Trial reportJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2025
Simulated daylight vs. conventional PDT for clinical superficial BCC: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulated daylight versus conventional PDT for mild to moderate actinic keratoses: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Trial
- Simulated daylight vs. conventional PDT for clinical superficial BCC: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhotodynamic therapy (PDT) is a recognized treatment for superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC). Conventional PDT (C-PDT) has a relatively high clearance rate but is time-consuming and painful. Simulated daylight PDT (SDL-PDT) has the potential advantage of causing less pain, but its effectiveness has not been investigated thoroughly.
objectivesTo determine whether SDL-PDT is non-inferior to C-PDT in the treatment of clinically diagnosed sBCC and to assess adverse events during treatment and patient preferences.
methodsIn this single-centre, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial, adult patients with sBCCs of any size and located on anatomical sites suitable for PDT were recruited. Lesions were randomized to two sessions of either SDL-PDT or C-PDT using aminolevulinic acid as the photosensitizer. Patient-perceived pain was measured using a numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10. Self-report forms were used to measure patient preferences. Patients were evaluated after 3 months to assess early treatment failure and after 1 year to determine overall clearance rates.
resultsIn total, 78 participants with 193 sBCCs were treated. Most lesions (47.2%) were located on the trunk and were diagnosed solely through dermoscopic evaluation (64.2%). After 1 year, the clearance rate was 62.4% for SDL-PDT and 91.8% for C-PDT (p < 0.001) disproving non-inferiority. Illumination was reported to be more painful during C-PDT (mean NRS score of 3.5 at session 1 and 3.7 at session 2) compared with SDL-PDT (mean NRS score of 0.1 at both sessions) (p < 0.001). Immediately after treatment, 87.5% of respondents expressed a preference for SDL-PDT.
conclusionsSDL-PDT is less effective than C-PDT but is also less painful. Due to the lower clearance rate, this study does not support SDL-PDT as a primary treatment option for sBCC. The randomized controlled trial was registered at http://www.researchweb.org/ (project 264721).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.