Cited by 54Photodynamic Therapy Research StudiesNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesSkin Protection and Aging

Topical photodynamic therapy is immunosuppressive in humans: PDT is immunosuppressive in humans

Matthews, Y.J., Damian, D.L.·2010·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Visible light irradiation after application of a photosensitizer (topical photodynamic therapy; PDT) is increasingly used to treat nonmelanoma skin cancers and premalignant actinic keratoses. PDT can provide a cosmetically superior alternative to surgery, but carries failure rates of 10-40%. While some murine studies have suggested immune enhancement by PDT, others reported immunosuppressive effects, which may indicate impaired antitumour immunity and thus compromised tumour clearance. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the in vivo immune effects of PDT in humans. METHODS: Using healthy, Mantoux-positive volunteers, we irradiated discrete areas of the back with narrowband red light (630 nm; 37 J cm(-2)), with and without prior application of 5-aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) or methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL). Adjacent, untreated areas served as immunologically intact control sites. Delayed-type hypersensitivity responses to tuberculin purified protein derivative (Mantoux reactions) were then elicited in each of the irradiated, unirradiated and control sites, and the intensity of the reactions was quantitated with an erythema meter and by measurement of Mantoux diameter. By comparing Mantoux intensity at treated and control sites, immunosuppression was determined in each volunteer for each intervention. RESULTS: We found that both MAL-PDT and ALA-PDT significantly suppressed Mantoux erythema (by 30% and 50%, respectively) and diameter (41% and 38%). Red light alone significantly suppressed diameter (22%) but not erythema (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Topical PDT induced significant immune suppression, which could impair local antitumour immune responses and may thus contribute to treatment failure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09562.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matthews, Y. J., & Damian, D. L.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Damian, D.L.
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
2009-10-26
Volume
162
Issue
3
Pages
637-641
ISSN
0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123734011
Cited by
54
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Dermatology Foundation
  • Cancer Institute NSW
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Photodynamic Therapy Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
Keywords
topical photodynamic therapy, immunosuppression, non-melanoma skin cancer, actinic keratosis, 5-aminolevulinic acid, methyl aminolaevulinate, delayed-type hypersensitivity, tuberculin reaction, antitumor immunity, photosensitizers
MeSH terms
Administration, Topical, Adult, Aminolevulinic Acid, Female, Humans, Hypersensitivity, Delayed, Immune Tolerance, Immunosuppressive Agents, Light, Male, Middle Aged, Photochemotherapy, Skin, Skin Neoplasms, Tuberculin Test, Treatment Outcome, Photosensitizing Agents, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review