P055 A randomized single-blinded prospective study to compare simulated daylight photodynamic therapy with natural daylight photodynamic therapy for the treatment of multiple actinic keratoses
Ciara Drumm,Imelda Morgan,Ann Kavanagh,Danielle Gill,Julia Buckley,Matthew Reade,Eamon Loughman,Jackie McCavana,Aisling Ryan,Blaithin Moriarty,Aoife Lally
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae090.082
IF: 11.113
2024-06-28
British Journal of Dermatology
Abstract:Abstract Actinic keratoses (AKs) are considered precursor lesions of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, with a reported conversion rate of 3–16%. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a widely approved therapy for AKs. Conventional PDT (c-PDT) using red light is limited by pain and a small treatment field. Daylight PDT (d-PDT), an approved alternative, is limited by geographical location and weather conditions. Simulated daylight PDT (sd-PDT) with light-emitting diode (LED) light sources is now commercially available due to robust evidence that these devices are effective, but the devices are limited by cost (∼€30 000). We hypothesized that sd-PDT with a 4000 K white-light LED floodlight, costing €961, is equally as effective and well tolerated as d-PDT in the treatment of AKs across treatment fields of up to 55 cm2 on the scalp. Twenty-two men with a mean age of 74.5 years (SD 7.0) and multiple scalp AKs were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study, which employed a split-scalp design to compare the effectiveness and adverse events of d-PDT and sd-PDT. Block randomization was used to determine which side of the scalp would be treated with d-PDT. Each patient received four treatments in total, two d-PDT and two sd-PDT, each a week apart. The AKs were counted, graded, mapped and photographed at baseline, at blinded 1- and 3-month reviews and at unblinded 6-, 9- and 12-month reviews. The primary endpoint was mean lesion-specific clearance, defined as the mean number and percentage of cleared AKs per treatment field at 3 months. At baseline, the mean (SD) number of AKs per field was 44 (17.4) for the d-PDT group and 45.5 (17.8) for the sd-PDT group (P = 0.4). The mean lesion-specific clearance (percentage reduction) in AKs per field was 35.3 (71.5%) for d-PDT and 35.0 (75.1%) for sd-PDT at 1 month (P > 0.99), 33.6 (66.4%) for d-PDT and 30.3 (61.6%) for sd-PDT at 3 months (P = 0.6). Both d-PDT and sd-PDT were effective, with a significant reduction in AKs from baseline at 1 and 3 months (P < 0.01). Pain was reported by 15 patients with d-PDT and 12 with sd-PDT (median maximum score out of 100, 3.5 vs. 4.5; P = 0.6). Erythema was observed in 17 after d-PDT and 15 after sd-PDT. On a scale of 0 (intolerable) to 10 (very tolerable), patients rated d-PDT as 10 and sd-PDT as 9.8 (P = 0.08). We conclude that sd-PDT with a 4000 K white-light LED floodlight is equally as effective and well tolerated as d-PDT and is an affordable treatment option not limited by pain, small treatment field, geographical location or weather conditions.
dermatology