Laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective intervention for actinic keratosis and field cancerization. Ablative fractional lasers may facilitate the delivery of photosensitizers and thereby improve the effects of PDT. Objective To summarize the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of laser-assisted PDT. Methods We performed a systematic literature research in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and hand-searched pertinent trial registers for eligible randomized controlled trials. Results from individual studies were pooled by using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was estimated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the quality of evidence of the outcomes was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results Of 817 records initially identified, 7 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative analysis and 4 were included in the meta-analysis. Laser-assisted PDT showed significantly higher clearance rates than did PDT monotherapy (risk ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.42; I2 = 25%; P < .01). There was no difference in pain intensity between laser-assisted PDT and other interventions (mean difference, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, −0.12 to 0.74; I2 = 0%; P = .16). The included studies showed a high risk of bias. Limitations The clinical heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusion Laser-assisted PDT is more efficient but not more painful than PDT or laser treatment only. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective intervention for actinic keratosis and field cancerization. Ablative fractional lasers may facilitate the delivery of photosensitizers and thereby improve the effects of PDT. To summarize the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of laser-assisted PDT. We performed a systematic literature research in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and hand-searched pertinent trial registers for eligible randomized controlled trials. Results from individual studies were pooled by using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was estimated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the quality of evidence of the outcomes was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Of 817 records initially identified, 7 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative analysis and 4 were included in the meta-analysis. Laser-assisted PDT showed significantly higher clearance rates than did PDT monotherapy (risk ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.42; I2 = 25%; P < .01). There was no difference in pain intensity between laser-assisted PDT and other interventions (mean difference, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, −0.12 to 0.74; I2 = 0%; P = .16). The included studies showed a high risk of bias. The clinical heterogeneity of included studies. Laser-assisted PDT is more efficient but not more painful than PDT or laser treatment only.