The conventional protocol vs. a protocol including illumination with a fabric-based biophotonic device (the Phosistos protocol) in photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: a randomized, controlled, noninferiority clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) using methyl aminolaevulinate is a noninvasive treatment option suitable to treat clinical and subclinical actinic keratosis (AK) over a large area (field cancerization). The most widely used, conventional protocol in Europe includes illumination with a red-light lamp. This illumination commonly causes pain, and patients often cannot complete the treatment. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this paper are twofold. The first aim is to introduce a novel protocol, the Phosistos protocol (P-PDT), which includes illumination with a fabric-based biophotonic device. The second and major aim is to assess the noninferiority, in terms of efficacy for PDT of AK, of P-PDT compared with the conventional protocol (C-PDT). METHODS: A randomized, controlled, multicentre, intraindividual clinical study was conducted. Forty-six patients with grade I-II AK of the forehead and scalp were treated with P-PDT on one area (280 AK lesions) and with C-PDT on the contralateral area (280 AK lesions). The primary end point was the lesion complete response (CR) rate at 3 months, with an absolute noninferiority margin of -10%. Secondary end points included pain scores, incidence of adverse effects and cosmetic outcome. RESULTS: Three months following treatment, the lesion CR rate of P-PDT was noninferior to that of C-PDT (79·3% vs. 80·7%, respectively; absolute difference -1·6%; one-sided 95% confidence interval -4·5% to infinity). The noninferiority of P-PDT to C-PDT in terms of the lesion CR rate remained at the 6-month follow-up (94·2% vs. 94·9%, respectively; absolute difference -0·6%; one-sided 95% confidence interval -2·7% to infinity). Moreover, the pain score at the end of illumination was significantly lower for P-PDT than for C-PDT (mean ± SD 0·3 ± 0·6 vs. 7·4 ± 2·3; P < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: P-PDT is noninferior to C-PDT in terms of efficacy for treating AK of the forehead and scalp and resulted in much lower pain scores and fewer adverse effects. What's already known about this topic? Topical photodynamic therapy using methyl aminolaevulinate is effective for treating actinic keratosis. In Europe, the conventional protocol involves illumination with a red-light lamp. Unfortunately, pain is often experienced by patients undergoing this protocol. An alternative protocol that uses daylight illumination has recently been shown to be as effective as the conventional protocol while being nearly painless. However, this alternative protocol can be conducted only in suitable weather conditions. What does this study add? The Phosistos protocol is demonstrated to be as effective as the conventional protocol, nearly as painless as the daylight protocols and suitable year round for treatment of actinic keratosis.

Photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis of the forehead and scalp: a randomized, controlled, phase II clinical study evaluating the noninferiority of a new protocol involving irradiation with a light-emitting, fabric-based device (the Flexitheralight protocol) compared with the conventional protocol involving irradiation with the Aktilite CL 128 lamp.

BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis (AK), particularly for patients with large areas of field cancerization. Among the approved protocols in Europe, the most widely used requires irradiation with the Aktilite CL 128 lamp. However, pain during irradiation and the suboptimal adaptability of the lamp relative to the treatment area are two limiting factors of this protocol. To overcome these limits, a new protocol (referred to as the Flexitheralight protocol) involving irradiation with a light-emitting, fabric-based device was developed. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to assess the noninferiority, in terms of PDT efficacy for treating AK, of the Flexitheralight protocol compared with the conventional protocol, which requires irradiation with the Aktilite CL 128 lamp. METHODS: A monocentric, randomized, controlled, phase II clinical study was performed. Twenty-five patients with grade I-II AKs of the forehead and scalp were treated with methyl aminolaevulinate PDT in two symmetrical areas. One area was treated with the conventional protocol (n = 154 AKs), whereas the other area was treated with the Flexitheralight protocol (n = 156 AKs). The primary end-point was the lesion complete response (CR) rate at 3 months (an absolute noninferiority margin of -10% was used). The secondary end-points included patient-reported pain at the end of the irradiation. RESULTS: At 3 months, the lesion CR rate with the Flexitheralight protocol was noninferior to that obtained with the conventional protocol (66·0% vs. 59·1%, respectively; absolute difference, 6·9%; 95% confidence interval -0·6% to 14·5%). Patient-reported pain was significantly lower with the Flexitheralight protocol than with the conventional protocol (mean ± SD: 0·4 ± 0·6 vs. 5·0 ± 2·6; P < 0·0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Flexitheralight protocol is noninferior in terms of efficacy and superior in terms of tolerability to the conventional protocol for treating AKs of the forehead and scalp.