Expert consensus-based recommendations on the use of photodynamic therapy in actinic keratosis patientsCapsule Summary

Expert consensus-based recommendations on the use of photodynamic therapy in actinic keratosis patientsCapsule Summary

Background: Current actinic keratosis (AK) treatment guidelines are controversial and incomplete, leaving an unmet need for clearer and more in-depth guidance on the usage of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in AKs. Objective: To gain consensus on the use of PDT for AKs using a modified Delphi method. Met...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vishal A. Patel, MD, Sarah T. Arron, MD, Brian Berman, MD, PhD, M. Shane Chapman, MD, MBA, Anokhi Jambusaria-Pahlajani, MD, George Martin, MD, Anthony M. Rossi, MD, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Nathalie C. Zeitouni, MDCM, Neal Bhatia, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-06-01
Series:JAAD International
Subjects:
actinic keratosis
aminolevulinic acid (ALA)
basal cell carcinoma (BCC)
cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC)
field therapy
organ transplant recipients
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666328725000227
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Current actinic keratosis (AK) treatment guidelines are controversial and incomplete, leaving an unmet need for clearer and more in-depth guidance on the usage of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in AKs. Objective: To gain consensus on the use of PDT for AKs using a modified Delphi method. Methods: Consensus statements were developed after a literature review of topics surrounding PDT and AKs. Ten panelists voted through electronic questionnaires rating each statement on a three-point Likert-type scale: strongly agree, agree, and disagree. Consensus was established when ≥70% of panelists strongly agreed on the statement. Statements that did not meet the threshold were revised after each round of voting and sent out for the next round of voting. A virtual meeting was held after 2 rounds of voting to discuss outstanding statements. Results: Three modified Delphi rounds were completed in total and 1 virtual meeting was held. All 10 experts responded to all rounds of voting. A total of 55 statements established consensus with the ≥70% majority requirement necessary. Limitations: Recommendations are based on expert opinions. Conclusion: The results from this consensus panel are intended to bridge gaps in the existing guidelines and will continue to evolve.
ISSN:2666-3287

Similar Items