Randomized Trial of Four Treatment Approaches for Actinic Keratosis.

BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis is the most frequent premalignant skin disease in the white population. In current guidelines, no clear recommendations are made about which treatment is preferred. METHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of four frequently used field-directed treatments (for multiple lesions in a continuous area). Patients with a clinical diagnosis of five or more actinic keratosis lesions on the head, involving one continuous area of 25 to 100 cm2, were enrolled at four Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 5% fluorouracil cream, 5% imiquimod cream, methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT), or 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 75% or more in the number of actinic keratosis lesions from baseline to 12 months after the end of treatment. Both a modified intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 624 patients were included from November 2014 through March 2017. At 12 months after the end of treatment, the cumulative probability of remaining free from treatment failure was significantly higher among patients who received fluorouracil (74.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 66.8 to 81.0) than among those who received imiquimod (53.9%; 95% CI, 45.4 to 61.6), MAL-PDT (37.7%; 95% CI, 30.0 to 45.3), or ingenol mebutate (28.9%; 95% CI, 21.8 to 36.3). As compared with fluorouracil, the hazard ratio for treatment failure was 2.03 (95% CI, 1.36 to 3.04) with imiquimod, 2.73 (95% CI, 1.87 to 3.99) with MAL-PDT, and 3.33 (95% CI, 2.29 to 4.85) with ingenol mebutate (P≤0.001 for all comparisons). No unexpected toxic effects were documented. CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months after the end of treatment in patients with multiple actinic keratosis lesions on the head, 5% fluorouracil cream was the most effective of four field-directed treatments. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02281682.).

Photodynamic therapy versus topical imiquimod versus topical fluorouracil for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma: a single blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Superficial basal-cell carcinoma is most commonly treated with topical non-surgical treatments, such as photodynamic therapy or topical creams. Photodynamic therapy is considered the preferable treatment, although this has not been previously tested in a randomised control trial. We assessed the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy compared with imiquimod or fluorouracil in patients with superficial basal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this single blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled multicentre trial, we enrolled patients with a histologically proven superficial basal-cell carcinoma at seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT; two sessions with an interval of 1 week), imiquimod cream (once daily, five times a week for 6 weeks), or fluorouracil cream (twice daily for 4 weeks). Follow-up was at 3 and 12 months post-treatment. Data were collected by one observer who was blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients free of tumour at both 3 and 12 month follow up. A pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10% was used and modified intention-to-treat analyses were done. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN 79701845). FINDINGS: 601 patients were randomised: 202 to receive MAL-PDT, 198 to receive imiquimod, and 201 to receive fluorouracil. A year after treatment, 52 of 196 patients treated with MAL-PDT, 31 of 189 treated with imiquimod, and 39 of 198 treated with fluorouracil had tumour residue or recurrence. The proportion of patients tumour-free at both 3 and 12 month follow-up was 72.8% (95% CI 66.8-79.4) for MAL-PDT, 83.4% (78.2-88.9) for imiquimod cream, and 80.1% (74.7-85.9) for fluorouracil cream. The difference between imiquimod and MAL-PDT was 10.6% (95% CI 1.5-19.5; p=0.021) and 7.3% (-1.9 to 16.5; p=0.120) between fluorouracil and MAL-PDT, and between fluorouracil and imiquimod was -3.3% (-11.6 to 5.0; p=0.435. For patients treated with MAL-PDT, moderate to severe pain and burning sensation were reported most often during the actual MAL-PDT session. For other local adverse reactions, local skin redness was most often reported as moderate or severe in all treatment groups. Patients treated with creams more often reported moderate to severe local swelling, erosion, crust formation, and itching of the skin than patients treated with MAL-PDT. In the MAL-PDT group no serious adverse events were reported. One patient treated with imiquimod and two patients treated with fluorouracil developed a local wound infection and needed additional treatment in the outpatient setting. INTERPRETATION: Topical fluorouracil was non-inferior and imiquimod was superior to MAL-PDT for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma. On the basis of these findings, imiquimod can be considered the preferred treatment, but all aspects affecting treatment choice should be weighted to select the best treatment for patients. FUNDING: Grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ZONMW (08-82310-98-08626).

Five-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Effectiveness of Photodynamic Therapy, Topical Imiquimod, and Topical 5-Fluorouracil in Patients with Superficial Basal Cell Carcinoma.

For the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma, a prospective, noninferiority, randomized controlled multicenter trial with 601 patients showed that 5% imiquimod cream was superior and 5-fluorouracil cream not inferior to methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) at 1 and 3 years after treatment. No definite conclusion could be drawn regarding the superiority of imiquimod over 5-fluorouracil. We now present the 5-year follow-up results according to the intention-to-treat analysis. Five years after treatment, the probability of tumor-free survival was 62.7% for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (95% confidence interval [CI] = 55.3-69.2), 80.5% for imiquimod (95% CI = 74.0-85.6), and 70.0% for 5-fluorouracil (95% CI = 62.9-76.0). The hazard ratio for treatment failure of imiquimod and 5-fluorouracil were 0.48 (95% CI = 0.32-0.71, P < 0.001) and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.53-1.05, P = 0.09), respectively, when compared with methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy. Compared with 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod showed a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI 0.43-0.98, P = 0.04). In conclusion, 5 years after treatment, the results of this trial show that 5% imiquimod cream is superior to both methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy and 5-fluorouracil cream in terms of efficacy for superficial basal cell carcinoma. We therefore consider 5% imiquimod cream as the first choice for noninvasive treatment in most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas.