Topical Imiquimod as a Treatment Option for Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical excision is considered standard treatment for nodular basal cell carcinoma (nBCC). However, patients who reject or are unsuited for surgery may benefit from imiquimod (IMQ) 5% cream as an alternative treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of IMQ for the treatment of nBCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: were searched on Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Articles were included if they reported the efficacy or side effects of IMQ for nBCC. Primary outcomes included clearance (clinical and histological), recurrence rates, and adverse events. Number of lesions/subjects, treatment regimens, length of treatment, and time to recurrence were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine publications, totaling 738 lesions, revealed a 77.4% (335/433 lesions) clinical and 72.9% (390/535 lesions) histological clearance rate. Regimens ranged from once daily 2 days a week to twice daily 7 days a week. Average treatment duration was 8.81 (±3.49) weeks. There was a 1.80% recurrence rate after an average follow-up period of 13.03 (±15.09) months. Common adverse effects included erythema (77.2%), crusting (50.5%), pruritus (34.1%), tenderness/irritation (27.3%), ulceration (25.4%), burning (22.1%), and erosion (21.7%). Unforeseen side effects included conjunctivitis, keratitis, depigmentation, comedone formation, and ruptured epidermoid cysts. CONCLUSION: Imiquimod showed clinical and histological clearance rates of over 70% for nBCC, with a recurrence rate of 1.80%. Although clearance rates are lower than surgery, IMQ can be considered as a treatment option for nBCC in those who decline or are unfit for surgical intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".