Acute skin alterations following ultraviolet radiation investigated by optical coherence tomography and histology

  • Thilo Gambichler
  • Stefanie Boms
  • Markus Stücker
  • Georg Moussa
  • Alexander Kreuter
  • Michael Sand
  • Daniel Sand
  • Peter Altmeyer
  • Klaus Hoffmann
Original Paper


Optical coherence tomography (OCT) appears to be a promising technique to study skin in vivo. As part of an exploratory study to investigate UV induced effects non-invasively we aimed to evaluate the kinetics of acute UVB- as well as UVA1 induced skin alterations by means of OCT, and to correlate the results obtained with routine histology. Twelve healthy subjects received daily 60 J/cm2 of UVA1 and 1.5 minimal erythema doses of UVB on their upper back over three consecutive days. One day (24 h) after the last UV exposure, OCT measurements and skin biopsies were performed in four subjects (day 1) on the centre of the irradiated sites and an adjacent non-irradiated control site. The same procedure was performed in four subjects 3 days and 6 days after irradiation, respectively. Prior to OCT assessment two waterproof marks were drawn on the centre of UVB and UVA1 exposed sites and the control site. The OCT scanner, SkinDex 300, was used in the RI1D measurement modus in order to investigate morphological features, epidermal thickness, and scattering coefficients. Immediately after OCT assessment, 4 mm punch biopsies were taken from the previously marked sites. OCT as well as histological examinations performed on day 1, 3, and 6, revealed markedly higher values for epidermal thickness on UVB exposed skin sites, and slightly increased epidermal thickening in UVA1 exposed sites. UVB exposed sites showed disruption of the entrance signal in the B-scan of OCT resulting in a thickened layer with a signal-poor centre corresponding to hyperkeratosis and parakeratosis as confirmed by routine histology. Surprisingly, the mean scattering coefficients of the epidermis were slightly lower on UVA1 exposed sites, as compared to non-irradiated skin. By contrast, the scattering coefficient of the upper dermis of UVA1 irradiated skin was hardly altered. Moreover, the scattering coefficient of the upper dermis assessed on UVB exposed skin on day 1 was clearly smaller than the scattering coefficient observed on non-irradiated and UVA1 exposed skin. Conclusively, it was possible to demonstrate by means of OCT differences of epidermal thickness and pathological features of the stratum corneum following UV exposure. UVA1 induced epidermal pigmentation as well as UVB induced dermal inflammation may affect the light attenuation in the tissue indicated by a decrease of the scattering coefficient. OCT seems to be a useful tool to monitor UV induced effects in vivo.


Interferometry Skin morphology Photoprovocation Photoadaption Ultraviolet radiation Photodermatology 


  1. 1.
    Soter NA (1990) Acute effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin. Semin Dermatol 9:11–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linse R, Richard G (1990) Histopathology of UV-induced epidermal cell reactions. I. A contribution to differentiate sunburn cells. Dermatol Monatsschr 176:345–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavker RM, Gerberick GF, Veres D, Irwin CJ, Kaidbey KH (1995) Cumulative effects from repeated exposures to suberythemal doses of UVB and UVA in human skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 32:53–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hruza LL, Pentland AP (1993) Mechanisms of UV-induced inflammation. J Invest Dermatol 100:35–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pearse AD, Gaskell SA, Marks R (1987) Epidermal changes in human skin following irradiation with either UVB or UVA. J Invest Dermatol 88:83–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lavker RM, Kaidbey KH (1997) The spectral dependence for UVA-induced cumulative damage in human skin. J Invest Dermatol 108:17–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gambichler T, Bechara F, Stücker M et al (2003) Bioengineering of the skin: non-invasive methods for the evaluation of efficacy. Trends Clin Exp Dermatol 1:32–46Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujimoto JG (2003) Optical coherence tomography for ultrahigh resolution in vivo imaging. Nat Biotechnol 21:1361–1367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pierce MC, Strasswimmer J, Hyle Park B, Cense B, de Boer JF (2004) Advances in optical coherence tomography imaging for dermatology. J Invest Dermatol 123:458–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Welzel J (2001) Optical coherence tomography in dermatology: a review. Skin Res Technol 7:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Welzel J, Reinhardt C, Lakenau E, Winter C, Wolff HH (2004) Changes in function and morphology of normal human skin: evaluation using optical coherence tomography. Br J Dermatol 150:220–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Welzel J, Bruhns M, Wolff HH (2003) Optical coherence tomography in contact dermatitis and psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res 295:50–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bechara FG, Gambichler T, Stücker M et al (2004) Histomorphologic correlation with routine histology and optical coherence tomography. Skin Res Technol 10:169–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gambichler T, Künzlberger B, Paech V, Kreuter A, Boms S, Bader A, Moussa G, Sand M, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K (2005) UVA1 and UVB irradiated skin investigated by optical coherence tomography in vivo: a preliminary study. Clin Exp Dermatol 30:79–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strasswimmer J, Pierce MC, Park BH, Neel V, de Boer JF (2004) Polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography of invasive basal cell carcinoma. J Biomed Opt 9:292–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmitt JM (1998) OCT elastography: imaging microscopic deformation and strain of tissue. Opt Express 3:199–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen ZP, Milner TE, Dave D, Nelson JS (1997) Optical doppler tomographic imaging of fluid flow velocity in highly scattering media. Opt Lett 22:64–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knüttel A, Bonev S, Knaak W (2004) New method for evaluation of in vivo scattering and refractive index properties obtained with optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt 9:265–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knüttel A, Boehlau-Godau M (2000) Spatially confined and temporally resolved refractive index and scattering evaluation in human skin performed with optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt 5:83–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fitzpatrick TB (1988) The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I and IV. Arch Dermatol 124:869–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhn A, Sonntag M, Richter-Hintz D, Oslislo C, Megahed M, Ruzicka T et al (2001) Phototesting in lupus erythematosus tumidus—review of 60 patients. Photochem Photobiol 73:532–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gambichler T, Boms S, Stücker M, Kreuter A, Sand M, Moussa G, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K (2005) Comparison of histometric data obtained by optical coherence tomography and routine histology. J Biomed Opt (in press)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gambichler T, Sauermann K, Altintas MA, Paech V, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K (2004) Effects of repeated sunbed exposures on human skin. In vivo measurements with confocal microscopy. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 20:27–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Del Bino S, Vioux C, Rossio-Pasquier P, Jomard A, Demarchez M, Asselineau D et al (2004) Ultraviolet B induces hyperproliferation and modification of epidermal differentiation in normal human skin grafted on to nude mice. Br J Dermatol 150:658–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Troy TL, Thennadil SN (2001) Optical properties of human skin in the near infrared wavelength range of 1000 – 2200 nm. J Biomed Opt 6:167–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sainter AW, King TA, Dickinson MR (2004) Effect of target biological tissue and choice of light source on penetration depth and resolution in optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt 9:193–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chauhan DS, Marshall J (1999) The interpretation of optical coherence tomography images of the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:2332–2342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaidbey KH, Agin PP, Sayre RM, Kligman AM (1979) Photoprotection by melanin – a comparison of black and Caucasian skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 1:249–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lu H, Gaskell ES, Pearse A, Marks R (1996) Melanin content and distribution in the surface corneocyte with skin phototypes. Br J Dermatol 135:263–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thilo Gambichler
    • 1
  • Stefanie Boms
    • 1
  • Markus Stücker
    • 1
  • Georg Moussa
    • 1
  • Alexander Kreuter
    • 1
  • Michael Sand
    • 1
  • Daniel Sand
    • 2
  • Peter Altmeyer
    • 1
  • Klaus Hoffmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of DermatologyRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Department of Physiological ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations