Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most prevalent form of cancer among the Caucasian population. There are several subtypes of BCC with different clinical characteristics and treatment strategies. Superficial and nodular BCCs are low-risk BCC subtypes. The diagnosis and subtype of BCC can be confirmed by means of punch biopsy, but non-invasive diagnosis by means of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is proven to be a non-inferior alternative diagnostic instrument. Besides, non-invasive topical treatment is recommended as valuable treatment alternative to surgical excision for low-risk BCC. Since non-invasive diagnosis and treatment for low-risk BCC is being implemented into daily practice, we want to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of different invasive and non-invasive diagnostic and treatment strategies in the management of low-risk BCC. This real-world evidence will enhance our understanding of these management strategies for low-risk BCC in daily practice.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
142
Topical application of imiquimod (once daily, 5 days a week, during 6 weeks) versus surgical excision.
Maastricht UMC+
Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
RECRUITINGEffectiveness of imiquimod versus surgical excision
Treatment success, expressed as the proportion of tumor free patients
Time frame: 1 year post-treatment
Adverse effects
Incidence and severity of adverse effects
Time frame: During imiquimod treatment, reported by the patient
Mean treatment compliance for patients in the imiquimod group
In percentages
Time frame: During treatment, reported by the patient in a treatment checklist
Cosmetic outcome
Patient-reported satisfaction with cosmetic result of treatment area, expressed as mean score on the DASS questionnaire
Time frame: 1 year post-treatment
Patient treatment satisfaction
Patient-reported satisfaction with treatment, expressed as the proportion of patients reporting to be satisfied with their treatment on a 4-point Likert-scale.
Time frame: 1 year post-treatment
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost-effectiveness will be analysed from a health-care perspective: pre-, during and post-treatment costs will be recorded and analysed and compared in both treatment groups using a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)
Time frame: 1 year post-treatment
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.