INTRODUCTION

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a major environmental risk factor for skin cancer, photoaging, immune dysregulation, and a wide range of pigmentary disorders. Consequently, dermatologists universally recommend sunscreen use as a cornerstone of photoprotection, alongside behavioral modification and physical protective measures. Despite increased public awareness and widespread product availability, the real-world effectiveness of sunscreens remains suboptimal. The continued rise in keratinocyte carcinoma incidence and the persistence of photodamage-associated conditions such as melasma and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) highlight an ongoing gap between theoretical efficacy and clinical outcomes [1,2].

These observations suggest that current sunscreen formulations, regulatory standards, and usage patterns do not fully address the needs encountered in routine dermatologic practice. This narrative review synthesizes available evidence and clinical experience to examine key unmet clinical needs in sunscreen photoprotection, with particular emphasis on clinical efficacy, patient adherence, long-term safety, and health equity in special populations.

LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT SUNSCREEN STANDARDS

The sun protection factor (SPF) remains the primary metric used to communicate sunscreen efficacy to both consumers and clinicians. However, SPF reflects protection against UVB-induced erythema and does not adequately represent protection against ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation, particularly long-wavelength UVA1 (340–400 nm). UVA1 penetrates deeply into the dermis and contributes significantly to photoaging, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and photocarcinogenesis [3,4]. Although “broad-spectrum” labeling implies UVA coverage, regulatory requirements vary internationally, and many products provide disproportionately higher UVB protection relative to UVA.

From a clinical perspective, this SPF-centric framework may lead to overestimation of long-term photoprotection, especially in patients using sunscreens for chronic daily exposure rather than intermittent intense sun exposure. Persistent UVA exposure has been implicated in melanoma development and UV-induced immunosuppression, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on SPF as a surrogate for comprehensive photoprotection [5].

UVA1 AND VISIBLE LIGHT: AN UNDERADDRESSED CLINICAL GAP

An expanding body of evidence demonstrates that visible light and long-wavelength UVA play a critical role in the pathogenesis of pigmentary disorders, particularly melasma and PIH, conditions that disproportionately affect individuals with darker Fitzpatrick skin types [6,7]. Visible light induces melanogenesis through activation of opsin receptors and generation of reactive oxygen species, resulting in sustained hyperpigmentation that may persist despite conventional UVB-focused photoprotection [8].

In daily dermatologic practice, this mechanism helps explain the frequent persistence or recurrence of pigmentary disorders in patients who report regular sunscreen use. Tinted sunscreens containing iron oxides have been shown to attenuate visible light–induced pigmentation more effectively than non-tinted formulations; however, many commercially available sunscreens lack adequate visible light protection or fail to provide clear labeling regarding coverage in this spectrum [9]. This represents a clinically relevant gap that limits evidence-based sunscreen selection for pigmentary disorders.

COSMETIC ACCEPTABILITY AND PATIENT ADHERENCE

Poor adherence remains one of the most significant barriers to effective photoprotection. Multiple studies demonstrate that patients apply insufficient quantities of sunscreen and inconsistently reapply products, often due to cosmetic dissatisfaction such as greasiness, white cast, pilling, eye irritation, or interference with makeup [10,11]. Mineral sunscreens, while frequently recommended for sensitive or pediatric skin, commonly leave visible residue on darker skin tones, contributing to reduced use among individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI [12].

Reduced adherence directly undermines clinical efficacy and contributes to disparities in photoprotection and pigmentary disease burden. Cosmetic acceptability should, therefore, be regarded not merely as a consumer preference but as a critical determinant of therapeutic success and health equity in dermatologic care.

REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY

Standardized sunscreen testing is conducted under controlled laboratory conditions that do not adequately reflect real-world use. Factors such as sweating, friction from clothing or face masks, water exposure, air pollution, and prolonged outdoor activity may significantly reduce effective UV protection, even when products are applied correctly [13]. These limitations are particularly relevant for outdoor workers, athletes, and individuals living in regions with high ultraviolet indices.

For practicing dermatologists, this discrepancy highlights the need for more realistic testing models and the development of formulations with improved durability and sustained protection under everyday conditions.

SAFETY AND LONG-TERM USE CONSIDERATIONS

Recent studies have demonstrated systemic absorption of certain organic UV filters following topical application, raising questions regarding the long-term safety of chronic daily sunscreen use, particularly in children and pregnant individuals [14]. Although no definitive clinical harm has been established, these findings underscore the importance of long-term safety studies and transparent communication with patients.

Additionally, individuals with compromised skin barriers—such as those with atopic dermatitis, rosacea, or post-procedural skin—frequently experience irritation from existing formulations, limiting suitable sunscreen options. These challenges emphasize the need to balance photoprotective efficacy with tolerability in medically vulnerable populations [15]. Importantly, emerging safety data should not discourage sunscreen use but should inform ongoing research and patient-centered counseling.

SPECIAL POPULATIONS AND HEALTH EQUITY

Patients with skin of color face unique photoprotection challenges, including a higher prevalence of pigmentary disorders and lower sunscreen use influenced by cosmetic, cultural, and historical factors [16]. Pediatric populations require sunscreens that are both highly effective and demonstrably safe for repeated long-term use, yet longitudinal safety data remain limited [17].

Patients with photosensitive conditions, such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus, require enhanced and consistent UVA protection that is not reliably achieved with standard over-the-counter products [18]. In resource-limited settings, restricted access to cosmetically acceptable and truly broad-spectrum sunscreens further exacerbates these disparities, reinforcing the need for equitable innovation and access.

REGULATORY AND INNOVATION BARRIERS

In several regions, regulatory frameworks lag behind advances in sunscreen science, limiting access to newer, more photostable UV filters that provide superior UVA1 coverage and improved cosmetic elegance [19]. In addition, the absence of standardized labeling for UVA1 and visible light protection creates challenges for clinicians attempting to make precise, evidence-based recommendations.

For dermatologists, these regulatory constraints translate into fewer effective options for patients who require enhanced photoprotection, underscoring the importance of policy modernization alongside scientific innovation.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future sunscreen development should prioritize comprehensive photoprotection encompassing UVB, UVA1, and visible light, alongside improved cosmetic acceptability across diverse skin tones, enhanced durability under real-world conditions, and formulations suitable for sensitive, pediatric, and medically compromised skin. Advances in real-world testing methodologies and clearer regulatory standards are required to better align sunscreen performance with clinical expectations. Personalized photoprotection strategies that consider individual risk factors such as skin type, medical comorbidities, occupation, and environmental exposure represent a promising approach to improving adherence and patient outcomes [20].

CONCLUSION

Although sunscreens remain fundamental to dermatologic prevention strategies, significant unmet clinical needs persist. Limitations in UVA and visible light protection, cosmetic acceptability, durability, long-term safety data, and regulatory frameworks undermine real-world effectiveness. Addressing these gaps through dermatologist-driven research, patient education, innovation, and policy reform is essential to improving adherence, reducing disease burden, and advancing equitable photoprotection in routine dermatologic practice.

REFERENCES

1.  Leiter U, Keim U, Garbe C. Epidemiology of skin cancer:Update 2019. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1268:123-39.

2.  Narayanan DL, Saladi RN, Fox JL. Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer. Int J Dermatol. 2010;49:978-86.

3.  Diffey BL. Sunscreens and UVA protection:A major issue of minor importance. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2001;1:295-9.

4.  Wang SQ, Balagula Y, Osterwalder U. Photoprotection:A review of the current and future technologies. Dermatol Ther. 2010;23:31-47.

5.  El Ghissassi F, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, Bouvard V, et al.Areview of human carcinogens—Part D:radiation. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:751-2.

6.  Mahmoud BH, Hexsel CL, Hamzavi I, Lim HW. Effects of visible light on the skin. Photochem Photobiol. 2008;84:450-62.

7.  Duteil L, Cardot-Leccia N, Queille-Roussel C, Maubert Y, Harmelin Y, Boukari F, et al. Differences in visible light–induced pigmentation according to wavelengths:Aclinical and histological study in comparison with UVB exposure. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2014;27:822-6.

8.  Regazzetti C, Sormani L, Debayle D, Bernerd F, Tulic MK, De Donatis GM, et al. Visible light induces pigmentation in human skin through a photoadaptive response. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0198518.

9.  Passeron T, Krutmann J, Andersen ML, Katta R, Zouboulis CC, et al. Clinical and biological impact of visible light on the skin.JEur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35:1189-97.

10.  Autier P, DoréJF, Négrier S, Liénard D, Panizzon R, Lejeune F, et al. Sunscreen use and duration of sun exposure:Adouble-blind, randomized trial.JNatl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1304-9.

11.  Petersen B, Wulf HC. Application of sunscreen—theory and reality. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30:96-101.

12.  Agbai ON, Buster K, Sanchez M, Hernandez C, Kundu RV, Chiu M, et al. Skin cancer and photoprotection in people of color.JAm Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:748-62.

13.  Cole C. Sunscreens—what is important to know?J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24:1160–8.

14.  Matta MK, Florian J, Zusterzeel R, Pilli NR, Patel V, Volpe DA, et al. Effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients. JAMA. 2019;321:2082-91.

15.  Ständer S, Richter L, Krüger A. Skin barrier function and epidermal lipids. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2016;29:3-11.

16.  Taylor SC. Skin of color:Biology, structure, function, and implications for dermatologic disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46(2 Suppl Understanding):S41-S62.

17.  Balk SJ. Ultraviolet radiation:A hazard to children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011;127:e791-e817.

18.  Kuhn A, Gensch K, Haust M. Photoprotection in cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13:178-82.

19.  Nash JF. Human safety and efficacy of ultraviolet filters and sunscreen products. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24:35-51.

20.  Young AR, Claveau J, Rossi AB. Personalised photoprotection:The future of sunscreen use?Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2017;33:79-86.