Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Feb;156(2):320-8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07616.x.

Treatment of post-transplant premalignant skin disease: a randomized intrapatient comparative study of 5-fluorouracil cream and topical photodynamic therapy

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Treatment of post-transplant premalignant skin disease: a randomized intrapatient comparative study of 5-fluorouracil cream and topical photodynamic therapy

C M Perrett et al. Br J Dermatol. 2007 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Organ transplant recipients (OTR) are at high risk of developing nonmelanoma skin cancer and premalignant epidermal dysplasia (carcinoma in situ/ Bowen's disease and actinic keratoses). Epidermal dysplasia is often widespread and there are few comparative studies of available treatments.

Objectives: To compare topical methylaminolaevulinate (MAL) photodynamic therapy (PDT) with topical 5% fluorouracil (5-FU) cream in the treatment of post-transplant epidermal dysplasia.

Methods: Eight OTRs with epidermal dysplasia were recruited to an open-label, single-centre, randomized, intrapatient comparative study. Treatment with two cycles of topical MAL PDT 1 week apart was randomly assigned to one area of epidermal dysplasia, and 5-FU cream was applied twice daily for 3 weeks to a clinically and histologically comparable area. Patients were reviewed at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment. The main outcome measures were complete resolution rate (CRR), overall reduction in lesional area, treatment-associated pain and erythema, cosmetic outcome and global patient preference.

Results: At all time points evaluated after completion of treatment, PDT was more effective than 5-FU in achieving complete resolution: eight of nine lesional areas cleared with PDT (CRR 89%, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99), compared with one of nine lesional areas treated with 5-FU (CRR 11%, 95% CI: 0.003-0.48) (P = 0.02). The mean lesional area reduction was also proportionately greater with PDT than with 5-FU (100% vs. 79% respectively). Cosmetic outcome and patient preference were also superior in the PDT-treated group.

Conclusions: Compared with topical 5-FU, MAL PDT was a more effective and cosmetically acceptable treatment for epidermal dysplasia in OTRs and was preferred by patients. Further studies are now required to confirm these results and to examine the effect of treating epidermal dysplasia with PDT on subsequent development of squamous cell carcinoma in this high risk population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Complete resolution rate (CRR) for topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) and topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) at 1, 3 and 6 months of follow up.
Fig 2
Fig 2
(a) Actinic keratoses on dorsum of left hand prior to treatment with 5-fluorouracil cream. (b) Complete resolution of actinic keratoses at 6 months following treatment.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Mean lesional area before and 6 months after treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and photodynamic therapy (PDT).
Fig 4
Fig 4
Carcinoma in situ (a) before and (b) 6 months after topical treatment with photodynamic therapy with methylaminolaevulinate.
Fig 5
Fig 5
Overall cosmetic outcome following treatment with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU).
Fig 6
Fig 6
Mean daily pain scores for lesions treated with topical photodynamic therapy (PDT, dashed line) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU, solid line) based on a four-point visual analogue scale (0-3).
Fig 7
Fig 7
Mean daily erythema scores for lesions treated with topical photodynamic therapy (PDT, dashed line) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU, solid line) based on a four-point visual analogue scale (0-3).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Penn I. Incidence and treatment of neoplasia after transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1993;12:S328–36. - PubMed
    1. Euvrard S, Kanitakis J, Claudy A. Skin cancers after organ transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1681–91. - PubMed
    1. Jensen P, Hansen S, Moller B, et al. Skin cancer in kidney and heart transplant recipients and different long-term immunosuppressive therapy regimens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40:177–86. - PubMed
    1. Hartevelt MM, Bavinck JN, Koote AM, et al. Incidence of skin cancer after renal transplantation in The Netherlands. Transplantation. 1990;49:506–9. - PubMed
    1. Ramsay HM, Fryer AA, Hawley CM, et al. Non-melanoma skin cancer risk in the Queensland renal transplant population. Br J Dermatol. 2002;147:950–6. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms