sought for the effect of PBM on established tumors. By definition, it was not possible to restrict this part of the investigation to human tissue alone, and therefore all animal models were considered, as long as it was possible to conceive that the tumor under investigation might theoretically be stimulated by cutaneous light exposure. Hence, visceral tumors and non–solid-state tumors were excluded. A total of 10 relevant models were described in 9 papers. Three models utilized nude mice as the host species for human tumors, 4 were mouse tumors, 2 were hamster tumors, and 1 was a tumor in a rat. The tumor investigated was squamous cell carcinoma in 5 models (oral in 4; skin in 1), breast carcinoma in 2, melanoma in 2, and thyroid carcinoma in the remaining model. Laser-based light was employed in 8 of 10 models, with LED-based light used in the remaining 2. Again, red and/or near infrared light was utilized in all cases, whether or not other wavelengths were also part of the investigative protocol. Four models in 3 studies also introduced additional variables (radiotherapy, imiquimod, interferon-α receptor knockout mice), which were not considered in detail. The tumor characteristic studied included tumor growth in 6, tumor grade in 2, and tumor gene expression in 1. The remaining model was utilized to study host survival.
Of the 6 studies in which tumor growth was investigated, in 3 it was concluded that PBM with red and/or near infrared light did not influence tumor growth, whereas in 1 the conclusion was that PBM inhibited tumor growth (a second study reported that blue light at 405 nm inhibited tumor growth but red light did not). In 2 studies it was found that PBM increased tumor growth. In one study, immunocompromised mice were the hosts for a human tumor and in the other, the energy density associated with tumor growth was in excess of 1000J/cm2, which, being very much higher than in any of the other studies, was an outlier in light parameters.
Of the 2 studies in which tumor grade was examined, the conclusion in 1 was that PBM increased tumor grade, and in the other it was concluded that it made no difference. In the study in which tumor gene expression was explored, it was observed that PBM was implicated in the expression of genes associated with cell death through the synthesis of reactive oxygen species. In the study in which host species survival was considered, PBM made no difference. The evidence for the influence of PBM on solid tumor obtained with in vivo preclinical models is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3.
Summary of Evidence for Influence of PBM on Solid Tumor In Vivo
Reference | Year | Host species | Neoplastic cell species | Cell line | Cell source | Light source | Wavelength (nm) | Power (mW) | Fluence (J/cm2) | Other variables investigated | PBM protocol | Tumor characteristic studied | Results | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barasch et al59 | 2020 2020 |
mouse mouse |
human human |
Cal-33 Cal-33 |
Oral SCC Oral SCC |
laser LED |
660 660 & 850 |
75 2000 |
18.4 3.4 |
Radiotherapy Radiotherapy |
PBM alone vs RT alone vs PBM + RT RT ± PBM |
Tumor growth Survival |
No difference between RT alone and RT + PBM PBM did not change survival |
PBM had no effect on tumor growth |
Petrellis et al60 | 2017 | rat | rat | Walker 256 | Breast carcinoma | laser | 660 | 100 | 35.7 107.1 214.3 |
NA | 3 exposures (alternate days) | Gene and Inflammatory marker expression | Gene and inflammatory markers indicative of cytotoxicity at 35.7J/cm2 | Attributed to increased ROS synthesis |
Ottaviani et al61 | 2016 | mouse | mouse | B16F10 | Melanoma | laser | 660 800 970 |
100 1000 2500 |
3 6 6 |
IFN-α receptor knockout mice also used | 4 exposures | Tumor growth | All 3 protocols suppressed tumor growth by day 14 post exposure | PBM enhanced immune surveillance through the IFN-α receptor pathway |
Rhee et al62 | 2016 | mouse | human | FRO | Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma | laser | 650 | 2 | 15 30 |
NA | One exposure | Tumor growth (and histologic features) | Tumor size, macrophage infiltration and HIF-1α, VEGF and P-Akt increased with irradiance. | Immune compromise model |
Khori et al63 | 2016 | mouse | mouse | 4T1, ATCC-CRL-2539 | Breast carcinoma | laser | 405 532 632 |
1-3 | unclear | NA | 10 exposures over 3 weeks | Tumor growth, serum tumor markers | Tumor suppression at 405 nm; no difference at 532 & 632 nm | 405 nm modulated tumor markers |
De C. Montiero et al64 | 2013 | hamster | hamster | Induced (DMBA) | Oral SCC | laser | 660 | 50 | 95 | imiquimod | 14 exposures (alternate days for 4 weeks) ± imiquimod 3 times weekly | Tumor grade (histologic features) | Imiquimod improved tumor grade and inflammatory infiltration. Addition of PBM made no difference | PBM did not influence immune surveillance of oral SCC |
Myakishev-Rempel et al65 | 2012 | mouse | mouse | Induced (UV radiation) | Skin SCC | LED | 760 | unclear | 2.5 | NA | 74 exposures (2 × daily for 37 days) | Tumor growth | PBM did not affect tumor growth | |
De C. Montiero et al66 | 2011 | hamster | hamster | Induced (DMBA) | Oral SCC | laser | 660 | 30 | 56.4 | NA | 14 exposures (alternate days for 4 weeks) | Tumor grade (histologic features) | PBM caused a shift toward dedifferentiation of oral SCC | |
Frigo et al67 | 2009 | mouse | mouse | B16F10 | Melanoma | laser | 660 | 50 | 150, 1050 | NA | 3 exposures | Tumor growth | Increase tumor growth at 1050J/cm2 | Very high dose used |
DMBA: dimethylbenzanthracene; HIF: hypoxia-inducible factor; IFN: interferon; LED: light-emitting diode; NA: information not available; PBM: photobiomodulation; ROS: reactive oxygen species; RT: radiotherapy; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; UV: ultraviolet; VEGF: vascular-endothelial growth factor.
The Influence of PBM on Normal Tissue
No evidence was found to associate PBM with neoplastic change in healthy tissue.
Clinical Trials
In the clinical arena, PBM has been adopted extensively for the management of skin and mucous membrane irritation following radiotherapy for head and neck and breast cancers without evidence of pro-oncogenic effects.75-78 PBM is also utilized for skin rejuvenation, subcutaneous lipolysis, hair loss, and the management of pain and sensitivity associated with dental bleaching. To confirm safety, including oncologic safety of PBM for clinical aesthetic use, adverse event reports from clinical trials were sought.
Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of PBM for Aesthetic Use
The efficacy and safety of PBM for subcutaneous fat reduction, the treatment of alopecia, and pain associated with dental bleaching have been the subject of recent systematic reviews. No evidence was found to support the view that PBM was clinically harmful in general or pro-oncogenic in particular in any of these review studies.79-81
Seven clinical trials of PBM for skin rejuvenation were identified. Mild, transient erythema was reported in a total of 4 patients. No other adverse events were reported in any of these trials. These findings are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4.
Summary of Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of PBM for Skin Rejuvenation
Reference | Year | Aesthetic focus | Parameter | Study design | Light source | Wavelength (nm) | Power (mW) | Fluence (J/cm2) | Other variables investigated | PBM protocol | Efficacy | Safety |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guermonprez et al68 | 2020 | Skin rejuvenation | Skin surface topography and clinical examination | Prospective cohort study Split face |
LED | 440 660 780 |
NA | NA | None | 24 exposures over 28 days PBM + “serum” vs “serum” only |
PBM + serum improved skin topography (wrinkles, texture) over serum alone | No adverse effects |
Wunsch et al69 | 2014 | Skin rejuvenation | Wrinkle reduction | DB RCT | Filtered polychromatic light | Multiple (611-650) | NA | 8.5-9.6 | None | Two different treatment protocols vs controls | Light enhanced dermal collagen production (measured by US) and improved blinded appearance of skin | Temporary reddening of scar in one case, resolved after 1 week |
Tanaka et al70 | 2011 | Skin rejuvenation | Dermal elastin and surface topography | Prospective cohort study | Laser | 1064 | NA | 14 | None | PBM vs placebo | PBM enhanced dermal elastin production (histopathologic assessment) and improved skin topography (pores, texture, wrinkles) | No adverse effects |
Shaoul & Mulholland 71 | 2011 | Skin rejuvenation | Clinical grading of photodamage and wrinkles | Prospective cohort study | LED | “red” “near infrared” |
NA | NA | None | 8 biweekly exposures over 4 weeks | PBM improved photodamage over 3 months in almost all cases according to blinded photographic assessment | No adverse events |
Sadick 72 | 2008 | Skin rejuvenation | Clinical grading of photodamage using Glogau scale | Prospective cohort study | LED | 633 830 |
NA | 126 66 |
None | Alternate exposures 2 × weekly over 4 weeks | PBM improved photodamage over 12 weeks in most cases (nonblinded) | Mild facial erythema in 3 of 16 patients |
Russell et al73 | 2005 | Skin rejuvenation | Skin surface topography (profilometry) | Prospective cohort study | LED | 633 830 |
NA | 126 66 |
None | 9 exposures over 29 days. Evaluations up to 12 weeks | PBM improved surface profilometry | No adverse effects |
Weiss et al74 | 2005 | Skin rejuvenation | Skin histopathology and surface topography | Prospective cohort study | LED | 590 | NA | 0.1 | None | 8 exposures over 4 weeks. Evaluations up to 12 months | PBM enhanced dermal collagen production and improved skin topography | No adverse effects |
DB: double-blind; LED: light-emitting diode; NA: information not available; PBM: photobiomodulation; RCT: randomized controlled trial; US: ultrasound.
DISCUSSION
Photobiomodulation enhances mitochondrial ATP production and alters the reduction oxidation state of the intracellular microenvironment, features which alter the behavior of the cell.15 An enhanced understanding of the physiologic mechanisms underpinning PBM has given rise to the exploitation of light for clinical therapeutic and commercial benefit. However, theoretic concerns about the oncologic safety of PBM deserve to be addressed.82 Moreover, the myriad of variables, including light source, wavelength, fluence (energy density), and total energy (a factor of energy density and number of exposures) has contributed to a somewhat clouded picture. To comprehensively address the issue of oncologic safety requires a multifaceted review of the voluminous data being produced to help us understand PBM. The most clinically relevant means of doing so is to review the safety data from clinical trials (as has been done in the context of the clinical scenarios listed above), but in this case, to answer the question more comprehensively, the decision was made to then work backward, sequentially, to studies of the effect of PBM on solid tumors in an experimental setting and from there the effect of PBM on neoplastic, dysplastic, and finally healthy human cells.
The findings of the endeavor were as interesting as they were, in some ways, unexpected. The finding that PBM potentiates the proliferation, viability, and migratory potential of primary human cells, at least within established parameters of wavelength and energy density, was predictable, given that PBM is exploited for aesthetic skin rejuvenation, wound healing, and scar management.83 The variations in experimental protocols provide ample room to explain differences in observed responses to PBM. A number of light parameters appear crucially important in the efficacy of PBM, and variations in these parameters may account for variations in clinical activity. Specifically, because the chromophore is bound to cellular mitochondria, it has been observed that cells with higher numbers of mitochondria (such as skeletal muscle) tend to respond better to lower doses of light, whereas cells with lower numbers of mitochondria (such as fibroblasts and keratinocytes) require higher doses.3
What was more surprising were the findings that PBM either reduced or at least appeared to have no influence in most experimental protocols designed to study neoplastic cell viability, and reduced or appeared to have no influence on half of experimental protocols designed to study neoplastic cell proliferation and migration respectively. It is true that these experimental protocols were, in some cases, different in that PBM was investigated in the presence of a second variable in 6 of the 24 experimental protocols. Nevertheless, PBM was implicated in reactive oxygen species–induced cell damage and apoptosis in several different experimental protocols. Additionally, no experimental evidence was found to suggest that PBM can induce neoplastic change in healthy cells. Although it is easy to overlook this negative finding, this is nonetheless important. Following exposure to LLLT, healthy cells stay healthy. The equivocal findings of this part of the study echo those of a recent review that looked specifically at the tumor modulating effects of PBM on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The author of this study concluded that the evidence failed to support a clear conclusion.84
Frankly, it is important not to read too much into in vitro culture models.85 Crucially, they do not adequately represent the relatively greater complexity of the in vivo tissue microenvironment, a dynamic system characterized by complex interactions between different cells based on molecular cross signals coordinated by cells of innate and adaptive immunity. A total of 10 experimental protocols in 9 papers examined the influence of PBM on solid tumors in a range of animal models. The results require careful consideration. In brief, 4 of 6 models that examined tumor growth concluded that PBM either suppressed tumor growth or, more commonly, made no difference. The 2 experimental protocols that observed an increase in tumor growth in response to PBM might reasonably be considered nonrepresentative. In one case, the energy density was over 1000J/cm2, which is very much higher than the energy density typically defined for low-level light therapy. The other, by employing nude mice to host human tumors, eliminated the crucial role of host immune surveillance in the biological response to tumor. This was 1 of 3 experimental protocols that employed nude mice. Of the other 2, in 1 study no difference was observed in tumor survivability using PBM, and in the other PBM did not attenuate radiotherapy-induced tumor shrinkage. Among immune-normal in vivo models, the evidence synthesized in this study supports the conclusion that, with established parameters, PBM probably does not enhance tumor growth or virulence, nor does it induce cancer in normal tissue.
Previously published reviews of clinical trials have concluded that PBM may be useful in attenuating some of the collateral damage of oncologic therapy without diminishing the efficacy of the oncologic therapy.76-78 In fact, it may even play a supportive antitumor role.7 It would appear that it does so by priming the cellular response to oxidative stress, helping to mitigate the destructive effects of reactive oxygen species induced by radiation or chemotherapy.86,87 That said, it would be wrong to assume that the role of PBM in oncologic management is limited solely to the management of the side effect profiles of standard oncologic therapy. Near infrared light is currently attracting interest for utilization with light-activated nanoparticle dispersal systems for precision therapeutic delivery in the management of melanoma.88,89 The abundance of evidence for the utilization of PBM as a means of managing the side effects of chemoradiotherapy, including oral mucositis, radiation dermatitis, and lymphedema, is a separate issue, and it would be unwise to draw conclusions about oncologic safety based on the findings that PBM can be effective in the management of the side effects of cancer therapy. Nevertheless, a recent systematic review of all of the clinical and preclinical evidence reached a similar conclusion to the present focused study.90 Moreover, recent systematic reviews on the use of PBM for the enhancement of osseointegration of dental implants and pain associated with dental analgesia yielded mixed results in terms of efficacy but, again, no evidence of harmful side effects.91,92 However, as in the case of aesthetic practice, an accurate appraisal of the role of PBM in clinical dentistry is noted to be hampered by inconsistencies in the PBM parameters utilized.93,94
The alternative way to review the findings of this study is that the quality of clinical evidence is simply not good enough to be able to accurately define the risks and limitations of PBM. Although this might be true, PBM has now become so widespread that it might reasonably be anticipated that a harmful incident would have come to light if PBM had the potential to cause harm. Additionally, it is worth mentioning again that the earliest studies of PBM were looking for evidence of harm and did not find any. What this study adds to the existing knowledge base is confirmation of the lack of adverse events reported in clinical trials and case series of PBM for aesthetic use, and a comprehensive summary of in vitro data from human cells that largely supports the conclusion that primary and neoplastic cells behave differently when exposed to low-level light radiation.
There are a number of limitations to this study. Most of the clinical evidence of efficacy and safety in aesthetic clinical practice comes from methodologically flawed, single-center clinical trials and case series. Well-designed, large scale multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) of efficacy and safety would be very welcome, but the likelihood is remote at present. There may be cause for optimism that, with the accumulation of evidence from small clinical trials, sufficient momentum may be gained to support funding for an RCT. The number of parameters involved continues to make interpretation of the results challenging. It is for this reason that this review and others have adhered to a narrative review structure, without employing the tools that define high quality systematic reviews of clinical trials such as a risk of bias, heterogeneity assessments, and sensitivity analyses. For the same reason, this review does not employ any statistical analytic tools, because there are too many experimental variables to accommodate within quantitative analytic models for any conclusions drawn to be statistically meaningful.
CONCLUSIONS
PBM is increasingly being utilized at home to supplement office-based surgical and nonsurgical aesthetics. It is important that we are in a position to counsel our patients wisely, and to do so in the context of PBM in a patient who has previously had cancer places a special demand on us to understand the evidence. Without a means of navigating the disparate strands of evidence, clinicians may feel uncomfortable about providing an opinion. Despite theoretical concerns there is no clinical evidence to support the proposition that PBM should be avoided in patients who are being treated for cancer, previously had cancer, or have risk factors for cancer. Care must be taken not to read too much into in vitro and in vivo studies. Nevertheless, an evaluation of these data suggests that the behavior of neoplastic cells and solid tumor in response to PBM differs from the behavior of healthy cells and is much more likely to be, although not always, inhibitory. Although clinical advice is always based on evidence that may be subject to revision over time as the body of evidence evolves, the reasonable conclusion from the evidence we currently have at our disposal is that PBM is safe for aesthetic purposes, including for patients with an oncologic history.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Ms Anushka Hardas, Ms Jean Bayaborda, and Mr Hassan Sheikh from the library at Sidra Medicine for their invaluable help in performing literature searches and sourcing the papers compiled for this study.
Supplemental Material
This article contains supplemental material located online at www.aestheticsurgeryjournal.com.
Disclosures
Dr Glass is a consultant for the dietary supplement and skin care company, Lymalife (London, UK).
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
REFERENCES
- 1. Glass GE. Photobiomodulation: the clinical applications of low-level light therapy. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(6):723–738. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjab025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Avci P, Gupta A, Sadasivam M, et al. Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLLT) in skin: stimulating, healing, restoring. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2013;32(1):41–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Zein R, Selting W, Hamblin MR. Review of light parameters and photobiomodulation efficacy: dive into complexity. J Biomed Opt. 2018;23(12):1. doi: 10.1117/1.jbo.23.12.120901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Barolet D, Christiaens F, Hamblin MR. Infrared and skin: friend or foe. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2016;155:78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2015.12.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Lanzafame RJ. Photobiomodulation and cancer and other musings. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011;29(1):3–4. doi: 10.1089/pho.2011.9922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bensadoun RJ, Epstein JB. Photobiomodulation safety in cancer patients: in vivo data. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(7):3003–3006. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05410-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hamblin MR, Nelson ST, Strahan JR. Photobiomodulation and cancer: what is the truth? Photomed Laser Surg. 2018;36(5):241–245. doi: 10.1089/pho.2017.4401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Santana-Blank L, Rodrıguez-Santana E, Rodrıguez-Santana KE. Concurrence of emerging developments in photobiomodulation and cancer. Photomed Laser Surg. 2012;30(11):615–616. doi: 10.1089/pho.2012.3374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Glass GE. Photobiomodulation: a review of the molecular evidence for low level light therapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2021;74(5):1050–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Karu T. Photobiology of low power laser effects. Heal Phys. 1989;56(5):691–704. doi: 10.1097/00004032-198905000-00015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Karu T. Primary and secondary mechanisms of action of visible to near-IR radiation on cells. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1999;49(1):1–17. doi: 10.1016/S1011-1344(98)00219-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Karu TI, Pyatibrat LV, Afanasyeva NI. Cellular effects of low power laser therapy can be mediated by nitric oxide. Lasers Surg Med. 2005;36(4):307–314. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Zecha JAEM, Raber-Durlacher JE, Nair RG, Epstein JB. Low-level laser therapy/photobiomodulation in the management of side effects of chemoradiation therapy in head and neck cancer. Part 2, Proposed applications and treatment protocols. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(6):2793–2805. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3153-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Dompe C, Moncrieff L, Matys J, et al. Photobiomodulation: underlying mechanism and clinical applications. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1724. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Hamblin MR. Mechanisms and mitochondrial redox signaling in photobiomodulation. Photochem Photobiol. 2018;94(2):199–212. doi: 10.1111/php.12864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Mester E, Szende B, Gärtner P. The effect of laser beams on the growth of hair in mice. Radiobiol Radiother (Berl). 1968;9(5):621–626. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Mester E, Spiry T, Szende B, Tota JG. Effect of laser rays on wound healing. Am J Surg. 1971;122(4):532–535. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(71)90482-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021;18(3):e1003583. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Jenkins P, Carroll J. How to report low-level laser therapy/photomedicine dose and beam parameters in clinical and laboratory studies. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011;29(12):785–787. doi: 10.1089/pho.2011.9895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Chen H, Sun S, Pan Z, Tu M, Shi J, Bai H. Effects of photobiomodulation on high glucose induced oxidative stress in human embryonic skin fibroblasts. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron. 2021;27(4). doi: 10.1109/JSTQE.2021.3054050 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Flores Luna GL, De Andrade ALM, Brassolatti P, et al. Biphasic dose/response of photobiomodulation therapy on culture of human fibroblasts. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2020;38(7):413–418. doi: 10.1089/photob.2019.4729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Khorsandi K, Kianmehr Z, Hosseinmardi Z, Hosseinzadeh R. Anti-cancer effect of gallic acid in presence of low level laser irradiation: ROS production and induction of apoptosis and ferroptosis. Cancer Cell Int. 2020;20:18. doi: 10.1186/s12935-020-1100-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Diniz IMA, Souto GR, Freitas IDP, et al. Photobiomodulation enhances cisplatin cytotoxicity in a culture model with oral cell lineages. Photochem Photobiol. 2020;96(1):182–190. doi: 10.1111/php.13152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Mignon C, Uzunbajakava NE, Castellano-Pellicena ÃI, Botchkareva NV, Tobin DJ. Differential response of human dermal fibroblast subpopulations to visible and near-infrared light: potential of photobiomodulation for addressing cutaneous conditions. Laser Surg Med. 2018;50(8):859–882. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Basso FG, Soares DG, Pansani TN, et al. Proliferation, migration, and expression of oral-mucosal-healing-related genes by oral fibroblasts receiving low-level laser therapy after inflammatory cytokines challenge. Lasers Surg Med. 2016;48(10):1006–1014. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Esmaeelinejad M, Bayat M, Darbandi H, Bayat M, Mosaffa N. The effects of low-level laser irradiation on cellular viability and proliferation of human skin fibroblasts cultured in high glucose mediums. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29(1):121–129. doi: 10.1007/s10103-013-1289-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Basso FG, Oliveira CF, Kurachi C, Hebling J, Costa CA. Biostimulatory effect of low-level laser therapy on keratinocytes in vitro. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(2):367–374. doi: 10.1007/s10103-012-1057-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Mvula B, Moore TJ, Abrahamse H. Effect of low-level laser irradiation and epidermal growth factor on adult human adipose-derived stem cells. Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25(1):33–39. doi: 10.1007/s10103-008-0636-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Mvula B, Mathope T, Moore T, Abrahamse H. The effect of low level laser irradiation on adult human adipose derived stem cells. Lasers Med Sci. 2008;23(3):277–282. doi: 10.1007/s10103-007-0479-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Hawkins D, Abrahamse H. Influence of broad-spectrum and infrared light in combination with laser irradiation on the proliferation of wounded skin fibroblasts. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007;25(3):159–169. doi: 10.1089/pho.2007.2010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Hawkins DH, Abrahamse H. The role of laser fluence in cell viability, proliferation, and membrane integrity of wounded human skin fibroblasts following helium-neon laser irradiation. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38(1):74–83. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Webb C, Dyson M. The effect of 880 nm low level laser energy on human fibroblast cell numbers: a possible role in hypertrophic wound healing. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2003;70(1):39–44. doi: 10.1016/s1011-1344(03)00053-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Kreisler M, Christoffers AB, Al-Haj H, Willershausen B, D’Hoedt B. Low level 809-nm diode laser-induced in vitro stimulation of the proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts. Lasers Surg Med. 2002;30(5):365–369. doi: 10.1002/lsm.10060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Almeida-Lopes L, Rigau J, Zângaro RA, Guidugli-Neto J, Jaeger MM. Comparison of the low level laser therapy effects on cultured human gingival fibroblasts proliferation using different irradiance and same fluence. Lasers Surg Med. 2001;29(2):179–184. doi: 10.1002/lsm.1107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Grossman N, Schneid N, Reuveni H, Halevy S, Lubart R. He-Ne (633 nm) low power laser irradiation stimulates proliferation of keratinocyte cultures involving reactive oxygen species. Lasers Life Sci. 1999;9(2):111–126. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Webb C, Dyson M, Lewis WHP. Stimulatory effect of 660 nm low level laser energy on hypertrophic scar-derived fibroblasts: possible mechanisms for increase in cell counts. Lasers Surg Med. 1998;22(5):294–301. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Pogrel M, Chen JW, Zhang K. Effects of low-energy gallium-aluminum-arsenide laser irradiation on cultured fibroblasts and keratinocytes. Lasers Surg Med. 1997;20(4):426–432. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Austin E, Huang A, Wang JY, et al. Red light phototherapy using light-emitting diodes inhibits melanoma proliferation and alters tumor microenvironments. Front Oncol. 2022;12:928484. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.928484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Mansourian A, Pourshahidi S, Vafi Manshadi Y, Amini Shakib P, Ebrahimi H. The effect of low-level laser therapy on VEGF, IL-6 expression and viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells. Photochem Photobiol. 2022;98(5):1190–1194. doi: 10.1111/php.13598 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Kianmehr Z, Khorsandi K, Mohammadi M, Hosseinzadeh R. Low-level laser irradiation potentiates anticancer activity of p-coumaric acid against human malignant melanoma cells. Melanoma Res. 2020;30(2):136–146. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Shakibaie M, Vaezjalali M, Rafii-Tabar H, Sasanpour P. Phototherapy alters the oncogenic metabolic activity of breast cancer cells. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2020;30:101695. doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.101695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Kiro N, Hamblin M, Abrahamse H. The effect of low intensity laser irradiation on breast cancer cells and breast cancer stem cells. J Stem Cells Res Dev Ther. 2019:S1005. doi: 10.24966/SRDT-2060/S1005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Schalch TD, Fernandes MH, Destro Rodrigues MFS, et al. Photobiomodulation is associated with a decrease in cell viability and migration in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Lasers Med Sci. 2019;34(3):629–636. doi: 10.1007/s10103-018-2640-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Matsuo K, Suzuki H, Yatagai N, et al. Red LED light is influenced by IL-6 to promote the migration ability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cell line. Kobe J Med Sci. 2019;64(6):E210–E216. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Bamps M, Dok R, Nuyts S. Low-level laser therapy stimulates proliferation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells. Front Oncol. 2018;8:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Ramos Silva C, Cabral FV, de Camargo CFM, et al. Exploring the effects of low-level laser therapy on fibroblasts and tumor cells following gamma radiation exposure. J Biophotonics. 2016;9(11-12):1157–1166. doi: 10.1002/jbio.201600107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Dias Schalch T, Porta Santos Fernandes K, Costa-Rodrigues J, et al. Photomodulation of the osteoclastogenic potential of oral squamous carcinoma cells. J Biophotonics. 2016; 9(11-12):1136–1147. doi: 10.1002/jbio.201500292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Cialdai F, Landini I, Capaccioli S, et al. In vitro study on the safety of near infrared laser therapy in its potential application as postmastectomy lymphedema treatment. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015;151:285–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2015.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Gomes Henriques ÁC, Ginani F, Oliveira RM, et al. Low-level laser therapy promotes proliferation and invasion of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29(4):1385–1395. doi: 10.1007/s10103-014-1535-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Sperandio FF, Giudice FS, Corrêa L, Pinto DS, Hamblin MR, de Sousa SCOM. Low-level laser therapy can produce increased aggressiveness of dysplastic and oral cancer cell lines by modulation of Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. J Biophotonics. 2013;6(10):839–847. doi: 10.1002/jbio.201300015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Magrini TD, dos Santos NV, Milazzotto MP, Cerchiaro G, da Silva Martinho H. Low-level laser therapy on MCF-7 cells: a micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy study. J Biomed Opt. 2012;17(10):1015161. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.17.10.101516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Schartinger VH, Galvan O, Riechelmann H, Dudás J. Differential responses of fibroblasts, non-neoplastic epithelial cells, and oral carcinoma cells to low-level laser therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(3):523–529. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1113-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Powell K, Low P, McDonnell P, Laakso E, Ralph S. The effect of laser irradiation on proliferation of human breast carcinoma, melanoma, and immortalized mammary epithelial cells. Photomed Laser Surg. 2010;28(1):115–123. doi: 10.1089/pho.2008.2445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. De Castro JLF, Pinheiro ALB, Werneck CE, Soares CP. The effect of laser therapy on the proliferation of oral KB carcinoma cells: an in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2005;23(6):586–589. doi: 10.1089/pho.2005.23.586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Kreisler M, Christoffers AB, Willershausen B, D’Hoedt B. Low-level 809 nm GaAIAs laser irradiation increases the proliferation rate of human laryngeal carcinoma cells in vitro. Lasers Med Sci. 2003;18(2):100–103. doi: 10.1007/s10103-003-0265-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Pinheiro ALB, do Nascliento SC, de Vieira ALB, Rolim AB, da Silva PS, Brugnera A. Does LLLT stimulate laryngeal carcinoma cells? An in vitro study. Braz Dent J. 2002;13(2):109–112. doi: 10.1590/S0103-64402002000200006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Sroka R, Schaffer M, Fuchs C, et al. Effects on the mitosis of normal and tumor cells induced by light treatment of different wavelengths. Lasers Surg Med. 1999;25(3):263–271. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Schaffer M, Sroka R, Fuchs C, et al. Biomodulative effects induced by 805 nm laser light irradiation of normal and tumor cells. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1997;40(3):253–257. doi: 10.1016/s1011-1344(97)00065-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Barasch A, Li H, Rajasekhar VK, et al. Photobiomodulation effects on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in an orthotopic animal model. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(6):2721–2727. doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-05060-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Petrellis MC, Frigo L, Marcos RL, et al. Laser photobiomodulation of pro-inflammatory mediators on Walker tumor 256 induced rats. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2017;177:69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Ottaviani G, Martinelli V, Rupel K, et al. Laser therapy inhibits tumor growth in mice by promoting immune surveillance and vessel normalization. EBioMedicine. 2016;11:165–172. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.07.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Rhee Y, Moon J, Choi S, Ahn J. Low-level laser therapy promoted aggressive proliferation and angiogenesis through decreasing of transforming growth factor-β1 and increasing of Akt/hypoxia inducible factor-1α in anaplastic thyroid cancer. Photomed Laser Surg. 2016;34(6):229–235. doi: 10.1089/pho.2015.3968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Khori V, Alizadeh AM, Gheisary Z, et al. The effects of low-level laser irradiation on breast tumor in mice and the expression of Let-7a, miR-155, miR-21, miR125, and miR376b. Lasers Med Sci. 2016;31(9):1775–1782. doi: 10.1007/s10103-016-2049-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. de C. Monteiro JS, de Oliveira SCPS, Reis Júnior JA, et al. Effects of imiquimod and low-intensity laser (λ660 nm) in chemically induced oral carcinomas in hamster buccal pouch mucosa. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(3):1017–1024. doi: 10.1007/s10103-012-1192-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Myakishev-Rempel M, Stadler I, Brondon P, et al. A preliminary study of the safety of red light phototherapy of tissues harboring cancer. Photomed Laser Surg. 2012;30(9):551–558. doi: 10.1089/pho.2011.3186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. de C. Monteiro JS, Pinheiro ALB, de Oliveira SCPS, et al. Influence of laser phototherapy (λ660 nm) on the outcome of oral chemical carcinogenesis on the hamster cheek pouch model: histological study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011;29(11):741–745. doi: 10.1089/pho.2010.2896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Frigo L, Luppi JSS, Favero GM, et al. The effect of low-level laser irradiation (In-Ga-Al-AsP—660 nm) on melanoma in vitro and in vivo. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:404. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Guermonprez C, Declercq L, Decaux G, Grimaud JA. Safety and efficacy of a novel home-use device for light-potentiated (LED) skin treatment. J Biophotonics. 2020;13(12):e202000230. doi: 10.1002/jbio.202000230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Wunsch A, Matuschka K. A controlled trial to determine the efficacy of red and near-infrared light treatment in patient satisfaction, reduction of fine lines, wrinkles, skin roughness, and intradermal collagen density increase. Photomed Laser Surg. 2014;32(2):93–100. doi: 10.1089/pho.2013.3616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Tanaka Y, Matsuo K, Yuzuriha S. Objective assessment of skin rejuvenation using near-infrared 1064-nm neodymium: YAG laser in Asians. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2011;4:123. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S22841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Shaoul J, Mulholland RS. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a novel home-use device with diode arrays and contact heating for facial skin rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatological Sci Appl. 2011;1(4):119–124. doi: 10.4236/jcdsa.2011.14018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Sadick NS. A study to determine the efficacy of a novel handheld light-emitting diode device in the treatment of photoaged skin. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2008;7(4):263–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-2165.2008.00404.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Russell BA, Kellett N, Reilly LR. A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2005;7(3-4):196–200. doi: 10.1080/14764170500370059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Weiss RA, McDaniel DH, Geronemus RG, Weiss MA. Clinical trial of a novel non-thermal LED array for reversal of photoaging: clinical, histologic, and surface profilometric results. Lasers Surg Med. 2005;36(2):85–91. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Zadik Y, Arany PR, Fregnani ER, et al. Systematic review of photobiomodulation for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(10):3969–3983. doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-04890-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Paglioni MdP, Araújo ALD, Arboleda LPA, et al. Tumor safety and side effects of photobiomodulation therapy used for prevention and management of cancer treatment toxicities: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2019;93:21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Cronshaw M, Parker S, Anagnostaki E, Mylona V, Lynch E, Grootveld M. Photobiomodulation and oral mucositis : a systematic review. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(3):87. doi: 10.3390/dj8030087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Rocha SR, Aparecida S, Ramalho A, Conceição VL, Santos G, Nogueira PC. Photobiomodulation therapy in the prevention and treatment of radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients: systematic review. J Lasers Med Sci. 2022;13:e42. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2022.42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Avci P, Nyame TT, Gupta GK, Sadasivam M, Hamblin MR. Low-level laser therapy for fat layer reduction: a comprehensive review. Lasers Surg Med. 2013;45(6):349–357. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Torres AE, Lim HW. Photobiomodulation for the management of hair loss. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2021;37(2):91–98. doi: 10.1111/phpp.12649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. de Barros Silva P, Filho E, Nigri F, Dantas T, de Miranda Candiero GT, Neri J. Photobiomodulation reduces pain-related symptoms without interfering in the efficacy of in-office tooth bleaching: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2022;40(3):163–177. doi: 10.1089/photob.2021.0105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Courtois E, Bouleftour W, Guy JB, et al. Mechanisms of photobiomodulation (PBM) focused on oral mucositis prevention and treatment: a scoping review. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):220. doi 10.1186/s12903-021-01574-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Tripodi N, Corcoran D, Antonello P, et al. The effects of photobiomodulation on human dermal fibroblasts in vitro: a systematic review. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2021;214:112100. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2020.112100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Silveira FM, Paglioni MDP, Marques MM, et al. Examining tumor modulating effects of photobiomodulation therapy on head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019;18(7):1621–1637. doi: 10.1039/c9pp00120d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Mignon C, Uzunbaja NE, Raafs B, Botchkareva NV, Tobin DJ. Photobiomodulation of human dermal fibroblasts in vitro: decisive role of cell culture conditions and treatment protocols on experimental outcome. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):2797. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02802-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Chen H, Tu M, Shi J, Wng Y, Hou Z, Wang J. Effect of photobiomodulation on CCC-ESF reactive oxygen species steady-state in high glucose mediums. Lasers Med Sci. 2021;36(3):555–562. doi: 10.1007/s10103-020-03057-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. König A, Zöller N, Kippenberger S, et al. Non-thermal near-infrared exposure photobiomodulates cellular responses to ionizing radiation in human full thickness skin models. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2018;178:115–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Qin W, Quan G, Sun Y, et al. Dissolving microneedles with spatiotemporally controlled pulsatile release nanosystem for synergistic chemo-photothermal therapy of melanoma. Theranostics. 2020;10(18):8179–8196. doi: 10.7150/thno.44194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Lopes J, Ferreira-Gonçalves T, Figueiredo IV, et al. Proof-of-concept study of multifunctional hybrid nanoparticle system combined with NIR laser irradiation for the treatment of melanoma. Biomolecules. 2021;11(4):511. doi: 10.3390/biom11040511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Bensadoun RJ, Epstein J, Nair RG, et al. Safety and efficacy of photobiomodulation therapy in oncology: a systematic review. Cancer Med. 2020;9(22):8279–8300. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Zayed SM, Hakim AAA. Clinical efficacy of photobiomodulation on dental implant osseointegration: a systematic review. Saudi J Med Med Sci. 2020;8(2):80–86. doi: 10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_410_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Kulkarni S, George R, Love R, Ranjitkar S. Effectiveness of photobiomodulation in reducing pain and producing dental analgesia: a systematic review. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(7):3011–3019. doi: 10.1007/s10103-022-03590-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Pandeshwar P, Roa MD, Das R, Shastry SP, Kaul R, Srinivasreddy MB. Photobiomodulation in oral medicine: a review. J Investig Clin Dent. 2016;7(2):114–126. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Cronshaw M, Parker S. Systematic review of orthodontic treatment management with photobiomodulation therapy. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2019;37(12):862–868. doi: 10.1089/photob.2019.4702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.