A randomized, multicentre study of directed daylight exposure times of 1½ vs. 2½ h in daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate in patients with multiple thin actinic keratoses of the face and scalp

Wiegell, Stine Regin; Fabricius, Susanne; Stender, Ida‐Marie; Berne, Berit; Kroon, S; Andersen, Barbara L.; Mørk, Cato; Sandberg, Carin; Jemec, Gregor B. E.; Mogensen, Mette; Brocks, K. M.; Philipsen, Peter Alshede; Heydenreich, Jakob; Hædersdal, Merete; Wulf, Hans Christian

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10209.x

Cited by 162 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although patients enrolled in the Australian study had individual lesions treated,13 the expert panel agreed that daylight PDT is recommended for use in patients who require field therapy (i.e., large areas of actinic damage) to treat visible lesions and subclinical disease, depending on the clinical need. This is consistent with current guidelines for treatment of AK7 and is supported by findings from the studies of daylight PDT (including field treatment) in northern Europe 11, 14, 15, 16…”

Section: Whom To Treat With Daylight Pdt With Methyl Aminolevulinate supporting

confidence: 90%

“…The efficacy and safety of daylight PDT with MAL in the treatment of AK has been assessed in four randomised trials conducted in Europe11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and one randomised controlled trial conducted in Australia 13. The European trials consisted of a small exploratory study comparing daylight PDT with c‐PDT,11 two comparative studies with different concentrations of MAL cream16 and daylight exposure times14, 15 and, most recently, a phase III randomised trial comparing daylight PDT with c‐PDT (only preliminary results reported) 17.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The European trials consisted of a small exploratory study comparing daylight PDT with c‐PDT,11 two comparative studies with different concentrations of MAL cream16 and daylight exposure times14, 15 and, most recently, a phase III randomised trial comparing daylight PDT with c‐PDT (only preliminary results reported) 17. In all trials, daylight PDT resulted in high total lesion response rates (> 70% grade I) with participants experiencing little to no pain during daylight exposure (Table 2).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most participants who were treated with daylight PDT or c‐PDT in the clinical trials experienced erythema and desquamation 11, 15, 16. Although one study showed more severe erythema and desquamation in participants who were treated with daylight PDT than with c‐PDT,11 these effects were most likely a result of sunburn, which can be avoided with the application of a chemical sunscreen to the treatment site and entire sun‐exposed area 13, 16…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence from the clinical trials conducted to date suggest that the affected area should be prepared before the application of MAL cream13, 14, 15, 16 as follows (Table 4). Firstly, the affected area(s) should be washed (e.g.…”

Section: How To Treat Patients With Daylight Pdt With Methyl Aminolevmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Consensus recommendations on the use of daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream for actinic keratoses in Australia

See¹,

Shumack

Murrell

et al. 2015

Aust J Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia has the highest prevalence of actinic keratoses (AK) worldwide. Because of the risk of transformation of AK to invasive squamous cell carcinomas, consensus guidelines recommend that AK are removed using appropriate therapies to prevent progression to invasive disease. Daylight photodynamic therapy (PDT) is emerging as an efficacious treatment for AK, particularly for patients who require treatment of large areas of chronic actinic damage that can be exposed easily to daylight. Daylight PDT with methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) cream is a simple treatment for AK, almost painless, well tolerated and convenient, requiring minimal time in the clinic. Randomised controlled studies from northern Europe and Australia support the use of daylight PDT as an effective therapy for grade I and II AK on the face and scalp. There is sufficient daylight to conduct daylight PDT in Australia at any time of the year and during most weather conditions. Hence, daylight PDT with MAL can be included as an effective and well‐tolerated new treatment option for the treatment of AK in Australia. These consensus recommendations provide guidelines for Australian clinicians on the use of daylight PDT in the treatment of diagnosed AK.

show abstract

Section: Whom To Treat With Daylight Pdt With Methyl Aminolevulinate supporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How To Treat Patients With Daylight Pdt With Methyl Aminolevmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Consensus recommendations on the use of daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream for actinic keratoses in Australia

See¹,

Shumack

Murrell

et al. 2015

Aust J Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Artificial White Light vs Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratoses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Daylight photodynamic therapy using topical methyl 5-aminolevulinic acid (MAL) for actinic keratoses (AKs) is as effective as conventional photodynamic therapy but has the advantage of being almost pain free. Daylight photodynamic therapy, however, requires dry and warm weather conditions. OBJECTIVE To establish if topical MAL photodynamic therapy using a white light light-emitting diode (LED) lamp is as effective and well-tolerated as daylight photodynamic therapy for the treatment of AKs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Overall, 22 men with significant photodamage and a high number of AKs were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study, employing a split-scalp design, comparing the effectiveness and adverse effects of daylight photodynamic therapy and artificial white light (AWL) LED photodynamic therapy for the treatment of AKs on the forehead and scalp. Organ transplant recipients were excluded. Patients were treated and evaluated at an academic tertiary referral dermatology center. Treatment lasted from April 2014 to July 2014 and follow-up visits occurred for 9 months posttreatment. INTERVENTIONS Two symmetrical treatment fields were defined and AKs counted, mapped, and photographed at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. Patients had half of their scalp treated with daylight photodynamic therapy and the other half treated with AWL photodynamic therapy 1 week apart and randomly allocated. MAL was applied, and treatment commenced 30 minutes later and lasted 2 hours. Irradiance, illuminance, and light spectra measurements were performed. The integrated dose in J/cm 2 was measured. The effective light dose, weighted to the absorption spectrum for protoporphyrin IX, was calculated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was the reduction in total AK count per treatment field. Secondary end points included adverse effects and patient satisfaction. RESULTS We enrolled 22 men with a median age of 72 years (range, 47-85 years) at baseline, the total (median of AKs per field) were 469 (20.5) for the DPDT group and 496 (20.5) for the AWLPDT group (P = .34). The median number and percentage of reduction in AKs per field were 12 and 62.3% for DPDT and 14 and 67.7% for AWLPDT at 1 month (P = .21 and P = .13, respectively). There was no significant difference in the reduction percentage of AKs for either treatment at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 9 months, the median number and percentage of reduction in AKs per field was 9.0 and 48.4% for DPDT and 12.0 and 64.4% for AWLPDT (P = .13 and P = .05, respectively). Pain was reported by 14 patients with DPDT and 16 patients with AWLPDT (median maximum score [out of 100], 4 vs 6; P = .51). Moderate erythema was reported by 9 patients after DPDT and 14 patients after AWLPDT. On a scale of 0 (intolerable) to 10 (very tolerable) patients rated DPDT as 9.5 and AWLPDT as 9 (P = .37). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Photodynamic therapy using an AWL source was as effective and well-tolerated as daylight photodynamic therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.g...

show abstract

Photodynamic Therapy in Daylight for Actinic Keratoses

Wulf

2016

JAMA Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A randomized, multicentre study of directed daylight exposure times of 1½ vs. 2½ h in daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate in patients with multiple thin actinic keratoses of the face and scalp

Cited by 162 publications

References 27 publications

Consensus recommendations on the use of daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream for actinic keratoses in Australia

Consensus recommendations on the use of daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream for actinic keratoses in Australia

Artificial White Light vs Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratoses

Photodynamic Therapy in Daylight for Actinic Keratoses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About