Photodynamic therapy followed by Mohs micrographic surgery compared to Mohs micrographic surgery alone for the treatment of basal cell carcinoma: Results of a pilot single-blinded randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Basal cell carcinoma is a common cutaneous malignant tumour. Surgical excision is the "gold standard" treatment for most subtypes, with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) offering the highest cure rate. Other treatment modalities used include photodynamic therapy (PDT). BACKGROUND: We aimed to study the efficacy of combining MMS with PDT to see whether this would reduce the number of stages and final defect size when compared with MMS alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study was a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised and controlled pilot study involving a total of 19 patients. Nine patients were randomised to pre-treatment with PDT followed by MMS of whom two withdrew; the remaining 10 patients were randomised to the MMS alone. Follow-up visits were arranged at 3 and 6 months post-surgery. RESULTS: In the PDT arm, five out of the seven treated patients (71%) had their initial tumour size decreased following PDT treatment prior to MMS. The average number of stages in the PDT arm was 1.85, compared to 2.5 in the MMS arm. The average number of sections in the PDT arm was 4.2, in comparison to 5.2 in the MMS arm. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study showed a promising but limited role for PDT as an adjunct in MMS in the treatment of selected cases of basal cell carcinomas. Larger trials, preferably multi-centred are required to further examine the role of this combination therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".