BACKGROUND: Exposure to the sun causes premature skin aging, known as photoaging. Clinical features of photoaging vary widely among individuals. In one form, skin appears thin with telangiectasia, and in another form, skin appears thickened with coarse wrinkles. Etiologic, clinical, and therapeutic distinctions among different forms of photoaging remain largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical, histologic, and molecular features of hypertrophic and atrophic photoaging. METHODS: In total, 53 individuals were clinically classified as having primarily atrophic or hypertrophic photoaging or neither (controls). Participants' demographic and sun exposure-related lifestyle data were captured by questionnaire. Fifteen clinical features of participants were qualitatively or quantitively scored. Facial biopsies were analyzed for gene expression and histologic characteristics. RESULTS: Actinic and seborrheic keratosis, telangiectasia, and prior incidence of skin cancers were statistically significantly greater and photoaging scale severity, coarse wrinkles, thickness, and sallowness were significantly reduced in atrophic versus hypertrophic groups. Histology also revealed significantly less elastotic material in atrophic photoaging. Gene expression of matrix metalloproteinases and collagens did not differ between the 2 forms of photoaging. LIMITATIONS: The study was not designed to identify other possible subtypes of photoaging. CONCLUSION: Systematic, categorical, and quantitative clinical and histologic assessments distinguish atrophic and hypertrophic photoaging.
BACKGROUND: Exposure to the sun causes premature skin aging, known as photoaging. Clinical features of photoaging vary widely among individuals. In one form, skin appears thin with telangiectasia, and in another form, skin appears thickened with coarse wrinkles. Etiologic, clinical, and therapeutic distinctions among different forms of photoaging remain largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical, histologic, and molecular features of hypertrophic and atrophic photoaging. METHODS: In total, 53 individuals were clinically classified as having primarily atrophic or hypertrophic photoaging or neither (controls). Participants' demographic and sun exposure-related lifestyle data were captured by questionnaire. Fifteen clinical features of participants were qualitatively or quantitively scored. Facial biopsies were analyzed for gene expression and histologic characteristics. RESULTS: Actinic and seborrheic keratosis, telangiectasia, and prior incidence of skin cancers were statistically significantly greater and photoaging scale severity, coarse wrinkles, thickness, and sallowness were significantly reduced in atrophic versus hypertrophic groups. Histology also revealed significantly less elastotic material in atrophic photoaging. Gene expression of matrix metalloproteinases and collagens did not differ between the 2 forms of photoaging. LIMITATIONS: The study was not designed to identify other possible subtypes of photoaging. CONCLUSION: Systematic, categorical, and quantitative clinical and histologic assessments distinguish atrophic and hypertrophic photoaging.
Authors: Rainer Voegeli; Rotraut Schoop; Elodie Prestat-Marquis; Anthony V Rawlings; Todd K Shackelford; Bernhard Fink Journal: Int J Cosmet Sci Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 2.416
Authors: Abigail K Langton; Zara Ali; Mark Hann; Jean Ayer; Rachel E B Watson; Christopher E M Griffiths Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: A K Langton; J Ayer; T W Griffiths; E Rashdan; K Naidoo; M P Caley; M A Birch-Machin; E A O'Toole; R E B Watson; C E M Griffiths Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 6.166