Prospective Clinical Trial Comparing Curettage and Cryosurgery to Curettage and Electrodesiccation in the Management of Minimally Invasive Basal and Squamous Cell Carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Basal and squamous cell carcinomas represent the most common cancers in North America. Their management is an important issue. Objectives The evaluation of cure rates of minimally invasive cutaneous carcinomas with curettage-cryosurgery compared to curettage-electrodesiccation, as well as the assessment of the aesthetic appearance of scars. Methods This prospective trial randomized 117 patients 1:1 to treatments of curettage-cryosurgery or curettage-electrodesiccation. They were then followed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Results At 12-month follow-up, only one (1/49) patient had a recurrence of cutaneous carcinoma in the curettage-cryosurgery group and none (0/43) in the curettage-electrodesiccation group. Farrington-Manning analysis with a 5% margin of error showed the non-inferiority of the first method ( P = .04). For the aesthetic appearance of scars after 12 months, better results with curettage-cryosurgery procedure has been observed, but this was not statistically significant ( P = .80 and P = .27 for evaluations of patients and clinicians respectively). Limitations This study was mainly limited by its small sample size. Conclusion We have demonstrated that curettage-cryosurgery compared to curettage-electrodesiccation for the treatment of minimally invasive carcinomas is noninferior (comparable) with regards to cure rates at 12-month follow-up. No significant difference has been demonstrated for the appearance of scars.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".