Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a well established treatment option for superficial non melanoma skin cancer, such as superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC) and Bowen Disease (BD). However, a limited uptake of the topically applied photosensitizer methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) may reduce its efficacy. Pretreatment with an ablative carbon dioxide (CO2) laser has recently been studied in order to enhance the skin penetration of this photosensitizer. This study compares the results of a full ablative and a fractional ablative CO2 laser mode as pretreatment of PDT in the management of sBCC and BD. The endpoints efficacy, pain, aesthetics and patient preference are investigated during twelve months of follow up.
Superficial Basal Cell Carcinoma (sBCC) and Bowen Disease (BD) are malignant skin tumors localised in the superficial epidermis. These tumors are highly prevalent in the caucasian population. Diagnosis of sBCC and BD is often delayed because the clinical manifestation may be discrete and lesions are sometimes wrongly diagnosed and treated as eczema. Once the diagnosis is established, the lesions may cover an extensive area, making surgical excision more difficult. At that moment, the physician can make use of less invasive techniques such as photodynamic therapy (PDT). Pretreatment with an ablative carbon dioxide (CO2) laser has recently been studied in order to enhance the skin penetration of the photosensitizer methyl aminolevulinate (MAL). This study compares the results of a full ablative and a fractional ablative CO2 laser mode as pretreatment of PDT in the management of sBCC and BD. Ablation of the upper epiderm of the cancer results in an deeper penetration of MAL. Fractional ablation is known to result in better wound healing compared to full ablative CO2 laser ablation, because only small skin columns are ablated instead of the entire epidermal layer. Patients with non operable sBCC or BD lesions covering an area of at least 5 cm2 or with the presence of two small separated lesions, will be investigated. Lesions greater than 5 cm2 are divided in two. After randomization, the half of the lesions will be pretreated with the full ablative CO2 laser, while the other half with the fractional ablative CO2 laser. Afterwards, the entire surface is treated with MAL-PDT. Such as in our current clinical practice, this treatment modality is repeated after a two week interval. Thus, every subject undergoes both treatment modalities, making within-patient comparison possible. The endpoints efficacy, pain, aesthetics and patient preference are investigated during twelve months of follow up.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
16
ablation to the level of de dermal papilla
180 micron HP, pulse 8ms, 15% overlay, 30 W (943J/cm)
peak wavelength 630 nm, 37J/cm2
Department of Dermatology, Ghent University Hospital
Ghent, Belgium
Clinical efficacy after twelve months of follow up
A three point scale with complete regression (CR), partial regression (PR) and no regression (NR) defined respectively as 100%, 25-99% and 0-25% regression.
Time frame: month 12
Clinical efficacy after six months of follow up
A three point scale with complete regression (CR), partial regression (PR) and no regression (NR) defined respectively as 100%, 25-99% and 0-25% regression.
Time frame: month 6
Clinical efficacy after three months of follow up
A three point scale with complete regression (CR), partial regression (PR) and no regression (NR) defined respectively as 100%, 25-99% and 0-25% regression.
Time frame: month 3
Histological efficacy after twelve months of follow up
Time frame: month 12
Pain during the first treatment session
The experienced pain during the treatment is scored bye the patient using a VAS scale of 100 mm.
Time frame: immediately after the first treatment session (day 1)
Pain during the second treatment session
The experienced pain during the treatment is scored by the patient using a VAS scale of 100 mm.
Time frame: immediately after the second treatment session (day 14)
Side effects after the first treatment session
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the investigator: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: immediately after the first treatment session (day 1)
Side effects after one week of follow up, telephone survey
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the patient: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: day 7
Side effects before the second treatment session
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the investigator: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: before initiation of the second treatment session (day 14)
Side effects after the second treatment
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the investigator: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: immediately after the second treatment session (day 14)
Side effects after two weeks of follow up, telephone survey
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the patient: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: day 21
Side effects after three months follow up
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the investigator: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: month 3
Side effects after six months of follow up
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the investigator: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: month 6
Side effects after twelve months of follow up
The presence of following side effects is evaluated by the investigator: erythema, vesicles, pigment changes, scarring, infection and pain.
Time frame: month 12
Aesthetic result after three months of follow up
The aesthetic result is scored by a blinded investigator using a four point scale: excellent (no significant changes), good (minor changes), poor (serious dyspigmentation, visible scarring), very poor (important scarring).
Time frame: month 3
Aesthetic result after six months of follow up
The aesthetic result is scored a by blinded investigator using a four point scale: excellent (no significant changes), good (minor changes), poor (serious dyspigmentation, visible scarring), very poor (important scarring).
Time frame: month 6
Aesthetic result after twelve months of follow up
The aesthetic result is scored a by blinded investigator using a four point scale: excellent (no significant changes), good (minor changes), poor (serious dyspigmentation, visible scarring), very poor (important scarring).
Time frame: month 12
Aesthetic result according to the patient after three months of follow up
The aesthetic result is scored by the patient using a four point scale: excellent (no significant changes), good (minor changes), poor (serious dyspigmentation, visible scarring), very poor (important scarring).
Time frame: month 3
Aesthetic result according to the patient after six months of follow up
The aesthetic result is scored by the patient using a four point scale: excellent (no significant changes), good (minor changes), poor (serious dyspigmentation, visible scarring), very poor (important scarring).
Time frame: month 6
Aesthetic result according to the patient after twelve months of follow up
The aesthetic result is scored by the patient using a four point scale: excellent (no significant changes), good (minor changes), poor (serious dyspigmentation, visible scarring), very poor (important scarring).
Time frame: month 12
Technique of preference according to the patient
Patients are asked for their preferred therapy. Following options exist: (1) full ablative CO2 laser + PDT, (2) fractional ablative CO2 laser + PDT, (3) no preference
Time frame: month 12
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.