Maila I. C. Krönert
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Maila I. C. Krönert has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Bernd Joachim Krause
Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin
1 shared publication - Jens Kurth
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
1 shared publication - Julia K. Tietze
Clinic and Policlinic for Dermatology and Venereology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany
1 shared publication - Martin Heuschkel
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany
1 shared publication - Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
1 shared publication - Steffen Emmert
Clinic and Policlinic for Dermatology, Rostock University Medical Center, 18057 Rostock, Germany
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 29 April 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 12 (9) , 921
Patient-Orientated Evaluation of Treatment of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer with Rhenium-188 Compared to Surgery
Background: Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are responsible for up to one-third of all human malignancies. Surgery is usually the treatment of choice, but patients often experience pain during the procedure. Topical rhenium-188 resin skin cancer treatment (RSCT) may be a valid therapeutic alternative. Methods: In this monocentric pilot study, 19 patients suffering from NMSC were treated with RSCT. Most of these patients had also experienced surgery, either because they developed a new NMSC in aftercare, or they had suffered previously from NMSC. Three RSCT-treated patients, who had no exposure to surgery so far, were paired with three matched patients, who had received surgery. We sought to evaluate and compare the patients’ experience with both treatments. A questionnaire assessed patients’ perceptions regarding side effects, aesthetic outcomes, wound care, fear of complications, and personal treatment preferences. Patients evaluated the different parameters of their either RSCT- or surgery-treated lesions on a scale from 0–10. Results: Patients were more afraid of complications before surgery than before RSCT (p = 0.04). Treatment with RSCT caused significantly less pain on treatment day (mean 0.56) than surgery (mean 2.32) (0 no pain, 10 maximum pain) (p = 0.02) and 14 days after the procedure (mean 0.89 versus mean 2.47) (p = 0.02). On day 14, RSCT-treated lesions were also significantly less itchy (mean 0.34) than after surgery (mean 1.50). Most patients were very satisfied with the aesthetic outcome after both RSCT (mean 8.42) and surgery (mean 8.31) (p = 0.89). In the case of a new NMSC, the majority of patients who experienced both treatments would rather be treated primarily with RSCT (44%) or would consider both options (31%); only 19% preferred surgery. Conclusion: Patients evaluated RSCT as less painful than surgery. The aesthetic outcomes of both treatments were comparable. For pain-sensitive patients, RSCT might be a preferable treatment option.
- 29 April 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 12 (9) , 921
Open AccessPatient-Orientated Evaluation of Treatment of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer with Rhenium-188 Compared to Surgery
Background: Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are responsible for up to one-third of all human malignancies. Surgery is usually the treatment of choice, but patients often experience pain during the procedure. Topical rhenium-188 resin skin cancer treatment (RSCT) may be a valid therapeutic alternative. Methods: In this monocentric pilot study, 19 patients suffering from NMSC were treated with RSCT. Most of these patients had also experienced surgery, either because they developed a new NMSC in aftercare, or they had suffered previously from NMSC. Three RSCT-treated patients, who had no exposure to surgery so far, were paired with three matched patients, who had received surgery. We sought to evaluate and compare the patients’ experience with both treatments. A questionnaire assessed patients’ perceptions regarding side effects, aesthetic outcomes, wound care, fear of complications, and personal treatment preferences. Patients evaluated the different parameters of their either RSCT- or surgery-treated lesions on a scale from 0–10. Results: Patients were more afraid of complications before surgery than before RSCT (p = 0.04). Treatment with RSCT caused significantly less pain on treatment day (mean 0.56) than surgery (mean 2.32) (0 no pain, 10 maximum pain) (p = 0.02) and 14 days after the procedure (mean 0.89 versus mean 2.47) (p = 0.02). On day 14, RSCT-treated lesions were also significantly less itchy (mean 0.34) than after surgery (mean 1.50). Most patients were very satisfied with the aesthetic outcome after both RSCT (mean 8.42) and surgery (mean 8.31) (p = 0.89). In the case of a new NMSC, the majority of patients who experienced both treatments would rather be treated primarily with RSCT (44%) or would consider both options (31%); only 19% preferred surgery. Conclusion: Patients evaluated RSCT as less painful than surgery. The aesthetic outcomes of both treatments were comparable. For pain-sensitive patients, RSCT might be a preferable treatment option.