|
1.IntroductionIn the past decades, photodynamic therapy (PDT) has gained wide popularity in medicine and in dermatology in particular. Since its introduction, the procedure has evolved in terms of increasing safety and efficacy. Today PDT is used worldwide not only in the field of dermatology but also for adjuvant treatment in lung, brain, esophageal, biliary and urinary tract cancer.1 In dermatology, this method is mainly used as a primary treatment for malignant and premalignant skin lesions, while many other nononcological applications have emerged due to the efforts of different study groups. 1.1.Principle of PDTPDT is based on the photodynamic reaction: use of a light-sensitive substance (a photosensitizer), combined with light of a visible wavelength, to destroy target cells. This toxic biochemical reaction is oxygen-mediated. The photosensitizer absorbs a photon of visible light and then transfers most of the absorbed energy to a molecule of oxygen (Fig. 1). This converts it into a relatively strong oxidizing agent known as singlet oxygen. As a consequence, in the tissues that have accumulated the sensitizer, light-induced singlet oxygen exerts a cytotoxic effect by causing lethal oxidative damage to biologically important structures. The selection of a proper photosensitizer has posed the greatest challenge in the years of PDT development. A substance that is naturally occurring offers a sufficient balance between selective tissue accumulation and relatively short clearance of the body, namely the protoporphyrin IX (PpIX). PpIX is a natural photosensitizer that can be made by the human body and is an intermediate product in the biosynthesis of heme (Fig. 2). It accumulates in rapidly proliferating cells of premalignant and malignant lesions, as well as in other structures, such as blood vessels, melanin, and sebaceous glands. In addition, malignant cells exert reduced ferrochetalase activity, resulting in excessive accumulation of intracellular PpIX.2 In PDT, aminolevulinic acid (ALA) or its methylated derivative—methyl-aminolevulinate (MAL)—is applied to the skin for varying periods of time, thus bypassing the rate-limiting step in the biosynthesis of heme. This leads to the conversion of ALA/MAL to PpIX. The activation of the sensitizer is accomplished by light with a specific wavelength that corresponds to the maximum absorption spectra of the sensitizer. In an ideal situation, the consecutive tissue damage is selective and only the rapidly proliferating tissue with accumulated PpIX will be destroyed with any surrounding tissue damage. 2.Historical PerspectiveIt was 1900 when Raab first reported the destruction of the Paramecium caudatum cells by exposure to combined acridine orange and light.3 In contrast, neither the dye nor the light separately induced the cellular death. In the next decade, the extensive work of von Tappeiner contributed to the development of the concept of PDT. He first studied the photodynamic effect in protozoa by applying aniline dyes and fluorescent light.4 One year later he described the first cases of PDT in humans by using eosin as a photosensitizer to treat a number of conditions such as condylomata lata, lupus vulgaris, and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).5 In the later years, different photosensitizers have been introduced, and hematoporphyrin is probably the most widely studied. However, the clearance of the substance from the tissue was very slow and the phototoxic reaction persisted for a long period of time. In the late 1970s, a new substance was introduced and recently has become a gold standard in the PDT, namely hematoporphyrin purified derivative.6 The photoactivation was performed by visible red light, but again the accumulation in the skin lasted for up to several months. It was Kennedy in 1990 who first used ALA for topical PDT on the skin.7 Due to the low molecular size, ALA easily penetrated the stratum corneum. In addition, it was cleared far more rapidly than the formerly used sensitizers and phototoxicity was observed only several days after the ALA application.7 3.Indications for PDT in DermatologySince its introduction, the list of PDT applications has consistently grown. Indisputably, actinic keratoses and NMSC have been the most widely used, so they will be the focus of this paper. A list of the current PDT applications is provided in Table 1. Table 1Applications of PDT in dermatology.
Beyond therapeutic indications, the selective accumulation of the photosensitizer is used in the so-called fluorescent diagnostics. In this setting, the skin area of interest is illuminated by ultraviolet light (most often by using a Wood lamp) which allows the visualization of the accumulated sensitizer in the skin. The method is used in preoperative planning for the exact delineation of the tumor borders as well for control of anti-cancer therapies.8,9 4.Factors in PDT4.1.SensitizerAlthough the substances (ALA and MAL) used for local PDT in dermatology are generally referred to as photosensitizers, they are prodrugs. Once delivered to the viable epidermis, ALA/MAL is converted to PpIX, which is the endogenous photactivating agent. Within the next 24 to 48 h, PpIX is transformed to the photodynamically inactive heme.10 -5-ALA is a low molecular weight, hydrophilic molecule that can penetrate the stratum corneum and then can be included in the biosynthesis pathway of heme [Fig. 3(a)]. In the United States, ALA is marketed as 20% topical solution of hydrochloride salt. A variety of custom-made preparations as emulsions and gels are available in practice. In addition, further substances can enhance the accumulation of PpIX, such as desferrioxamine, and the adding of DMSO and EDTA to ALA can enhance the penetration of the precursor.11 Esters of ALA are more commonly used in Europe. They are lipophilic derivates of ALA, which allows enhanced penetration through the lipid bilayers of the horny layer.12 It has been shown that MAL [Fig. 3(b)] possesses better tumor selectivity and less patient discomfort compared to ALA.13 Sixteen percent MAL cream is registered in both the United States and Europe. During photodynamic diagnosis, MAL provided higher tumor contrast than ALA in basal cell carcinoma visualization.14 The authors concluded that MAL should be preferred for use in fluorescence diagnostics. In recent years, new systems to carry sensitizers to the cells have been developed, such as nanostructural materials, polymeric and liposomal formulations of the sensitizers, and lipid nano-carrier-mediated nuclear targeting carriers.15 The list of substances applied in PDT is increasing and includes chlorins, bacteriochlorins, auxins, pheophorbides, purpurins, phthalocyanines, and naphthalocyanines.16,17 4.2.Light SourceDifferent light sources of coherent (lasers) or incoherent origin are applied in PDT. Coherence is lost within the first millimeters of penetration into the skin;18 therefore, the use of such light sources is not an obligatory prerequisite. Furthermore the use of lasers is more expensive and can be related to some difficulties during the exploitation.19 Incoherent light sources remain the golden standard for PDT, including a variety of broadband lamps, light-emitting diodes, and intense pulsed light systems. Table 2 summarizes the reports in the literature data about the light intensity and dosing in PDT with incoherent light sources. Beyond blue and red light, green and white light sources have also been occasionally reported in PDT.19 Table 2Light dose and intensity for incoherent light sources for PDT.
Porphyrins exhibit peak absorption at approximately 405 nm (Soret band; blue light spectrum) as well as several bands with absorption peaks in the red light spectrum. Red light exhibits deeper penetration profiles in the skin, therefore it is the only light approved for PDT of skin tumors.16 A recently developed protocol proposed the so-called daylight-mediated PDT for actinic keratoses.20 In this setting, MAL is applied on the entire affected skin field and the patients are exposed to daylight with no further illumination with artificial light sources. A randomized multicenter study showed that this method is efficient even after a single treatment session.20 A natural daylight exposure of an hour and a half was sufficient to gain efficacy. Thin lesions responded better than the moderate and thick actinic keratoses. 5.Adverse Events in PDTPDT is generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events include pain and a burning sensation limited to the term of the irradiation and several hours afterwards. Larger irradiation areas and sites with rich innervation, e.g., the head, hands, and perineum, are associated with greater pain sensation.13 A correlation between pain and the dose/intensity of the used light was also evidenced.13,21 Pain is greater in a second session compared with the first as shown by a single study.22 This could potentially cause a decrease in the patient’s compliance. Different strategies for decreasing the pain in PDT have been proposed. Table 3 summarizes the pain management strategies. Table 3Pain management strategies in PDT.
Further local adverse events include erythema, edema, erosions, aseptic pustulosis, necrosis of the tumor, scarring, hyper- and hypopigmentation, and loss of hair. Several cases of contact allergic dermatitis to ALA23 and MAL24 have been described. Two reports describe possible coincidental association of PDT with carcinogenicity.25 Experimental studies in mice showed that repetitive treatments with ALA-PDT even delay photo-induced carcinogenesis.26 6.Future of PDTIn the past century, PDT has been established as a safe, efficacious, and generally well-tolerated therapeutic method in dermatology. Today, devices for performing PDT in ambulatory settings are available. In our view, the five-year perspectives for PDT can be summarized into the following fields:
The constant and dynamic development of novelties in the field is a certain guarantee for the future of PDT in dermatology. ReferencesP. Babilaset al.,
“Photodynamic therapy in dermatology: state-of-the-art,”
Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed., 26
(3), 118
–132
(2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0781 PPPHEW 0905-4383 Google Scholar
D. Toumaet al.,
“A trial of short incubation, broad-area photodynamic therapy for facial actinic keratoses and diffuse photodamage,”
Arch. Dermatol., 140
(1), 33
–40
(2004). http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archderm.140.1.33 ARDEAC 0003-987X Google Scholar
O. Raab,
“Ueber die wirkung fluoreszierenden stoffe auf infusorien,”
Z. Biol., 39 524
–526
(1900). Google Scholar
H. V. TappeinerA. Jodblauer,
“Uber die wirkung der photodynamischen (fluorescierenden) staffe auf protozoan und enzyme,”
Dtsch. Arch. Klin. Med., 80 427
–487
(1904). Google Scholar
A. JesionekH. V. Tappeiner,
“Behandlung der hautcarcinome nut fluorescierenden stoffen,”
Dtsch. Arch. Klin. Med., 85 223
–227
(1905). Google Scholar
T. J. Doughertyet al.,
“Photoradiation therapy for the treatment of malignant tumors,”
Cancer Res., 38
(8), 2628
–2635
(1978). CNREA8 0008-5472 Google Scholar
J. C. KennedyR. H. PottierD. C. Pross,
“Photodynamic therapy with endogenous protoporphyrin IX: basic principles and present clinical experience,”
J. Photochem. Photobiol. B, 6
(1–2), 143
–148
(1990). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1011-1344(90)85083-9 JPPBEG 1011-1344 Google Scholar
E. TierneyJ. PetersenC. W. Hanke,
“Photodynamic diagnosis of tumor margins using methyl aminolevulinate before Mohs micrographic surgery,”
J. Am. Acad. Dermatol., 64
(5), 911
–918
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.03.045 JAADDB 0190-9622 Google Scholar
J. TyrrellS. CampbellA. Curnow,
“Validation of a non-invasive fluorescence imaging system to monitor dermatological PDT,”
Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther., 7
(2), 86
–97
(2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2010.03.002 1572-1000 Google Scholar
E. S. MarmurC. D. SchmultsD. J. Goldberg,
“A review of laser and photodynamic therapy for the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer,”
Dermatol. Surg., 30
(Pt. 2), 264
–271
(2004). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dsu.2004.30.issue-s2 1076-0512 Google Scholar
K. KalkaH. MerkH. Mukhtar,
“Photodynamic therapy in dermatology,”
J. Am. Acad. Dermatol., 42
(3), 389
–413
(2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0190-9622(00)90209-3 JAADDB 0190-9622 Google Scholar
N. Fotinoset al.,
“5-Aminolevulinic acid derivatives in photomedicine: Characteristics, application and perspectives,”
Photochem. Photobiol., 82
(4), 994
–1015
(2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1562/2006-02-03-IR-794 PHCBAP 0031-8655 Google Scholar
Y. N. Chaveset al.,
“Pain in photodynamic therapy: mechanism of action and management strategies,”
An. Bras. Dermatol., 87
(4), 521
–529
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0365-05962012000400001 0365-0596 Google Scholar
C. Sandberget al.,
“Fluorescence diagnostics of basal cell carcinomas comparing methyl-aminolaevulinate and aminolaevulinic acid and correlation with visual clinical tumor size,”
Acta Derm. Venereol., 91
(4), 398
–403
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/00015555-1068 0001-5555 Google Scholar
M. KepczynskiM. DzieciuchM. Nowakowska,
“Nanostructural hybrid sensitizers for photodynamic therapy,”
Curr. Pharm. Des., 18
(18), 2607
–2621
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/138161212800492877 1381-6128 Google Scholar
C. A. Mortonet al.,
“Guidelines for topical photodynamic therapy: report of a workshop of the British Photodermatology Group,”
Br. J. Dermatol., 146
(4), 552
–567
(2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.04719.x BJDEAZ 1365-2133 Google Scholar
S. Y. Huhet al.,
“The effect of photodynamic therapy using indole-3-acetic acid and green light on acne vulgaris,”
Ann. Dermatol., 24
(1), 56
–60
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.5021/ad.2012.24.1.56 ANDEEM Google Scholar
R. M. Szeimieset al.,
“A possible new incoherent lamp for photodynamic treatment of superficial skin lesions,”
Acta Derm. Venereol., 74
(2), 117
–119
(1994). ADVEA4 0001-5555 Google Scholar
P. BabilasM. LandthalerR. M. Szeimies,
“Photodynamic therapy in dermatology,”
Eur. J. Dermatol., 16
(4), 340
–348
(2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0190-9622(00)90209-3 EJDEE4 1167-1122 Google Scholar
S. R. Wiegellet al.,
“Daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy of moderate to thick actinic keratoses of the face and scalp: a randomized multicentre study,”
Br. J. Dermatol., 166
(6), 1327
–1332
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.2012.166.issue-6 BJDEAZ 1365-2133 Google Scholar
P. Babilaset al.,
“Variable pulsed light is less painful than light-emitting diodes for topical photodynamic therapy of actinic keratosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial,”
Br. J. Dermatol., 157
(1), 111
–117
(2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.2007.157.issue-1 BJDEAZ 1365-2133 Google Scholar
D. R. Leffet al.,
“The effect of local cooling on pain perception during infiltration of local anesthetic agents, a prospective randomized controlled trial,”
Anesthesia, 62
(7), 677
–682
(2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ana.2007.62.issue-7 0003-2409 Google Scholar
H. C. WulfP. Philipsen,
“Allergic contact dermatitis to 5-aminolaevulinic acid methylester but not to 5-aminolaevulinic acid after photodynamic therapy,”
Br. J. Dermatol., 150
(1), 143
–145
(2004). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.2004.150.issue-1 BJDEAZ 1365-2133 Google Scholar
J. M. Jungerstedet al.,
“Allergic reactions to Metvix (ALA-ME),”
Contact Dermatitis., 58
(3), 184
–186
(2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cod.2008.58.issue-3 CODEDG 0105-1873 Google Scholar
P. BabilasR. M. Szeimies,
“The use of photodynamic therapy in dermatology,”
G. Ital. Dermatol. Venereol., 145
(5), 613
–630
(2010). GIDVDZ 0392-0488 Google Scholar
I. M. Stenderet al.,
“Photodynamic therapy with topical delta-aminolevulinic acid delays UV photocarcinogenesis in hairless mice,”
Photochem. Photobiol., 66
(4), 493
–496
(1997). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/php.1997.66.issue-4 PHCBAP 0031-8655 Google Scholar
L. R. Braathenet al.,
“Photodynamic therapy for skin field cancerization: an international consensus. International Society for Photodynamic Therapy in Dermatology,”
J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol., 26
(9), 1063
–1066
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdv.2012.26.issue-9 JEAVEQ 0926-9959 Google Scholar
N. KashefG. R. Sharif AbadiG. E. Djavid,
“Phototoxicity of phenothiazinium dyes against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli,”
Photodiagn. Photodyn Ther., 9
(1), 11
–15
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2011.11.004 1572-1000 Google Scholar
|