Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 1 Photodynamic Therapy for Field Cancerization in the Skin: Where Do We Stand? Katerina Bakirtzi1, Ilias Papadimitriou1, Efstratios Vakirlis1, Aimilios Lallas1, Eleni Sotiriou1 1 First Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Key words: actinic keratosis, photodynamic therapy, skin field cancerization Citation: Bakirtzi K, Papadimitriou I, Vakirlis E, Lallas A, Sotiriou E. Photodynamic Therapy for Field Cancerization in the Skin: Where Do We Stand? Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1304a291 Accepted: May 29, 2023; Published: October 2023 Copyright: ©2023 Bakirtzi et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Funding: None. Competing Interests: None. Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication. Corresponding Author: Bakirtzi Katerina, MSc, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Delfon 124, Thessaloniki, P.O. 54643, Greece. Email: bakirtzicatherine@hotmail.com Introduction: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with a photosensitizer is available for the treatment of multiple actinic keratoses (AKs) in a restricted skin area or, as it is established, for the field-cancerized skin. Objectives: Our review aims to present the up-to-date literature on skin field cancerization using PDT employing different topical photosensitizers, modified light delivery protocols and combination treatments to obtain excellent efficacy and safety in everyday clinical practice. Methods: We sought PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, OVID, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Research Gate and Google Scholar for [(aminolevulinic acid OR aminolevulinate) AND photodynamic therapy] with (field-directed OR field cancerization, (actinic keratosis), and (efficacy OR effectiveness OR pain OR tolerability) for studies published until February 2023. Results: Advantages of PDT compared to the other field treatments, including imiquimod, 5-fluorouracil, ingenol mebutate gel and diclofenac, reported better cosmetic outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. On the other hand, some drawbacks of field PDT include pain and treatment duration. Alternate illumination methods have also been investigated, including daylight as a light source. Pretreating the affected area may enhance photosensitizer absorption leading to better ther- apeutic results, while combinational treatments have also been tested. Patients prefer daylight PDT to traditional light sources since it is more well-tolerated and equally effective. Even as a preventive treatment, field PDT yields promising outcomes, especially for high-risk individuals, including organ transplant recipients. Conclusions: This review provides a thorough display of the field of PDT on cancerized skin, which will facilitate physicians in applying PDT more efficiently and intuitively. ABSTRACT 2 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 Introduction The permutation of light and chemical agents for managing disorders has its origins in ancient times when the ancient Egyptians and Indians first utilized psoralen to cure the de- pigmentation of vitiligo under sun exposure [1,2]. In 1903, Niels Finsen won Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his achievements in this niche. The same year, Von Tappeiner combined light and organic dye eosin for skin cancer treat- ment giving this therapy the name “photodynamic action”, which was the ancestor of modern photodynamic therapy (PDT) [1]. Since the skin is the body organ exposed to the environ- ment and, thereby, to light, dermatology is an area with a plethora of prospects for PDT application, from acne treat- ment to skin cancer [3,4]. Skin cancer is generally subgrouped into melanoma skin cancer (MSC) and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). MSCs are highly malignant with metastasis potential but are not indicated of PDT. NMSC is universally the most common variant, with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) accounting for 75%-80% of all cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) [5]. Actinic keratoses (AKs) are con- sidered a precancerous type of cutaneous SCC, with a con- siderably varying risk of malignant transformation assessed between 0.025%-16%. Male sex, older age, and Fitzpatrick I or II phototype skin are predisposing risk factors for AK formation, mainly in patients with chronic exposure to ultra- violet (UVB) radiation and in areas with extensive sunlight exposure such as the face, the hairless scalp, neck and the dorsal extremities [6]. The concept of field cancerization was first introduced by Slaughter et al in 1953 when they detected histologically atypical cells around oral squamous cell carcinoma [7]. Cur- rently, the term skin field cancerization is applied to the skin area clinically with or adjoining to AK on the ground of photodamaged skin. For the diagnosis, a minimum of two of the following signs should be present: telangiectasia, at- rophy, pigmentation disorders, and “sandpaper” texture. It is not yet specified whether a visible AK is required for the definition [8]. Nevertheless, field-directed treatment is highly recommended for patients with extensive AKs in large skin areas. For this purpose, various modalities are available, in- cluding surgical excision, cryotherapy, curettage, PDT, and topical agents, such as 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod, ingenol mebutate, and diclofenac [9]. Photodynamic therapy is currently considered an effi- cient method for AK and field cancerization [3]. Its mode of action relies on visible light that interacts with photosen- sitizing chemical agents, specifically the 5-aminolevulinic acid ALA and methyl-aminolevulinate MAL. Both prodrugs promote protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) production and induce its accumulation because of cells distorted uptake. The re- action of light and photosensitizing compounds generates active oxygen species, which stimulate the apoptotic process of skin cancer cells [10]. Another novel modality, daylight PDT (DL-PDT), gains ground for treating AKs as more ap- pealing, equally beneficial in many cases, well-tolerated, and convenient. It is irrelevant to light-emitting diode (LED) light compared to conventional PDT (C-PDT) since it entails di- rect exposure to daylight [11]. Objectives Given the rapid expansion of PDT and skin cancer in the latest years, reviewing its present application in field can- cerization and condensing future research trends would be conducive for healthcare professionals. Building on this concept, we gleaned from the international literature the rel- evant studies and included any available information that would promote the clinical practice and assist investigators in swiftly grasp the progress trends in the field. Methods For this review, we searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, OVID, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane library, Research Gate and Google Scholar. The search terms were [(aminolevulinic acid OR aminolevuli- nate) AND photodynamic therapy] with (field-directed OR field cancerization, (actinic keratosis), and (efficacy OR ef- fectiveness OR pain OR tolerability). Studies were included from inception to February 2023. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective studies, and randomized com- parison studies involving patients with skin field canceriza- tion that had undergone photodynamic therapy, including MAL-PDT, ALA-PDT, C-PDT, DL-PDT, ablative fractional laser resurfacing (AFXL)-PDT, and MAL-DL-PDT. Data extraction was performed individually for each intervention. The pertinent information obtained from each study was: the first author; year of publication; type of study; type of PDT intervention; the number of patients; demographics of patients; skin phototype; and treatment outcomes. The search included exclusively English-language academic papers. The reference list of the shortlisted articles has also been examined for supplementary studies. This re- view paper is based on formerly conducted studies and does not encompass any novel trials with human participants or animals conducted by any of the authors. The study has been designed, and the results have been described as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 3 Our literature search yielded 143 studies. After excluding case reports, systematic reviews, duplicate studies, studies that did not present any relevant data or did not conform to the inclusion or exclusion criteria, and studies that referred to individual lesions and not to field cancerized skin and treatment other than photodynamic therapy, we ended up with 33 studies (Figure 1). Results The annual timeline analysis illustrates an overall escalating trend in the number of publications, which reveals that PDT on skin field cancerization attracts the increasing interest of the dermatological community (Figure 2). Up to 2023, a to- tal of 193 articles and reviews were linked to PDT in skin Records identified from: Medline, Embase, Cochrane (n = 296) Other sources (n = 6) Records removed before screening: Duplicate records removed (n = 0) Records screened (n = 302) Records excluded (n = 21) Reports sought for retrieval (n = 281) Reports not retrieved (n = 126) Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 155) Reports excluded after quality assessement (n = 122) Studies included in review (n = 33) Id en tif ica tio nt Sc re en in g In clu de Figure 1. Flow chart of search results and study selection. Figure 2. Scientific papers for photodynamic therapy in skin field cancerization published until 2023. 4 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 cost-effective [21]. A phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial examined the efficacy of field-directed treatment with 10% BF-200 ALA gel and red-light PDT in 87 patients with mild-to-moderate AKs of the face and/or scalp. After 12 weeks of the PDT treat- ment, field-directed PDT obtained complete lesion clearance in 91% of BF-200 ALA-treated patients compared to 22% of vehicle-treated patients [20]. A randomized, double-blind trial compared the efficacy and safety of ALA- and MAL- PDT for the treatment of cancerized skin on the scalp. It con- cluded that both therapies led to a noteworthy decrease in scalp AKs without one overpowering the other. Nevertheless, the authors noted that ALA-PDT seemed more painful than MAL-PDT in extensive scalp premalignant lesions [22]. One of the earliest trials in the field showed a substantial delay in the onset and a reduction in the number of new lesions when field therapy with ALA-PDT was applied to patients with significant field changes [23]. Relevant results, though, were also reported in another similar study where MAL-PDT was used [24]. When compared to other treatment modalities for skin field cancerization, the lesion-specific clearance for MAL-PDT was significantly higher than other regimens, including ingenol mebutate, diclofenac plus hyaluronate gel, and imiquimod cream. It was also proved that MAL- PDT improved all the traits of chronic photodamage in the dermis underlying and adjacent to the AK lesions [25]. Sotiriou et al. also showed that MAL-PDT provides superior outcomes for the prevention of AK development in patients with field changes after 12 months of follow-up [26]. On the other hand, in a single-blind randomized trial involving four Dutch hospitals, a total of 624 patients with at least five AKs within an area of 25 to 100 cm2 on the head were recruited and assigned to either MAL-PDT, imiquimod, ingenol me- butate or 5% fluorouracil cream treatment branches. The study concluded that, after 12 months post treatment, 5% fluorouracil cream surpassed the other three field-directed treatments in efficacy [27]. Based on the conventional ALA-PDT, daylight PDT is considered to be more favorable for mild-to-moderate mul- tiple precancerous lesions, demonstrating better patient ad- herence and moderately low variability in results [28-31]. Although in some cases, for example, when compared to ingenol mebutate, the clearance rates could be fairly infe- rior, patients still prefer D-PDT due to the almost pain-free sessions and superior cosmetic results [32]. In a large mul- ticenter study including 145 patients with various severity AK grades (I-III), it was found that lesion response rate was notably higher in grade I lesions (75.9%) than in grade II (61.2%) and grade III (49.1%) lesions, whereas most grade II and III AKs (86% and 94%, respectively) were in com- plete response or downgraded at follow-up [33]. Regarding cancer. Skin field cancerization is distinguished by the pres- ence of premalignant and, potentially, cancerous lesions over a limited skin area [9]. In everyday clinical practice, such lesions may not be readily noticeable, or an indication of less extensive and severe lesions could be observed. It has been well documented that sunlight is of key importance for the early development of AK since it promotes mutations in the p53 tumor suppression gene [12]. These mutations are not limited to visible lesions but are also present in sun-exposed skin, where subclinical lesions may occur [13]. Therefore, field-cancerized skin displays identical genetic modifications observed in the malignant lesions. To this extent, treating such lesions is crucial for malignant inhibition, and photo- dynamic therapy plays a significant role to this end. In the absence of a robust way to reliably detect subclin- ical damage of the skin or AKs with potential future ma- lignant transformation, it would be a reasonable approach to treat the entire area of cancerized skin simultaneously with the individual lesions. Surgical treatment is not feasi- ble when an extensive body surface area is involved. On the other hand, topical therapies are often not preferred at some point by patients due to the intense local skin reaction to the drug compound or the lengthy therapeutic course [14]. Under these circumstances, PDT could be considered a com- plementary or alternative treatment to improve the quality of life and anticipate the undesirable evolvement of the pre- cancerous lesions. Photodynamic therapy is currently approved for the treatment of AK and field cancerized skin in the U.S.A., Canada, and the European Union, as well as in other countries of the world. The histological improvement in field cancerization after PDT, expressed by less severe and exten- sive keratinocyte atypia, is a fact, while the remarkable rise of new collagen deposition and the decrease of solar elastosis explain the clinical upgrading of photodamaged skin [15]. Nevertheless, which photosensitizer works best remains inconclusive. Various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that MAL- and BF-200 ALA-PDT are sufficiently effective in the complete clearance of treated lesions and cosmetic re- sults. However, the use of BF-200 ALA seems to be more well-tolerated for patients. Additionally, it yields superior cosmetic outcomes, is less painful, and has a better over- all therapeutic response rate (RR) compared to MAL-PDT [16-21]. After twelve weeks, Dirschka et al showed that BF- 200 ALA gel resulted in an almost 20% recurrence rate of AKs in the cancerized field, while the relevant percentage for MAL-PDT was 31.6% [19]. In a similar multicenter study, where authors compared MAL- and BF-200 ALA PDT in grade I-II AK lesions, BF-200 ALA provided a complete clearance (CR) rate of nearly 80% and MAL-PDT a little over 70%. At the same time, it was also proved to be more Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 5 penetration into the skin. The findings favored PDT with microneedling, as it generated superior cosmetic outcomes to conventional MAL-PDT for refining photodamaged skin [38]. Vrani et al used ablative CO2 fractional laser prior to MAL-PDT treatment with 1-hour incubation in 42 patients with two mirror cancerized areas of the face or scalp and compared it to conventional PDT [43]. After one year of follow-up, the CO2 fractional laser pretreatment results were equivalent to those of the conventional PDT while allowing for reduced photosensitizer occlusion time, results that were in line with previous studies [43,44]. Pires et al. added acous- tic pressure wave ultrasound to the CO2-assisted MAL-PDT with a short incubation time for field cancerization. Overall, 638 AKs in 15 patients were treated either with MAL-PDT alone or with CO2 and acoustic wave ultrasound pretreat- ment. The efficacy of the novel protocol was reported to be equivalent to the conventional MAL-PDT [42]. A randomized split-scalp study by Torezan et al sug- gested that topical application of calcipotriol could improve the efficiency of MAL-PDT by 30%, potentially because of the elevated PpIX levels [39]. A bilaterally controlled trial of 17 patients proved that the pretreatment of skin areas with 5-FU for 6 days increased the PpIX levels two- to three-fold nearly after MAL-PDT leading to complete clearance by both enhanced photosensitizer accumulation and induction of p53 [41]. With the application of 5-FU prior to PDT field treatment, the relative clearance rates of MAL-PDT increased from 45% to 75% at 3 months and from 39% to 67% at 6 months, respectively [41]. A study of 58 patients showed that vitamin D3 deficiency could be an aggravating factor regarding the efficacy of PDT, leading to a reduction of ef- fectiveness by nearly 20%. Meanwhile, the administration of high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation (10,000 IU daily for 5 or 14 days) before PDT treatment significantly increased the response rates from 54.4% to 72.5% [40]. A recent study tested the efficacy of three physical pre- treatment interventions compared to the standard treatment using daylight PDT. Forty patients were allocated either to standard DL-PDT, DL-PDT with microneedling, DL-PDT with CO2 laser or DL-PDT with microdermabrasion. When DL-PDT was combined with physical methods, it provided better clinical and histologic outcomes. The clearance of AKs was significantly greater 1 and 3 months post treat- ment with the employment of CO2 laser. Photorejuvenation was more apparent with CO2 laser and microdermabrasion pretreatment. However, only CO2 laser offered a substan- tial decrease in solar elastosis and an increase in collagen type 1 [45].  Especially when it comes to organ-transplant recipients with resistant to conventional PDT lesions, add- ing ablative fractional laser along with DL-PDT increases the clearance rates with excellent tolerability than DL-PDT and conventional PDT alone [46]. The regimens mentioned the other PDT modalities, Sotiriou et al indicated that, when actinic skin field damage is present, the DL-PDT is the treat- ment of choice among patients, given the comparable effi- cacy that it demonstrates when compared to conventional PDT [30]. One of the first studies carried out on this topic was a phase III, randomized, non-inferiority trial through- out Europe including 96 participants with multiple facial or/and scalp AKs. The findings of this study proved that DL-PDT compared with conventional PDT, was equally beneficial, better tolerated and virtually painless, with great patient satisfaction [31]. An intra-individual study includ- ing fifty patients from six centers in Germany showed that BF- 200 ALA daylight PDT provided better results than the vehicle regarding the overall lesion clearance rates (86.0% versus 32.9%) to CR (67.3% versus 12.2%) on extremities, trunk, and neck. In the meantime, BF-200 ALA DL-PDT had a lower 12-month total lesion recurrence rate (14.1% versus 27.4%), better cosmetic outcome, and was more well-tolerated [34]. In a single-centre, intraindividual, retro- spective study, 19 patients with multiple AKs in the face and scalp received a combination of ALA-PDT and DL-PDT. The results were compared to those of the area that underwent only DL-PDT. The outcomes favoured the combined treat- ment regarding the clearance rates of AK lesions, whereas the pain was reported to be mild to moderate through red light illumination [35]. In a multicenter, prospective study in Spain, 43 patients with grade I-II AKs on the head ini- tially underwent a session with DL-PDT. After one month of follow-up, participants without a satisfactory therapeutic outcome were randomized either to receive a second session of DL-PDT or to be treated with imiquimod. After one year, clearance rates were higher in the arm of two sessions of DL-PDT monotherapy than that of sequential DL-PDT plus imiquimod (75.2% versus 54.6%, respectively) [36]. The combination of PDT with other treatments, such as cryosurgery, laser application, topical regimens or mi- croneedling, seems to have a synergic action and enhance the therapeutic effect of the respective monotherapy without causing the patients additional discomfort [37-43]. The Mi- croneedle Photodynamic Therapy II trial was a randomized, single-blinded, split-face controlled, 2-arm clinical study where 32 patients with AKs on the face were randomized into two incubations arms, either 10- or 20-minute ALA in- cubation times, after pretreatment with a microneedle roller or a sham roller. The study results showed that PDT with microneedling pretreatment at a 20-minute ALA incubation time demonstrated equivalent efficacy regarding AK clear- ance compared to that of a conventional 1-hour ALA in- cubation time. The further benefit of accelerated treatment was that the procedure was almost painless [37]. In a similar study, Torezan et al combined microneedling or ablative car- bon dioxide lasers with MAL-PDT to increase photosensitizer 6 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 Ta b le 1 . C ha ra ct er is ti cs o f st ud ie s an d m ai n ou tc om es . + Fi rs t A u th o r/ Ye ar o f p u b lic at io n Ty p e o f st u d y In te rv en ti o n N u m b er o f p at ie n ts Ti m e o f as se ss em en t C o m p le te C le ar an ce in % (U n le ss in d ic at ed o th er w is e) D ir sc hk a et a l, 20 13 Tw o pr os pe ct iv e ra nd om iz ed co nt ro lle d ph as e II I tr ia ls M A L -P D T v er su s B F- 20 0 A L A 48 2 6 an d 12 m on th s M A L -P D T: 3 6% a nd B F- 2 00 A L A : 4 7% Se rr a- G ui llé n et a l, 20 18 R an do m iz ed in tr ai nd iv id ua l co m pa ra ti ve M A L -P D T v er su s B F- 20 0 A L A 25 1 m on th M A L -P D T: 56 % a nd B F- 2 00 A L A : 6 2% N ei tt aa nm äk i P er tt u et a l, 20 14 R an do m iz ed d ou bl e- bl in de d no n- sp on so re d pr os pe ct iv e M A L -P D T v er su s B F- 20 0 A L A 13 3 m on th s M A L PD T: 7 4. 2% a nd B F- 20 0 A L A : 8 4. 5% D ir sc hk a et a l, 20 18 R an do m iz ed in tr a- in di vi du al no n- in fe ri or it y ph as e II I D L -M A L - PD T v er su s B F- 20 0 A L A D L -P D T 52 12 w ee ks B F- 20 0 A L A D L -P D T: 7 9. 8% a nd M A L -D L -P D T: 7 6. 5% R ei nh ol d et a l, 20 16 R an do m iz ed , d ou bl e- bl in d, ph as e II I, m ul ti ce nt re B F- 20 0 A L A c om bi ne d w it h th e B F- R ho do L E D v er su s pl ac eb o 55 p at ie nt s re ce iv ed B F- 20 0 A L A , 3 2 re ce iv ed p la ce bo 3 m on th s w it h a po te nt ia l o f an ad di ti on al P D T s es si on B F- 20 0 A L A : 9 1% a nd pl ac eb o:  2 2% R äs än en e t al , 2 01 9 N on -s po ns or ed , p ro sp ec ti ve ra nd om iz ed d ou bl e- bl in d m ul ti ce nt re B F- 20 0 A L A v er su s M A L in D L -P D T 69 12 m on th s B F- 20 0 A L A D L -P D T: 7 9. 7% a nd M A L D L -P D T: 7 3. 5% M ol on ey e t al , 2 00 7 R an do m iz ed , d ou bl e- bl in d, pr os pe ct iv e M A L -P D T v er su s A L A -P D T 15 1 m on th M ea n re du ct io n fr om b as el in e in A K co un ts w it h A L A -P D T: 6 .2 + /- 1 .9 an d M A L -P D T: 5 .6 + /- 3 .2 A pa lla e t al , 2 01 0 R an do m iz ed pl ac eb o- co nt ro lle d A L A -P D T v er su s pl ac eb o 39 12 m on th s A L A -P D T: 6 4% a nd p la ce bo : 2 6% K le in pe nn in g et a l, 20 10 C om pa ra ti ve t o ba se lin e M A L -P D T 14 3 m on th s 42 .9 % A ri si e t al , 2 02 0 R an do m iz ed , c oh or t M A L -P D T, in ge no l m eb ut at e ge l a nd di cl of en ac p lu s hy al ur on at e ge l 90 p at ie nt s, 3 0 in e ac h co ho rt 90 d ay s M A L -P D T: 2 3. 07 % , in ge no l m eb ut at e: 3 0% a nd di cl of en ac p lu s hy al ur on at e: 1 4. 28 % So ti ri ou e t al , 2 01 5 R an do m iz ed in tr ai nd iv id ua l co m pa ri so n M A L -P D T v er su s. I m iq ui m od 5 % 44 12 m on th s N o st at is ti ca lly s ig ni fic an t di ff er en ce be tw ee n th e tw o m ir ro re d fie ld s re ga rd in g th e de ve lo pm en t of n ew le si on s. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 7 + Fi rs t A u th o r/ Ye ar o f p u b lic at io n Ty p e o f st u d y In te rv en ti o n N u m b er o f p at ie n ts Ti m e o f as se ss em en t C o m p le te C le ar an ce in % (U n le ss in d ic at ed o th er w is e) Ja ns en e t al , 2 01 9 R an do m iz ed , m ul ti ce nt er 5% fl uo ro ur ac il, 5 % im iq ui m od , M A L -P D T, o r 0. 01 5% in ge no l m eb ut at e 62 4 12 m on th s Fl uo ro ur ac il: 7 4. 7% , i m iq ui m od : 53 .9 % ; M A L -P D T: 3 7. 7% a nd in ge no l m eb ut at e: 2 8. 9% K ar re r et a l, 20 19 O pe n, in te rv en ti on al , m ul ti ce nt er M A L D L -P D T 50 3 m on th s 62 % A ss ik ar e t al , 2 02 0 C on tr ol le d ra nd om iz ed in tr a- in di vi du al D L -P D T v er su s PD T 26 3 an d 6 m on th s 3 m on th s: D L -P D T: 9 0. 5% a nd PD T: 9 4. 2% ; 6 m on th s: D L -P D T: 90 .0 % a nd P D T: 9 4. 6% So ti ri ou e t al , 2 01 7 R an do m iz ed in tr a- in di vi du al co m pa ra ti ve D L -P D T v er su s PD T 23 12 m on th s D L -P D T: 7 8% a nd P D T: 8 0. 6% L ac ou r et a l, 20 05 R an do m is ed in ve st ig at or -b lin de d co nt ro lle d ph as e II I D L -P D T a nd P D T 10 8 12 w ee ks D L -P D T: 7 4% a nd P D T: 7 0% G en ov es e et a l, 20 16 In tr ai nd iv id ua l c om pa ra ti ve D L -P D T v er su s in ge no l m eb ut at e 27 3 m on th s D L -P D T: 7 2. 4% a nd in ge no l m eb ut at e: 7 3. 6% W ie ge ll et a l, 20 12 R an do m iz ed m ul ti ce nt er M A L D L -P D T 14 5 3 m on th s G ra de I A K s: 7 5. 9% , g ra de II : 6 1. 2% a nd g ra de I II : 4 9. 1% U lr ic h et a l, 20 21 V eh ic le -c on tr ol le d ph as e II I B F- 20 0 A L A -P D T v er su s ve hi cl e 50 12 m on th s B F- 20 0 A L A -P D T: 8 6. 0% a nd ve hi cl e: 3 2. 9% Sa lid o- V al le jo e t al , 20 20 Si ng le -c en tr e, in tr ai nd iv id ua l, re tr os pe ct iv e B F- 20 0 A L A -P D T a nd D L -P D T (c om bP D T ) ve rs us D L -P D T 19 12 w ee ks co m bP D T: 3 1. 6% a nd D L -P D T:  1 5. 8% G ra ci a- C az añ a et a l, 20 19 O bs er va ti on al , p ro sp ec ti ve , co m pa ra ti ve D L -P D T v er su s D L -P D T p lu s in ge no l m eb ut at e 43 12 m on th s D L -P D T: 7 5. 2% a nd D L -P D T p lu s in ge no l m eb ut at e: 5 4. 6% Pe tu kh ov a et a l, 20 17 R an do m iz ed , s in gl e- bl in de d, sp lit -f ac e co nt ro lle d, 2 -a rm cl in ic al t ri al . 10 - or 2 0- m in ut e A L A in cu ba ti on ti m es , a ft er p re tr ea tm en t w it h a m ic ro ne ed le o r sh am r ol le r 32 1 m on th  2 0- m in ut e in cu ba ti on a rm : m ic ro ne ed le : 7 6% a nd s ha m ro lle r: 5 8% ; 1 0- m in ut e in cu ba ti on ar m : m ic ro ne ed le : 4 3% a nd s ha m ro lle r:  3 8% To re za n et a l, 20 13 Pi lo t sp lit -f ac e co m pa ra ti ve M ic ro ne ed lin g- PD T v er su s M A L -P D T 10 1 an d 3 m on th s  A t da y 90 , f ac ia l e ry th em a (p =  .0 4) an d co ar se w ri nk le s (p = .0 02 ) im pr ov ed o n th e m ic ro ne ed lin g- PD T s id e, c om pa re d to M A L -P D T (p  =  .0 1) . Ta bl e 1 (c on ti nu ed ) 8 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 + Fi rs t A u th o r/ Ye ar o f p u b lic at io n Ty p e o f st u d y In te rv en ti o n N u m b er o f p at ie n ts Ti m e o f as se ss em en t C o m p le te C le ar an ce in % (U n le ss in d ic at ed o th er w is e) To re za n et a l, 20 18 R an do m iz ed s pl it -s ca lp co m pa ra ti ve C al ci po tr io l- M A L -P D T v er su s. M A L -P D T 20 3 m on th s C al ci po tr io l- M A L -P D T: 9 2. 1% a nd M A L -P D T: 8 2. 0% B ul lo ck e t al , 2 02 2 In te rv en ti on al co ho rt -c on tr ol le d O ra l v it am in D 3 co m bi ne d w it h PD T ve rs us M A L -P D T 29 p at ie nt s in e ac h gr ou p 3 to 6 m on th s O ra l v it am in D 3 co m bi ne d w it h PD T: 7 2. 5% a nd M A L -P D T: 5 4. 4% M ay ti n et a l, 20 18 B ila te ra lly c on tr ol le d PD T p lu s to pi ca l 5 -fl uo ro ur ac il ve rs us  P D T 17 3, 6 , 9 , a nd 1 2 m on th s PD T p lu s to pi ca l 5 -fl uo ro ur ac il: 75 % a nd P D T: 4 5% a t 3 m on th s; PD T p lu s to pi ca l 5 -fl uo ro ur ac il: 67 % a nd P D T: 3 9% a t 6 m on th s Pi re s et a l, 20 19 In tr a- in di vi du al c om pa ra ti ve A co us ti c pr es su re w av e ul tr as ou nd - C O 2- M A L -P D T v er su s M A L -P D T 15 6 m on th s A co us ti c pr es su re w av e ul tr as ou nd - C O 2- M A L -P D T: 7 2% a nd M A L - PD T: 6 5% V ra ni e t al , 2 01 9 R an do m iz ed in tr ai nd iv id ua l co m pa ri so n Fr ac ti on al C O 2 la se r- PD T v er su s PD T 42 12 m on th s Fr ac ti on al la se r- PD T: 4 7. 2% an d PD T: 5 2. 3% To gs ve rd -B o et a l, 20 12 R an do m iz ed c om pa ra ti ve Fr ac ti on al C O 2 la se r- PD T v er su s PD T 15 3 m on th s Fr ac ti on al la se r- PD T: 8 8% an d PD T: 5 9% B en to e t al , 2 02 1 R an do m iz ed c on tr ol le d fo ur - ar m c om pa ra ti ve D L -P D T ; D L -P D T + m ic ro ne ed le s; D L -P D T + C O 2 la se r; D L -P D T + m ic ro de rm ab ra si on 40 p at ie nt s, 1 0 pa ti en ts a t ea ch g ro up 3 an d 6 m on th s T he D L -P D T + m ic ro ne ed le s gr ou p ha d a hi gh er A K -c le ar an ce a ft er 1 (p =0 ,0 02 ) an d 3 (p =0 ,0 34 ) m on th s. Si m ila r in e ve ry g ro up a t 6 m on th s (p =0 ,4 41 ) To gs ve rd -B o et a l, 20 15 R an do m iz ed c on tr ol le d A bl at iv e fr ac ti on al la se r (A FL )- as si st ed D L -P D T ) (A FL -d PD T ) ve rs us D L - PD T ), PD T a nd A FL a lo ne ( A FL ) 16 3 m on th s A FL -d PD T: 7 4% , D L -P D T: 4 6% , PD T: 5 0% a nd A FL : 5 % To gs ve rd -B o et a l, 20 15 R an do m iz ed in tr a- in di vi du al co nt ro lle d R ep ea te d PD T e ve ry 6 m on th s fo r A K pr ev en ti on 25 3 ye ar s N ew A K s in 6 3% o f pa ti en ts in un tr ea te d sk in a re as v er su s 28 % o f pa ti en ts in P D T- tr ea te d sk in Pi ac qu ad io e t al , 20 20 R an do m iz ed , p ar al le l- gr ou p, ev al ua to r- bl in de d A L A 2 x ve rs us A L A 3 x ve rs us ve hi cl e  PD T 16 6 52 w ee ks A L A 2 x: 3 6. 0% , A L A 3 x: 3 7. 5% , ve hi cl e: 1 8. 9% A L A = 5 -a m in ol ev ul in ic a ci d; B F2 00 -A L A = N an os ca le -l ip id v es ic le f or m ul at io n w it h th e pr od ru g 5- am in ol ev ul in ic a ci d; PD T = p ho to dy na m ic t he ra py ; A FX L -P D T = a bl at iv e fr ac ti on al la se r re su rf ac in g ph ot od yn am ic t he ra py ; D L = d ay lig ht p ho to dy na m ic t he ra py ; M A L -P D T = m et hy l a m in ol ev ul in at e ph ot od yn am ic t he ra py . Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 9 2010;110(5):2795-2838. DOI: 10.1021/cr900300p. PMID: 20353192. PMCID: PMC2896821. 3. Morton CA, Szeimies RM, Basset-Séguin N, et al. European Der- matology Forum guidelines on topical photodynamic therapy 2019 Part 2: emerging indications - field cancerization, photo- rejuvenation and inflammatory/infective dermatoses. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(1):17-29. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16044. PMID: 31805604. 4. Barbaric J, Abbott R, Posadzki P, et al. Light therapies for acne: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE as- sessments. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(1):61-75. DOI: 10.1111 /bjd.15495. PMID: 28338214. 5. Diepgen TL, Mahler V. The epidemiology of skin cancer. Br  J Dermatol. 2002;146 Suppl 61:1-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2133 .146.s61.2.x. PMID: 11966724. 6. Guorgis G, Anderson CD, Lyth J, Falk M. Actinic Keratosis Diag- nosis and Increased Risk of Developing Skin Cancer: A 10-year Cohort Study of 17,651 Patients in Sweden. Acta Derm Vene- reol. 2020;100(8):adv00128. DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3486. PMID: 32314794. 7. SLAUGHTER DP, SOUTHWICK HW, SMEJKAL W. Field can- cerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical impli- cations of multicentric origin. Cancer. 1953;6(5):963-968. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(195309)6:5<963::aid-cncr2820060515>3.0 .co;2-q. PMID: 13094644. 8. Willenbrink TJ, Ruiz ES, Cornejo CM, Schmults CD, Arron ST, Jambusaria-Pahlajani A. Field cancerization: Definition, ep- idemiology, risk factors, and outcomes. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(3):709-717. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.126. PMID: 32387665. 9. Braathen LR, Morton CA, Basset-Seguin N, et al. Photodynamic therapy for skin field cancerization: an international consensus. International Society for Photodynamic Therapy in Dermatol- ogy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(9):1063-1066. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04432.x. PMID: 22220503. 10. Schulten R, Novak B, Schmitz B, Lübbert H. Comparison of the uptake of 5-aminolevulinic acid and its methyl ester in ke- ratinocytes and skin. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2012;385(10):969-979. DOI: 10.1007/s00210-012-0777-4. PMID: 22801976. 11. Lee CN, Hsu R, Chen H, Wong TW. Daylight Photodynamic Therapy: An Update. Molecules. 2020;25(21):5195. DOI: 10.3390/molecules25215195. PMID: 33171665. PMCID: PMC7664668. 12. Callen JP, Bickers DR, Moy RL. Actinic keratoses. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;36(4):650-653. DOI: 10.1016/s0190 -9622(97)70265-2. PMID: 9092763. 13. Kim Y, He YY. Ultraviolet radiation-induced non-melanoma skin cancer: Regulation of DNA damage repair and inflamma- tion. Genes Dis. 2014;1(2):188-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.gendis .2014.08.005. PMID: 25642450. PMCID: PMC4307792. 14. Rosso JD, Armstrong AW, Berman B, et al. Advances and Consid- erations in the Management of Actinic Keratosis: An Expert Con- sensus Panel Report. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(8):888-893. DOI: 10.36849/JDD.6078. PMID: 34397199. 15. Szeimies RM, Torezan L, Niwa A, et al. Clinical, histopatho- logical and immunohistochemical assessment of human skin field cancerization before and after photodynamic therapy. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(1):150-159. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365 -2133.2012.10887.x. PMID: 22329784. above appear particularly promising with good tolerance by the patients and could be considered under challenging cases for further promotion in the everyday clinical setting. An interesting approach is inhibiting the development of precancerous lesions. Building on this concept, PDT might be extended as a prevention tool for skin field cancerization after solid organ transplantation. The relevant clinical study of 25 patients who had undergone kidney transplantation showed that multiple AKs occurred in 63% of the patients; however, only 28% of those patients who received PDT treat- ment every 6 months for 5 years developed AKs in the face, forearm and hand and the lesions were less extended [47]. Finally, limited data are available regarding the frequency of PDT treatments, especially for the prevention of skin dys- plasia. In a 52-week trial, 166 high-risk patients with AKs on the face with prior cryotherapy management and confirmed by biopsy photodamaged but otherwise clinically normal skin were randomized to receive two (baseline and week 4) or three (baseline, week 4, and week 24) sessions of field-directed PDT with broadly applied 20% ALA (or vehicle) to the whole face with a 1-hour incubation time followed by blue light irradi- ation. At week 52, contrary to the vehicle-PDT arm, patients who underwent three treatments with ALA-PDT developed notably fewer AKs (mean: 2.1 versus 4.7), were more likely to have no AKs (37.5% versus 18.9%), and they demonstrated long-term response (33.3 weeks versus 25.9 weeks). At the same time, fewer new NMSCs occurred in this group. No clinically significant difference in efficacy and safety was ob- served between two and three ALA-PDT sessions [48]. Conclusions Several types of PDT are being employed for the treatment of field cancerization with successful results. The clearance of the lesions reaches more than 90%, especially in patients with multiple grade I-II AKs. Advances regarding the illumination delivery systems and photosensitizer modalities have been ex- amined and considered to likely achieve the therapeutic goals (Table 1). However, further studies are needed to establish op- timal treatment protocols that would maximize the efficacy and obtain a long-lasting outcome. Finally, yet importantly, the patient experience itself must be at the heart of the discus- sion, in order to ensure long-standing adherence for a chronic and regressing condition, particularly in individuals at risk. References 1. Dolmans DE, Fukumura D, Jain RK. Photodynamic therapy for cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3(5):380-387. DOI: 10.1038 /nrc1071. PMID: 12724736. 2. Celli JP, Spring BQ, Rizvi I, et al. Imaging and photodynamic therapy: mechanisms, monitoring, and optimization. Chem Rev. 10 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 26. Sotiriou E, Apalla Z, Vrani F, Lallas A, Chovarda E, Ioannides D. Photodynamic therapy vs. imiquimod 5% cream as skin cancer preventive strategies in patients with field changes: a random- ized intraindividual comparison study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(2):325-329. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.12538. PMID: 24754529. 27. Jansen MHE, Kessels JPHM, Nelemans PJ, et al. Random- ized Trial of Four Treatment Approaches for Actinic Kera- tosis. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(10):935-946. DOI: 10.1056 /NEJMoa1811850. PMID: 30855743. 28. Karrer S, Aschoff RAG, Dominicus R, et al. Methyl amino- levulinate daylight photodynamic therapy applied at home for non-hyperkeratotic actinic keratosis of the face or scalp: an open, interventional study conducted in Germany. J Eur Acad Derma- tol Venereol. 2019;33(4):661-666. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15422. PMID: 30633376. 29. Assikar S, Labrunie A, Kerob D, Couraud A, Bédane C. Day- light photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream is as effective as conventional photodynamic therapy with blue light in the treatment of actinic keratosis: a controlled ran- domized intra-individual study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Vene- reol. 2020;34(8):1730-1735. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16208. PMID: 31955461. 30. Sotiriou E, Apalla Z, Vrani F, et al. Daylight photodynamic ther- apy vs. Conventional photodynamic therapy as skin cancer pre- ventive treatment in patients with face and scalp cancerization: an intra-individual comparison study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Ve- nereol. 2017;31(8):1303-1307. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.14177. PMID: 28222225. 31. Lacour JP, Ulrich C, Gilaberte Y, et al. Daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream is effective and nearly painless in treating actinic keratoses: a randomised, investigator-blinded, controlled, phase III study throughout Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(12):2342- 2348. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.13228. PMID: 26435363. 32. Genovese G, Fai D, Fai C, Mavilia L, Mercuri SR. Daylight methyl- aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus ingenol mebutate for the treatment of actinic keratoses: an intraindividual com- parative analysis. Dermatol Ther. 2016;29(3):191-196. DOI: 10.1111/dth.12334. PMID: 26799440. 33. Wiegell SR, Fabricius S, Gniadecka M, et al. Daylight- mediated photodynamic therapy of moderate to thick actinic kerato- ses of the face and scalp: a randomized multicentre study. Br  J Dermatol. 2012;166(6):1327-1332. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365 -2133.2012.10833.x. PMID: 22250644. 34. Ulrich M, Reinhold U, Dominicus R, Aschoff R, Szeimies RM, Dirschka T. Red light photodynamic therapy with BF-200 ALA showed superior efficacy in the treatment of actinic keratosis on the extremities, trunk, and neck in a vehicle-controlled phase III study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(6):1510-1519. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.031. PMID: 33744350. 35. Salido-Vallejo R, Jiménez-Nájar F, Garnacho-Sucedo G, Vélez A. Combined daylight and conventional photodynamic ther- apy with 5-aminolaevulinic acid nanoemulsion (BF-200 ALA) for actinic keratosis of the face and scalp: a new and efficient approach. Arch Dermatol Res. 2020;312(9):675-680. DOI: 10.1007/s00403-019-02028-2. PMID: 31838569. 16. Dirschka T, Radny P, Dominicus R, et al. Long-term (6 and 12 months) follow-up of two prospective, randomized, controlled phase III trials of photodynamic therapy with BF-200 ALA and methyl aminolaevulinate for the treatment of actinic keratosis. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168(4):825-836. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.12158. PMID: 23252768. PMCID: PMC3660784. 17. Serra-Guillén C, Nagore E, Bancalari E, et al. A randomized in- traindividual comparative study of methyl-5-aminolaevulinate vs. 5-aminolaevulinic acid nanoemulsion (BF-200 ALA) in photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis of the face and scalp. Br  J  Dermatol. 2018;179(6):1410-1411. DOI: 10.1111 /bjd.17014. PMID: 30019337. 18. Neittaanmäki-Perttu N, Karppinen TT, Grönroos M, Tani TT, Snellman E. Daylight photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses: a randomized double-blinded nonsponsored prospective study comparing 5-aminolaevulinic acid nanoemulsion (BF-200) with methyl-5-aminolaevulinate. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(5):1172 -1180. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13326. PMID: 25109244. 19. Dirschka T, Ekanayake-Bohlig S, Dominicus R, et al. A random- ized, intraindividual, non-inferiority, Phase III study comparing daylight photodynamic therapy with BF-200 ALA gel and MAL cream for the treatment of actinic keratosis. J Eur Acad Der- matol Venereol. 2019;33(2):288-297. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15185. PMID: 30022544. PMCID: PMC6585804. 20. Reinhold U, Dirschka T, Ostendorf R,et al. A randomized, double-blind, phase III, multicentre study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BF-200 ALA (Ameluz(®) ) vs. placebo in the field-directed treatment of mild-to-moderate actinic keratosis with photodynamic therapy (PDT) when using the BF-RhodoLED(®) lamp. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(4):696-705. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14498. PMID: 26921093. 21. Räsänen JE, Neittaanmäki N, Ylitalo L, et al. 5-aminolaevulinic acid nanoemulsion is more effective than methyl-5-aminolaevulinate in daylight photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: a non- sponsored randomized double-blind multicentre trial. Br  J Dermatol. 2019;181(2):265-274. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17311. PMID: 30329163. 22. Moloney FJ, Collins P. Randomized, double-blind, prospective study to compare topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid methylester with topical 5-aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic therapy for exten- sive scalp actinic keratosis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(1):87-91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.07946.x. PMID: 17501954. 23. Apalla Z, Sotiriou E, Chovarda E, Lefaki I, Devliotou-Panagiotidou D, Ioannides D. Skin cancer: preventive photodynamic therapy in patients with face and scalp cancerization. A randomized placebo-controlled study. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(1):171-175. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09492.x. PMID: 19863513. 24. Kleinpenning MM, van de Kerkhof PC, Gerritsen RM. The clinical efficacy of topical methyl-aminolevulinate photody- namic therapy in moderate to severe actinic keratoses of the face and scalp. J Dermatolog Treat. 2010;21(4):252-257. DOI: 10.3109/09546630903271555. PMID: 19832288. 25. Arisi M, Zane C, Polonioli M, et al. Effects of MAL-PDT, inge- nol mebutate and diclofenac plus hyaluronate gel monitored by high-frequency ultrasound and digital dermoscopy in ac- tinic keratosis - a randomized trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Ve- nereol. 2020;34(6):1225-1232. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16123. PMID: 31793041. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023291 11 42. Pires MTF, Pereira AD, Durães SMB, Issa MCA, Pires M. Laser-assisted MAL-PDT associated with acoustic pressure wave ultrasound with short incubation time for field cancerization treatment: A left-right comparison. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2019;28:216-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2019.08.034. PMID: 31479804. 43. Vrani F, Sotiriou E, Lazaridou E, et al. Short incubation frac- tional CO2 laser-assisted photodynamic therapy vs. conven- tional photodynamic therapy in field-cancerized skin: 12-month follow-up results of a randomized intraindividual comparison study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(1):79-83. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15109. PMID: 29869444. 44. Togsverd-Bo K, Haak CS, Thaysen-Petersen D, Wulf HC, An- derson RR, Hμdersdal M. Intensified photodynamic therapy of actinic keratoses with fractional CO2 laser: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(6):1262-1269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10893.x. PMID: 22348388. 45. Bento CO, Pantaleão L, de Souza MB, et al. Comparison of clini- cal and histologic findings in daylight photodynamic therapy for skin field cancerization: A randomized controlled four-arm study on physical methods-assisted delivery of methyl aminolevuli- nate. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2021;35:102404. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.102404. PMID: 34133958. 46. Togsverd-Bo K, Lei U, Erlendsson AM, et al. Combination of ablative fractional laser and daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis in organ transplant recipients - a ran- domized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172(2):467-474. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13222. PMID: 24975199. 47. Togsverd-Bo K, Omland SH, Wulf HC, Sørensen SS, Haeders- dal M. Primary prevention of skin dysplasia in renal transplant recipients with photodynamic therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant. 2015;15(11):2986-2990. DOI: 10.1111 /ajt.13358. PMID: 26018207. 48. Piacquadio D, Houlihan A, Ferdon MB, Berg JE, Marcus SL. A Randomized Trial of Broad Area ALA-PDT for Field Cancer- ization Mitigation in High-Risk Patients. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(5):452-458. PMID: 32484630. 36. Gracia-Cazaña T, Malinis AJG, Almagro-Sánchez M, Linares DP, Gilaberte Y. Sequential daylight photodynamic therapy and ingenol mebutate versus 2 sessions of daylight photodynamic therapy for the treatment of actinic keratosis: An observational, prospective, comparative study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2019;27:34-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2019.05.030. PMID: 31141728. 37. Petukhova TA, Hassoun LA, Foolad N, Barath M, Sivamani RK. Effect of Expedited Microneedle-Assisted Photodynamic Ther- apy for Field Treatment of Actinic Keratoses: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(7):637-643. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.0849. PMID: 28514458. PMCID: PMC5543325. 38. Torezan L, Chaves Y, Niwa A, Sanches JA Jr, Festa-Neto C, Szeimies RM. A pilot split-face study comparing conventional methyl aminolevulinate-photodynamic therapy (PDT) with microneedling-assisted PDT on actinically damaged skin. Der- matol Surg. 2013;39(8):1197-1201. DOI: 10.1111/dsu.12233. PMID: 23638986. 39. Torezan L, Grinblat B, Haedersdal M, Valente N, Festa-Neto C, Szeimies RM. A randomized split-scalp study comparing calcipotriol-assisted methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) with conventional MAL-PDT for the treat- ment of actinic keratosis. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(4):829-835. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.16473. PMID: 29476546. 40. Bullock TA, Negrey J, Hu B, Warren CB, Hasan T, Maytin EV. Significant improvement of facial actinic keratoses after blue light photodynamic therapy with oral vitamin D pretreatment: An interventional cohort-controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(1):80-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.02.067. PMID: 35314199. PMCID: PMC9233022. 41. Maytin EV, Anand S, Riha M, Lohser S, et al. 5-Fluorouracil Enhances Protoporphyrin IX Accumulation and Lesion Clearance during Photodynamic Therapy of Actinic Kera- toses: A Mechanism-Based Clinical Trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(13):3026-3035. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17 -2020. PMID: 29593028.