S S Yones1, R A Palmer, Y Kuno, J L M Hawk. 1. Photobiology Department, St. John's Institute of Dermatology, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. Sami.yones@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoralen photochemotherapy (PUVA), the combined use of psoralen and long wave ultraviolet (UVA) irradiation, was introduced around 1974 and its beneficial effects were rapidly confirmed worldwide. In an attempt to minimize its recognized long-term photocarcinogenic risk after some 150-200 exposures while also maintaining efficacy, however, the narrowband (311-312 nm) ultraviolet B (UVB) lamp (TL-01) was introduced in 1984, and has moved towards replacing PUVA except for severe or resistant disease. AIMS: To discover whether our use of these therapies complied with established British Photodermatology Group guidelines for PUVA and guidelines formulated within our unit for narrowband UVB. METHODS: The study was retrospective over 6 months from November 2001 to April 2002, all relevant information being obtained from the patients' hospital notes. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received PUVA (18 oral, 11 bath and two uncertain because of missing notes) and 20 narrowband UVB during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Our PUVA and narrowband UVB phototherapy guidelines were shown to have been followed relatively closely with the following exceptions: one PUVA patient received a high cumulative exposure by mutual agreement because there was no other suitable therapy; a failure to measure minimal phototoxic doses (MPDs) in some PUVA patients; and slightly prolonged referral delays, but generally by patient choice.
BACKGROUND: Psoralen photochemotherapy (PUVA), the combined use of psoralen and long wave ultraviolet (UVA) irradiation, was introduced around 1974 and its beneficial effects were rapidly confirmed worldwide. In an attempt to minimize its recognized long-term photocarcinogenic risk after some 150-200 exposures while also maintaining efficacy, however, the narrowband (311-312 nm) ultraviolet B (UVB) lamp (TL-01) was introduced in 1984, and has moved towards replacing PUVA except for severe or resistant disease. AIMS: To discover whether our use of these therapies complied with established British Photodermatology Group guidelines for PUVA and guidelines formulated within our unit for narrowband UVB. METHODS: The study was retrospective over 6 months from November 2001 to April 2002, all relevant information being obtained from the patients' hospital notes. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received PUVA (18 oral, 11 bath and two uncertain because of missing notes) and 20 narrowband UVB during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Our PUVA and narrowband UVB phototherapy guidelines were shown to have been followed relatively closely with the following exceptions: one PUVApatient received a high cumulative exposure by mutual agreement because there was no other suitable therapy; a failure to measure minimal phototoxic doses (MPDs) in some PUVApatients; and slightly prolonged referral delays, but generally by patient choice.