Actinic Keratoses Treatments
Customize your policy alerts
Sign up for Aetna Policy 0567 alerts
Get alerted when Policy 0567 changes without checking for updates manually.
Monitor payer policy activity
Medical necessity, investigational status, and coding guidance for treatments of actinic keratoses for Aetna members; covers lesion-directed and field therapies and identifies interventions considered experimental/investigational.
No material clinical or coverage changes in this revision.
Coverage Criteria
Medically Necessary Interventions
Aetna considers the following procedures medically necessary for treatment of actinic keratoses:
Specimen submission required as part of procedure
These are reserved for inadequate response to first-line measures
Experimental and Investigational
Aetna considers the following interventions experimental and investigational for treatment of actinic keratoses because safety and effectiveness have not been established:
Repetitive daylight PDT is also considered experimental/investigational for prevention of actinic keratoses
Clinical coverage-related evidence and scenarios
Evidence and guideline-aligned scenarios supported by the document:
Local reactions peak early and resolve typically by day 29
Efficacy dependent on photosensitizer formulation and light source
British and European guidelines referenced
Scarring, anesthesia, and procedure-specific risks noted
Evidence-informed coverage considerations
Evidence summaries and comparative findings that could inform coverage decisions:
Consider adverse-event profiles and withdrawals when comparing treatments
Evidence in organ transplant recipients suggests MAL-PDT is best-studied in that group
See network meta-analysis results
Evidence base is limited and risk of bias is high
Evidence summaries (no explicit coverage decision stated)
Evidence summaries and key findings
UpToDate review does not mention MN+PDT
First-in-human feasibility data
Prevention efficacy not proven
Small sample; hypothesis-generating
More trials needed for comparative conclusions
Supports further phase-III chemoprevention trials
Formulation and light source affect outcomes and local reactions
The policy lists several technologies that are designated as experimental and investigational for treatment of actinic keratoses because safety and effectiveness have not been established. These include thermal photodynamic therapy, intense pulsed light (IPL), non-ablative fractional thulium laser, microneedling, microwave therapy, and other specified modalities. CPT/HCPCS coding guidance in the document flags these interventions as not covered for the CPB indications when they are listed as investigational (no specific procedure codes apply to those listed items).
Photodynamic therapy using established topical photosensitizers (e.g., aminolevulinic acid 10% gel or 20% solution, methyl aminolevulinate) is described elsewhere in the policy as an accepted option in defined circumstances, but thermal PDT (distinct device/technique) is specifically singled out among investigational approaches.
The document notes limited evidence that any AK treatment reduces progression to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Systematic reviews and trials of photodynamic therapy and other interventions are limited by short follow-up durations and there are no conclusive data demonstrating long-term prevention of SCC, which constrains claims about durable chemoprevention.
Because long-term outcomes (including reduction in subsequent invasive SCC) are not well established in the trials and reviews cited, the policy treats prevention of progression as an evidence gap rather than a demonstrated benefit.
Topical vitamin D analogs and topical piroxicam are discussed as having insufficient or unsupported evidence for treatment of AK. A systematic review of off-label topical vitamin D analogs reported that topical vitamin D is ineffective for AK, and commentary on topical piroxicam notes that further controlled trials are needed and that major clinical reviews (UpToDate) do not list piroxicam as an established AK therapy.
Accordingly, these agents are listed among interventions considered investigational or not supported by current evidence for AK indications in this policy.
Some modalities have preliminary or early-phase evidence but remain insufficiently validated for routine coverage. Combination micro-needling plus PDT showed a small additional mean lesion clearance (~6% more lesions cleared versus PDT alone) in pooled, heterogeneous RCTs, but studies were low quality and protocols lacked standardization.
Microwave therapy produced promising results in a small randomized internally controlled trial (179 AKs in 11 subjects) with higher response in treated areas versus controls, but the study’s small sample size, short follow-up, and feasibility design mean larger randomized trials against effective comparators are needed before it can be considered established.
The policy explicitly identifies repetitive daylight photodynamic therapy as experimental and investigational for prevention of actinic keratoses because effectiveness for prevention has not been established. A cited randomized multicenter trial failed to show a statistically significant reduction in new AKs compared with cryosurgery, despite improvements in photo-aging measures and lower pain.
Within the provided excerpts there are no statements framed as an explicit blanket "not medically necessary" determination separate from the experimental/investigational listings. The policy distinguishes interventions supported as medically necessary, those reserved after failure of first-line therapies, and a set of interventions characterized as experimental/investigational due to insufficient evidence.
A systematic review of off-label uses concluded that topical vitamin D analogs are ineffective for actinic keratoses. The policy therefore lists topical vitamin D and analogs among interventions without supportive evidence and treats them as investigational for AK treatment.
Coding
| 11300 | Shaving of epidermal or dermal lesion, single lesion, trunk, arms or leg; lesion diameter 0.5 cm or less. |
| 11301 | Shaving of epidermal or dermal lesion, lesion diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm. |
| 11302 | Shaving of epidermal or dermal lesion, lesion diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm. |
| 11303 | Shaving of epidermal or dermal lesion, lesion diameter over 2.0 cm. |
| 11305 | Shaving of epidermal or dermal lesion, single lesion, scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; lesion diameter 0.5 cm or less. |
| 11306 | Lesion diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm. |
| 11307 | Lesion diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm. |
| 11308 | Lesion diameter over 2.0 cm. |
| 11310 | Shaving of epidermal or dermal lesion, single lesion, face, ears, eyelids, nose, lips, mucous membrane; lesion diameter 0.5 cm or less. |
| 11311 | Lesion diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm. |
| 96567 | Photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy pre-malignant and/or malignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa, each phototherapy exposure session. |
| 96573 | Photodynamic therapy with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug(s) provided by a physician or other qualified health care professional, per day. |
| L57.0 | Actinic keratosis |
| Thermal PDT / IPL / non-ablative fractional thulium laser / microneedling / microwave therapy / repetitive daylight PDT | No specific CPT/HCPCS code - interventions listed as not covered for indications in this CPB. |
| Levulan Kerastick (20% ALA) | FDA-approved drug/device combination for PDT (brand/product referenced). |
| Ameluz (aminolevulinic acid gel, 10%) | Approved in combination with BF-RhodoLED for lesion- and field-directed treatment of mild-to-moderate AKs of the face and scalp. |
| Metvixia (methyl aminolevulinate cream, 16.8%) | Previously marketed product (withdrawn from U.S. market as noted). |
| No codes listed |
Provider Actions and Operational Notes
Prior authorization / Coding and denial risk
CPT and HCPCS codes for photodynamic therapy (PDT) and related products are payable only when the selection and medical‑necessity criteria in this policy are met. Codes for interventions listed as experimental/investigational in this policy may be denied.
Prior authorization — administrative note
This excerpt does not specify a formal payer prior authorization requirement for PDT or other AK treatments. Where prior authorization processes exist at the plan level, providers must follow the payer’s routine prior authorization workflows.
- No explicit prior authorization rules listed in this policy excerpt.
- Verify member benefits and any plan-level prior authorization requirements before treatment.
Prior authorization — evidence‑informed guidance
Evidence-informed guidance in the clinical background supports using PDT (ALA or MAL) as an option for patients with extensive or refractory AKs and for certain high‑risk populations (e.g., organ transplant recipients). The policy does not establish step‑therapy requirements but summarizes evidence that may inform clinical decision-making.
- Guideline-style recommendations: PDT may be reserved for extensive AKs not controlled with cryotherapy or topical 5‑FU.
- No formal step therapy mandated by this policy; evidence may favor 5‑FU or PDT ahead of less-studied modalities.
PDT (ALA) prior authorization and documentation considerations
Specific clinical/operational considerations for topical ALA PDT (e.g., Ameluz 10% gel) should be documented when used, particularly for large‑area treatments. Documents should support the indication, treatment area, and expected post‑treatment care to help substantiate medical necessity.
- Record treated surface area (noting studies reporting use up to 75–300 cm2).
- Document product used (ALA 10% gel vs ALA 20% solution), light source (blue or red), incubation time, and post‑PDT care instructions.
- Note if treatment is lesion‑directed or field‑directed and rationale (e.g., extensive or refractory AKs, organ transplant recipient).
Denial risk — evidence limitations
Evidence limitations for newer or less‑studied interventions (small trials, first‑in‑human studies, or techniques listed as investigational) may lead to claim denials or coverage exclusions. Providers should cite RCT data or guideline support when available.
- Interventions considered investigational by this policy (may trigger denial): thermal photodynamic therapy, repetitive daylight PDT for prevention, microwave therapy (pending larger RCTs), microneedling, topical agents lacking evidence.
- Provide trial identifiers, peer‑reviewed publications, and rationale when requesting coverage for less-established treatments.
Provider responsibility — policy scope and benefit verification
Clinical Policy Bulletins (CPBs) summarize clinical evidence and coverage positions but do not guarantee payment. Providers remain responsible for verifying member benefits, obtaining any required authorizations, and for treatment decisions.
- CPB content is informational and may be updated; always confirm plan-specific coverage and benefit design.
- Obtain prior authorization if required by the member’s plan and document medical necessity in the record.
Specimen submission when carcinoma suspected
When curettage or excision is performed because invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is suspected, submission of the specimen for histologic analysis is required and should be documented in the medical record.
- Include pathology report or specimen submission documentation in the patient record when SCC is suspected.
- Curettage/excision for suspected carcinoma is considered medically necessary when histologic analysis is indicated.
No explicit documentation/authorization workflow provided
This excerpt does not list explicit documentation or authorization steps beyond standard medical-record documentation and plan-level prior authorization processes. Clinical justification (lesion characteristics, prior therapies tried, and rationale for modality choice) should be included in requests.
- Document prior treatments and responses (e.g., prior cryotherapy, topical 5‑FU or imiquimod) when seeking coverage for alternative modalities.
- State lesion location, size, number, and whether lesion‑directed or field‑directed therapy is required.
Evidence documentation expectations
Summarize and cite relevant evidence when requesting coverage for treatments. The policy references systematic reviews, network meta-analyses, RCTs, and guideline statements as the basis for recommendations and coverage positions.
- Preferred supporting evidence: RCTs, Cochrane or systematic reviews, guideline recommendations (e.g., British Association of Dermatologists, European Dermatology Forum).
- Include lesion‑level and participant‑level outcome data when available (clearance rates, adverse events).
Document treatment area and post‑PDT care
For large-area PDT treatments, document the exact area treated and the post‑PDT care regimen provided and followed by the patient (e.g., zinc oxide, healing creams, sun protection) because adverse effects and mitigation strategies are relevant to medical necessity and safety.
- If treating >20 cm2 (FDA‑largest approved field for some products), include rationale for larger field and documentation of patient counseling and post‑treatment instructions.
- Note any deviations from manufacturer‑recommended incubation or illumination protocols with clinical justification.
Treatment sequencing and guideline‑style recommendations
Treatment sequencing considerations: cryosurgery, topical therapies (5‑FU, imiquimod, diclofenac, ingenol mebutate), and curettage/excision (when SCC suspected) are first‑line options. PDT is often considered for extensive or refractory AKs; no formal step‑therapy requirements are specified in this policy excerpt.
- Consider 5‑FU or imiquimod for field therapy, especially in organ transplant recipients where RCT data support topical agents.
- PDT may be preferred for superficial, confluent, or extensive lesions not controlled by standard therapies.
Policy history and versioning
Policy history and review dates are provided in the policy header; ensure requests reflect the current policy effective date and most recent review.
- Policy Effective Date: 11/09/2001; Last Review: 08/10/2023; Next Review: 06/13/2024.
- Use current policy version when preparing prior authorization or coverage justification.
Background
Actinic keratoses (AKs) are sun‑induced, premalignant epidermal lesions that present as circumscribed, rough, scaly patches on chronically sun‑exposed skin. They are common, increase in prevalence with age, male sex, immunosuppression and prior skin cancer history, and are managed using either lesion‑directed approaches (e.g., cryosurgery, curettage/excision) or field‑directed therapies (topical agents, photodynamic therapy, chemical peels, dermabrasion, laser) depending on lesion characteristics and clinical context.
Because AKs have the potential to progress to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) but long‑term data showing prevention of SCC are limited, clinical decision-making focuses on lesion characteristics (size, thickness, suspicion for invasive disease), symptom burden, patient risk factors (e.g., immunosuppression), and the expected benefits and risks of lesion‑directed versus field therapies.
Definitions
Revision History
Policy became effective.
Policy last reviewed.
Next policy review scheduled.
OpenPayer is powered by Trek Health's payer performance platform. Trek continuously ingests, validates, and normalizes Transparency in Coverage data alongside payer policies and other commercial payer data to create a structured payer intelligence foundation. OpenPayer uses this foundation to deliver personalized search results, dynamically generated policy pages, and tailored policy monitoring based on each user's payers, specialties, billing codes, and areas of interest. The same intelligence powers broader payer performance workflows, including reimbursement benchmarking, contract evaluation, payer negotiations, and financial decision-making.