PEP005 (ingenol mebutate) gel for the topical treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma: Results of a randomized phase IIa trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of two applications of PEP005 (ingenol mebutate) gel in superficial basal cell carcinoma. Efficacy was a secondary end-point. METHODS: Randomized, vehicle-controlled, phase IIa study conducted at eight private dermatology clinics in Australia. A total of 60 patients with histologically confirmed superficial basal cell carcinoma (lesion size, 4-15 mm) were randomized to treatment on days 1 and 2 (Arm A) or days 1 and 8 (Arm B) and, within each arm, to ingenol mebutate gel, 0.0025%, 0.01% or 0.05%, or vehicle gel. The main outcome measures were the incidence and severity of adverse events and local skin responses in Arms A and B; lesion clearance at day 85 was a secondary measure. RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events was low. One patient treated with ingenol mebutate gel, 0.05% in Arm A experienced severe flaking/scaling/dryness extending beyond the application site. Non-severe, potentially treatment-related events included erythema extending beyond the application site, application-site pain and headache in two patients each. Six patients in Arm A had one or more severe local skin responses. Efficacy appeared to be dose-related and there was a trend towards higher clinical and histological lesion clearance rates in Arm A compared with Arm B. Histological clearance occurred in five of eight patients (63%) randomized to ingenol mebutate gel, 0.05% in Arm A. CONCLUSIONS: Two applications of ingenol mebutate gel, 0.05%, are safe and have efficacy in patients with superficial basal cell carcinoma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".