Artificial White Light vs Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratoses: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Braathen  LR, Szeimies  RM, Basset-Seguin  N,  et al; International Society for Photodynamic Therapy in Dermatology.  Guidelines on the use of photodynamic therapy for nonmelanoma skin cancer: an international consensus. International Society for Photodynamic Therapy in Dermatology, 2005.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(1):125-143.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Moloney  FJ, Collins  P.  Randomized, double-blind, prospective study to compare topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid methylester with topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic therapy for extensive scalp actinic keratosis.  Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(1):87-91.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Morton  CA, Szeimies  RM, Sidoroff  A, Braathen  LR.  European guidelines for topical photodynamic therapy part 1: treatment delivery and current indications - actinic keratoses, Bowen’s disease, basal cell carcinoma.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27(5):536-544.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Grapengiesser  S, Ericson  M, Gudmundsson  F, Larkö  O, Rosén  A, Wennberg  AM.  Pain caused by photodynamic therapy of skin cancer.  Clin Exp Dermatol. 2002;27(6):493-497.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Langan  SM, Collins  P.  Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study of the efficacy of topical anaesthesia with a eutetic mixture of lignocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5% for topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid-photodynamic therapy for extensive scalp actinic keratoses.  Br J Dermatol. 2006;154(1):146-149.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Haedersdal  M, Philipsen  PA, Eriksen  P, Enk  CD, Wulf  HC.  Continuous activation of PpIX by daylight is as effective as and less painful than conventional photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses; a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study.  Br J Dermatol. 2008;158(4):740-746.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Haedersdal  M, Eriksen  P, Wulf  HC.  Photodynamic therapy of actinic keratoses with 8% and 16% methyl aminolaevulinate and home-based daylight exposure: a double-blinded randomized clinical trial.  Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(6):1308-1314.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Fabricius  S, Stender  IM,  et al.  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.  Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(5):1083-1090.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rubel  DM, Spelman  L, Murrell  DF,  et al.  Daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream as a convenient, similarly effective, nearly painless alternative to conventional photodynamic therapy in actinic keratosis treatment: a randomized controlled trial.  Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(5):1164-1171.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Neittaanmäki-Perttu  N, Karppinen  TT, Grönroos  M, Tani  TT, Snellman  E.  Daylight photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses: a randomized double-blinded nonsponsored prospective study comparing 5-aminolaevulinic acid nanoemulsion (BF-200) with methyl-5-aminolaevulinate.  Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(5):1172-1180.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Salasche  SJ.  Epidemiology of actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinoma.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42(1 Pt 2):4-7.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ackerman  AB, Mones  JM.  Solar (actinic) keratosis is squamous cell carcinoma.  Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(1):9-22.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Dakubo  GD, Jakupciak  JP, Birch-Machin  MA, Parr  RL.  Clinical implications and utility of field cancerization.  Cancer Cell Int. 2007;7:2.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chen  SC, Hill  ND, Veledar  E, Swetter  SM, Weinstock  MA.  Reliability of quantification measures of actinic keratosis.  Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(6):1219-1222.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Werner  RN, Sammain  A, Erdmann  R, Hartmann  V, Stockfleth  E, Nast  A.  The natural history of actinic keratosis: a systematic review.  Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(3):502-518.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Morton  CA, McKenna  KE, Rhodes  LE; British Association of Dermatologists Therapy Guidelines and Audit Subcommittee and the British Photodermatology Group.  Guidelines for topical photodynamic therapy: update.  Br J Dermatol. 2008;159(6):1245-1266.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Szeimies  RM, Karrer  S, Radakovic-Fijan  S,  et al.  Photodynamic therapy using topical methyl 5-aminolevulinate compared with cryotherapy for actinic keratosis: A prospective, randomized study.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47(2):258-262.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Morton  C, Campbell  S, Gupta  G,  et al; AKtion Investigators.  Intraindividual, right-left comparison of topical methyl aminolaevulinate-photodynamic therapy and cryotherapy in subjects with actinic keratoses: a multicentre, randomized controlled study.  Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(5):1029-1036.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Fabricius  S, Gniadecka  M,  et al.  Daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy of moderate to thick actinic keratoses of the face and scalp: a randomized multicentre study.  Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(6):1327-1332.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Heydenreich  J, Fabricius  S, Wulf  HC.  Continuous ultra-low-intensity artificial daylight is not as effective as red LED light in photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses.  Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2011;27(6):280-285.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Angell-Petersen  E, Sørensen  R, Warloe  T,  et al.  Porphyrin formation in actinic keratosis and basal cell carcinoma after topical application of methyl 5-aminolevulinate.  J Invest Dermatol. 2006;126(2):265-271.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Angell-Petersen  E, Christensen  C, Müller  CR, Warloe  T.  Phototoxic reaction and porphyrin fluorescence in skin after topical application of methyl aminolaevulinate.  Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(2):301-307.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Robinson  DJ, Collins  P, Stringer  MR,  et al.  Improved response of plaque psoriasis after multiple treatments with topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic therapy.  Acta Derm Venereol. 1999;79(6):451-455.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kennedy  JC, Pottier  RH, Pross  DC.  Photodynamic therapy with endogenous protoporphyrin IX: basic principles and present clinical experience.  J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990;6(1-2):143-148.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kennedy  JC, Pottier  RH.  Endogenous protoporphyrin IX, a clinically useful photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy.  J Photochem Photobiol B. 1992;14(4):275-292.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Stringer  MR, Collins  P, Robinson  DJ, Stables  GI, Sheehan-Dare  RA.  The accumulation of protoporphyrin IX in plaque psoriasis after topical application of 5-aminolevulinic acid indicates a potential for superficial photodynamic therapy.  J Invest Dermatol. 1996;107(1):76-81.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Collins  P, Robinson  DJ, Stringer  MR, Stables  GI, Sheehan-Dare  RA.  The variable response of plaque psoriasis after a single treatment with topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic therapy.  Br J Dermatol. 1997;137(5):743-749.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Petersen  B, Wiegell  SR, Wulf  HC.  Light protection of the skin after photodynamic therapy reduces inflammation: an unblinded randomized controlled study.  Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(1):175-178.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Petersen  B, Wulf  HC.  Topical corticosteroid reduces inflammation without compromising the efficacy of photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses: a randomized clinical trial.  Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(6):1487-1492.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wiegell  SR, Fabricius  S, Heydenreich  J,  et al.  Weather conditions and daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy: protoporphyrin IX-weighted daylight doses measured in six geographical locations.  Br J Dermatol. 2013;168(1):186-191.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
June 2016

Artificial White Light vs Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratoses: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1The Charles Center, Department of Dermatology, Saint Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • 2Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Saint Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(6):638-644. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.5436

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/cm2 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 Identifier: NCT02520700