Introduction Actinic cheilitis (AC) is the biologic precursor of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the vermilion, and different treatment options have been investigated, but their efficacy is hampered by local inflammation, pain and slow recovery. Daylight photodynamic therapy (dl-PDT) has been demonstrated to represent a valuable treatment option for AC, but its feasibility is limited by weather conditions and latitude. Methods Our study proposed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of conventional photodynamic therapy (c-PDT) and indoor daylight photodynamic therapy (idl-PDT) with a white LED lamp for the treatment of AC. Sixteen patients were enrolled in the study: 8 (50%) treated with c-PDT and 8 (50%) treated with idl-PDT. All patients completed the study protocol. Results Both idl-PDT and c-PDT were demonstrated to be highly effective in terms of reduction of the cumulative lesional area and severity of the clinical score. Neither treatment was inferior to the other. The inflammatory reaction and the pain scores were milder with idl-PDT, whereas the cosmetic outcome was not different. Conclusion The present findings confirm that idl-PDT can represent a valid therapeutic strategy for AC patients as well, despite the procedural difficulties and the risk of poor tolerability related to the body site.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Conventional versus Indoor Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Treatment of Actinic Cheilitis

Arisi, Mariachiara;Galli, Benedetta;Pisani, Edoardo Guasco;La Rosa, Giuseppe;Licata, Gaetano;Rovaris, Sara;Tomasi, Cesare;Rossi, Mariateresa;Venturini, Marina;Spiazzi, Luigi;Calzavara-Pinton, PierGiacomo
2022-01-01

Abstract

Introduction Actinic cheilitis (AC) is the biologic precursor of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the vermilion, and different treatment options have been investigated, but their efficacy is hampered by local inflammation, pain and slow recovery. Daylight photodynamic therapy (dl-PDT) has been demonstrated to represent a valuable treatment option for AC, but its feasibility is limited by weather conditions and latitude. Methods Our study proposed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of conventional photodynamic therapy (c-PDT) and indoor daylight photodynamic therapy (idl-PDT) with a white LED lamp for the treatment of AC. Sixteen patients were enrolled in the study: 8 (50%) treated with c-PDT and 8 (50%) treated with idl-PDT. All patients completed the study protocol. Results Both idl-PDT and c-PDT were demonstrated to be highly effective in terms of reduction of the cumulative lesional area and severity of the clinical score. Neither treatment was inferior to the other. The inflammatory reaction and the pain scores were milder with idl-PDT, whereas the cosmetic outcome was not different. Conclusion The present findings confirm that idl-PDT can represent a valid therapeutic strategy for AC patients as well, despite the procedural difficulties and the risk of poor tolerability related to the body site.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11379/561877
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact