4.5 Article

Ablative Fractional Laser-assisted Low-irradiance Photodynamic Therapy for Treatment of Actinic Keratoses in Organ Transplant Recipients: A Prospective, Randomized, Intraindividual Controlled Trial

Journal

ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v102.1057

Keywords

actinic keratosis; immunosuppression; keratinocyte cancer; organ transplant recipients; photodynamic therapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of low-irradiance photodynamic therapy combined with Er:YAG pretreatment compared to conventional photodynamic therapy in the treatment of actinic keratoses in organ transplant recipients. The results showed that low-irradiance photodynamic therapy combined with Er:YAG pretreatment achieved a significantly superior lesion response rate without negatively impacting pain or cosmetic outcome.
Pain and inferior efficacy are major limiting factors of conventional photodynamic therapy for the field treatment of actinic keratoses in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients. This prospective randomized controlled study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of ablative fractional laser system pretreatment combined with low-irradiance photodynamic therapy (18.5 mW/cm(2)) compared with conventional photodynamic therapy (61.67 mW/cm(2)) in the treatment of actinic keratoses on the face and scalp in organ transplant recipients, using a red light-emitting diode lamp at a total light dose of 37 J/cm(2). Low-irradiance photodynamic therapy combined with Er:YAG pretreatment achieved a significantly superior lesion response rate (mean +/- standard deviation 77.3 +/- 23.6%) compared with conventional photodynamic therapy (61.8 +/- 21.4%; p = 0.025) in intra-individual fields at 3 months without negatively impacting pain (p = 0.777) or cosmetic outcome (p = 0.157).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available