Premium
Treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma by topical photodynamic therapy with fractionated 5‐aminolaevulinic acid 20% vs. two‐stage topical methyl aminolaevulinate: results of a randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Kessels J.P.H.M.,
Kreukels H.,
Nelemans P.J.,
Roozeboom M.H.,
Pelt H.,
Mosterd K.,
Haas E.R.M.,
KellenersSmeets N.W.J.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
british journal of dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.304
H-Index - 179
eISSN - 1365-2133
pISSN - 0007-0963
DOI - 10.1111/bjd.16615
Subject(s) - photodynamic therapy , medicine , erythema , dermatology , skin cancer , sunburn , randomized controlled trial , basal cell carcinoma , photosensitivity , surgery , cancer , basal cell , pathology , organic chemistry , quantum mechanics , chemistry , physics
Summary Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a frequently used treatment for a type of skin cancer called superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC). It works by using a cream called a porphyrin precursor, which is applied to the affected skin area and covered with a dressing. After several hours and after removing the occlusive dressing, the area is irradiated with intense visible light which causes the death of cancer cells. There are two porphyrin precursors available in the Netherlands, 5‐aminolevulinic acid 20% (ALA) and methylaminolevulinic acid (MAL). In conventional MAL PDT, skin receives one illumination (treatment with light) which is repeated one week later. In the case of ALA, skin receives two different illuminations, two hours apart. This is called fractionated ALA‐PDT. In this study, from the Netherlands, we investigated whether this fractionated ALA‐PDT is superior to conventional MAL‐PDT. 162 patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. 82 patients were treated with fractionated ALA‐PDT and 80 patients with conventional MAL‐PDT. After 12 months a total of 6 treatment failures (recurrence of the sBCC) occurred after ALA‐PDT and 13 after MAL‐PDT. Although there were twice as many treatment failures in the MAL‐PDT group, this difference was not statistically significant. Secondly, we investigated pain scores in both treatment groups because PDT is known to cause a severe burning sensation. We found that ALA‐PDT resulted in more pain and side effects, such as erythema (skin redness, like sunburn), wounds/erosions and vesicles (small blisters) compared to MAL‐PDT. In conclusion, there is a trend toward better efficacy of ALA‐PDT compared to MAL‐PDT for the treatment of sBCC, although the difference was not significant.