Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#204 Actinic Keratosis: Out Damned Spot!

Which commonly used topical therapies (cryotherapy, 5-Fluorouracil, imiquimod, or ingenol) are preferred for actinic keratosis?

Topical treatments have similar efficacy to each other and will result in complete clearance of lesions beyond placebo for every 3-4 patients treated. Clearance rates may reach ~90% depending on strength of cream (5% 5-fluorouracil [5FU] greater than 0.5%), longer duration of therapy, and complexity of lesion. The effects on cancer incidence have not been studied.

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

Five systematic reviews.1-5 Most complete: 83 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), 10,036 participants, >350 comparisons of all interventions:1 
  • Versus placebo (complete clearance): 
    • 0.5% 5-FU (three RCTs, 522 patients):
      • 30% versus 1.5% after 1-4 weeks of treatment with four weeks follow-up. Number Needed to Treat (NNT)=4. 
    • 5% imiquimod (11 RCTs, 2,880 patients): 42% versus 5%, NNT=3. 
      • Decreased roughness, scaliness/dryness: 55% versus 18%, NNT~3. 
    • Ingenol mebutate (two RCTs, 456 patients): 38% versus 7%, NNT=4. 
      • Pigmentation changes: No difference. 
  • Versus cryotherapy (complete clearanceone RCT, 51 patients):
    • 5% 5-FU: 96% versus 68%, NNT=4. 
      • “Excellent” cosmetic outcomes: No difference. 
    • 5% imiquimod84% versus 68%, no statistical difference. 
      • “Excellent” cosmetic outcomes 81% versus 4%, NNT=2. 
  • Versus 5% 5-FU (complete clearance): 
    • 5% imiquimod (two RCTs, 89 patients): Larger study, 85% versus 88%, no statistical difference.  
      • “Excellent” cosmetic outcome (one RCT, 50 patients): 81% versus 4%, NNT=2. Results unreliable.  
  • Large, extensive, or atypical lesions often excluded from RCTs. 
  • No RCTs have investigated effects of treatments on cancer incidence. 
  • Rate of progression to squamous cell carcinoma (individual lesions) varies0-0.53%/year depending on sun exposure, age, and number/size of lesions.6  
  • Hypertrophic, painful, atypically broad lesions may progress faster.5  
  • Guidelines suggest cryotherapy for smaller, isolated lesions, and topical creams (field-directed treatment) for 4 clustered lesions.7   
  • Whether creams after cryotherapy improve effectiveness over creams alone is unclear.7  
  • Adverse effects include (all): Localized pain, erythema, swelling, vesicles/bullae, pigmentation changes.   
    • Cryotherapy: Rarely scars/hair loss. 
    • Creams: Burning/itchingerosions. 
      • 5-FU: Ulcers, toxic agranulocytosis (very rare). 
      • Imiquimod: Photosensitivity, systemic effects if applied on larger areas (joint/muscle pain, fever, headache). 
      • Ingenol: Hypersensitivity. 

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD
  • Qudsiyyah Bhayat MBChB CCFP FCFP

1. Gupta AK, Paquet M, Villanueva E, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12:CD004415.

2. Stockfleth E, Sibbring GC, Alarcon I. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016; 96(1):17-22.

3. Vegter S, Tolley K. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(6):e96829.

4. Gupta AK, Paquet M. Br J Dermatol. 2013; 169:250-9.

5. Nashan D, Meiss F, Müller M. Eur J Dermatol. 2013; 23(1):14-32.

6. Werner RN, Sammain A, Erdman R, et al. Br J Dermatol. 2013; 169:502-18.

7. Poulin Y, Lynde CW, Barber K, et al. J Cut Med Surg. 2015; 19(3):227-38.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.