Red Light Photodynamic Therapy with 10% Aminolevulinic Acid Gel Showed Robust Efficacy for the Treatment of Superficial BCC in a Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter Phase III Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is often treated surgically; however, depending on lesion size, location, or patient preference, surgery may not be the best option. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has emerged as one alternative treatment for low-risk tumors like superficial BCC (sBCC). With this phase III study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of red light PDT with 10% 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) gel versus vehicle in participants with sBCC. Methods: This phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel group study (NCT03573401) was conducted at 21 U.S. centers. Eligible participants had at least one naïve, histologically confirmed sBCC on the face, scalp, neck/trunk and/or extremities. One lesion per participant was defined as the main target lesion (MTL) for mandatory final excision. Additional lesions were treated but not excised. Either 10% ALA gel (BF-200 ALA, Ameluz®) or vehicle was applied to the lesions and incubated under occlusion for 3 to 3.5 hours, followed by illumination with BF-RhodoLED® (10 min, 635 nm, 37 J/cm²). Treatment was administered in PDT cycles (2 PDT sessions per cycle) with a maximum of 2 PDT cycles per participant. Clinical and histological assessments were performed 12 weeks after start of the last PDT cycle. Results: Of the 187 randomized participants, 145 received 10% ALA gel and 42 received vehicle. Treatment with ALA gel resulted in significantly higher clearance rates compared with vehicle across all respective endpoints (p<0.0001 for all clearances). Clinical clearance of MTLs was achieved in 83.4% of patients in the ALA group versus 21.4% in the vehicle group. Histological clearance of MTLs was similarly superior with ALA gel (75.9% vs. 19.0%). Composite clearance of MTLs, defined as both clinical and histological clearance of MTLs, was observed in 65.5% of ALA-treated participants compared with only 4.8% in the vehicle group. Complete clinical clearance was achieved by 82.1% of participants treated with the ALA gel versus 21.4% of participants treated with vehicle. Combined clinical and histological clearance was achieved by 64.1% of participants in the ALA group versus 4.8% in vehicle. Overall clinical lesion clearance was also higher with ALA (82.6% vs. 21.6%). Esthetic outcomes were favorable in both groups but consistently better with ALA gel. Investigators rated 89.3% of ALA-treated lesions as having a very good or good cosmetic result, compared with 58.0% of vehicle-treated lesions. Participant-reported satisfaction was high regardless of treatment group, with 88.1% of lesions treated with ALA gel and 74.0% of vehicle-treated lesions rated as very good or good. No previously unknown adverse reaction occurred. Conclusion: PDT with 10% ALA gel demonstrated significantly higher clearance rates versus vehicle, with favorable safety and aesthetic outcomes. These results support red light PDT with 10% ALA gel as a highly suitable non-surgical option for sBCC, particularly for multiple or large lesions, in low-risk areas, when patients either decline surgery or are not a good candidate for surgery. The study was sponsored by Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".