↓ Skip to main content

Randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy and safety of 0.5% colchicine cream versus photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate in the treatment of skin field cancerization: study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy and safety of 0.5% colchicine cream versus photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate in the treatment of skin field cancerization: study protocol
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4288-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Carolina Miola, Eliane Roio Ferreira, Luciana Patricia Fernandes Abbade, Juliano Vilaverde Schmitt, Helio Amante Miot

Abstract

The primary clinical manifestation of skin field cancerization is the presence of actinic keratoses (AKs). Current treatments for AKs related to skin field cancerization include photodynamic therapy (PDT) and colchicine. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.5% colchicine cream versus PDT with methyl aminolevulinate (MAL-PDT) in the treatment of skin field cancerization. In a randomized controlled and open clinical trial with a blind histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis, 36 patients with up to 10 AKs on their forearms will be included from the outpatient clinic. The forearms will be randomized into two groups, clinically evaluated and biopsied for histopathology and immunohistochemistry (p53 and Ki67). One forearm will be treated with 0.5% colchicine cream for 10 days, and the other forearm will receive one session of MAL-PDT; the forearms will subsequently be reassessed clinically and histologically after 60 days (T60) of treatment. The primary endpoint will be the point of complete clearance of AKs in T60. The sample size will enable a detection in the reduction of over 10% in AK counts between the groups with power of 0.9 and an alpha of 0.05, accounting for an estimated dropout rate of 10%, resulting in 36 patients (72 forearms). All participants included in the randomized study will be part of the analysis, and the final outcomes of any dropouts will be the value of their last visit (LOCF). The statistical analysis will be performed using SPSS 22.0, and a p value < 5% will be considered to be significant. It is expected that colchicine will be superior to MAL-PDT in reducing AKs and in the skin field cancerization, and there will be good tolerability in both groups. Colchicine intervention is novel in that it provides a new alternative to MAL-PDT. Moreover, this drug is inexpensive that may be a potential treatment of skin field cancerization that can be prescribed in public health systems with good results. The trial is registered in Brazilian Registry for Clinical Trials (Registration number: RBR-8y3sj9 , date assigned May 4, 2016, retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,498,204
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,156
of 8,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,584
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#113
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,365 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.