Non-melanoma Skin CancerNCT02872909
Randomized Comparison of Low and Conventional Irradiance PDT for Skin Cancer
A study testing Ambulight (Ambicare Health) in people with Non-melanoma Skin Cancer, run by Sally Ibbotson.
Trial summary
This study aims to examine whether the pain of topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) is significantly different when using low irradiance ambulatory light emitting diode (LED) devices compared with conventional higher irradiance hospital based LED light sources when used for superficial non-melanoma skin cancer. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Non-melanoma Skin Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Ambulight (Ambicare Health)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Oct 2011to 6 Feb 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Bowen's disease or superficial basal cell carcinoma referred for PDT and lesion not greater than 2.4cm diameter
Who cannot join
- Unable to give consent, >2cm diameter, lesions on highly curved surfaces where ambulatory device would not adhere
About this study
Official title: A Randomized Assessor-blinded Comparison of Low Irradiance and Conventional Irradiance Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) for Superficial Non-melanoma Skin Cancer
This study aims to examine whether the pain of topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) is significantly different when using low irradiance ambulatory light emitting diode (LED) devices compared with conventional higher irradiance hospital based LED light sources when used for superficial non-melanoma skin cancer. The investigators are also investigating the phototoxicity and efficacy of each regime in this randomized assessor-blinded clinical trial.
Read the detailed description
A randomized assessor-blinded comparative study of low irradiance ambulatory LED devices with conventional hospital-based LED devices for superficial non-melanoma skin cancer. Preliminary observations suggest that low irradiance LEDs cause less pain but are as effective, so the investigators are examining this in a clinical trial of patients with lesions </= 2cm diameter of non-melanoma skin cancer (Bowen's disease and superficial basal cell carcinoma). Patients with these conditions referred to the PDT clinic will be invited to participate and if they are eligible and consent to treatment then they will be prospectively randomized to either ambulatory PDT or conventional PDT. Pain and phototoxicity scores will be recorded and clinical efficacy will be assessed up to one year after the last treatment. Computer-generated block randomization will be performed and at 90% power to detect as significant at the 5% level a mean difference in pain score of 2 in one group compared with 4 in the other, 36 patients will be needed, and as the participants will often be elderly and frail the investigators will aim for a safety margin of recruiting 50 participants to account for drop-outs. Participants will receive two treatments of either arm at a one week interval and will be assessed clinically at three months and if residual disease remains then the two treatments a week apart are repeated. Pain assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score and phototoxicity on a semi-quantitative scale are recorded at 7 days when the participant returns for their second treatment. Follow up for clinical assessment is at 6 months and one year after treatment. Participants also give their opinion of treatment at one year follow up. Assessors of adverse effects and efficacy will be blinded. Data recording and analysis will be undertaken by the study statistician Dr Robert Dawe and analysis will be on an intention to treat basis using appropriate statistical tests comparing the pre-planned outcome measures, with pain as primary outcome and outcome, efficacy and patient satisfaction as secondary outcomes
- Conditions
- Non-melanoma Skin Cancer
- Being tested
- Ambulight (Ambicare Health)
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ambulight (Ambicare Health)Device
battery-operated low irradiance red light LED ("skin cancer plaster")
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| low irradiance LED PDT | Active comparator | Ambulight LED portable PDT treatment Receives: Device: Ambulight (Ambicare Health) |
| conventional higher irradiance LED | Active comparator | Conventional LED hospital based standard PDT treatment Receives: Device: Ambulight (Ambicare Health) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain on VAS Score
assess on visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 0 - 10cm, with 0 representing no pain experienced through to 10 representing the worst pain imaginable. The participant marks across a 0-10cm unmarked line where their level of pain experience is and this is measured eg. 2cm if experiencing mild pain or 8.5cm which would represent severe pain
Measured: one week after treatment
Secondary outcomes (3)
Phototoxicity
erythema, oedema, blistering, crusting, ulceration on semi-quantitative scale. Erythema is graded as 0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate or 3 = severe erythema as assessed by naked eye examination. Oedema is graded as 0 = absent or 1 = present. Likewise crusting or ulceration are each graded as 0 = absent and 1 = present by naked eye examination. Data will be presented and analysed separately ie. erythema data will be presented and then separately whether oedema, crusting or ulceration are present or absent.
ie. reporting may appear as example: erythema score 3 of range of 0-3 options; oedema score 1 (binary option of 0 or 1); crusting score 0 (binary option of 0 or 1); ulceration score 0 (binary option of 0 or 1)
Measured: one week after treatment
Clinical Clearance of Lesion
clinical assessment by study dermatologist to determine by inspection and palpation whether the lesion is clear, partially clear or not clear - assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, with 12 months as the final study outcome endpoint analysed
Measured: 12 months after treatment
Patient Satisfaction
brief patient questionnaire to evaluate their opinion of the treatment they received. This is assessed as A.efficacy of treatment - 1 = not effective NR; 2 = partIally effective PR; 3 = completely effective CR; B.Side effects of treatment eg. pain and inflammation - 1 = severe; 2 = moderate; 3 = mild; 4 = none/minimal. C.Practicalities of treatment eg. ease of use, travel, time, inconvenience - 1 = very disruptive and difficult; 2 = moderately disruptive and difficult; 3 = minimally disruptive and difficult. The scores of A, B and C will be added to give an overall score with range of overall minimum score option 3 and maximum 10.
Patients will also separately be asked to give overall evaluation on a VAS scale of 0 = treatment very poor and would not have again through to 10 = treatment excellent and I would have again - with a continuous line option from 0 - 10 to mark across, providing a separate score with range options 0 to 10
Measured: one year after treatment - last visit
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Aug 2016 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2011
- Primary completion6 Feb 2017
- Study completion6 Feb 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Non-melanoma Skin CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sally Ibbotson
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Sally Ibbotson, University of Dundee
- Investigators
- Sally H Ibbotson, MD, Principal investigator, University of Dundee
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02872909
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2011DS04
- Status last verified
- Dec 2018
- First submitted
- 5 Aug 2016
- Last updated
- 4 Jan 2019
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: peer reviewed publications and presentations at international and national meetings
Publications
Attili SK, Lesar A, McNeill A, Camacho-Lopez M, Moseley H, Ibbotson S, Samuel ID, Ferguson J. An open pilot study of ambulatory photodynamic therapy using a wearable low-irradiance organic light-emitting diode light source in the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Br J Dermatol. 2009 Jul;161(1):170-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09096.x. Epub 2009 Mar 19.
PubMed 19302071Moseley H, Allen JW, Ibbotson S, Lesar A, McNeill A, Camacho-Lopez MA, Samuel ID, Sibbett W, Ferguson J. Ambulatory photodynamic therapy: a new concept in delivering photodynamic therapy. Br J Dermatol. 2006 Apr;154(4):747-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07145.x.
PubMed 16536822Ibbotson SH. Irradiance is an important determinant of pain experienced during topical photodynamic therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jul;65(1):201-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.11.060. No abstract available.
PubMed 21679812Ibbotson SH, Ferguson J. Ambulatory photodynamic therapy using low irradiance inorganic light-emitting diodes for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer: an open study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2012 Oct;28(5):235-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0781.2012.00681.x.
PubMed 22971187
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Jan 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized Assessor-blinded Comparison of Low Irradiance and Conventional Irradiance Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) for Superficial Non-melanoma Skin Cancer
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02872909
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2011DS04
- Conditions
- Non-melanoma Skin Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Sally IbbotsonUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Oct 2011
- Primary completion
- 6 Feb 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 6 Feb 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Aug 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 4 Jan 2019
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aims to examine whether the pain of topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) is significantly different when using low irradiance ambulatory light emitting diode (LED) devices compared with conventional higher irradiance hospital based LED light sources when used for superficial non-melanoma skin cancer. The investigators are also investigating the phototoxicity and efficacy of each regime in this randomized assessor-blinded clinical trial.
Detailed description
A randomized assessor-blinded comparative study of low irradiance ambulatory LED devices with conventional hospital-based LED devices for superficial non-melanoma skin cancer. Preliminary observations suggest that low irradiance LEDs cause less pain but are as effective, so the investigators are examining this in a clinical trial of patients with lesions </= 2cm diameter of non-melanoma skin cancer (Bowen's disease and superficial basal cell carcinoma). Patients with these conditions referred to the PDT clinic will be invited to participate and if they are eligible and consent to treatment then they will be prospectively randomized to either ambulatory PDT or conventional PDT. Pain and phototoxicity scores will be recorded and clinical efficacy will be assessed up to one year after the last treatment. Computer-generated block randomization will be performed and at 90% power to detect as significant at the 5% level a mean difference in pain score of 2 in one group compared with 4 in the other, 36 patients will be needed, and as the participants will often be elderly and frail the investigators will aim for a safety margin of recruiting 50 participants to account for drop-outs. Participants will receive two treatments of either arm at a one week interval and will be assessed clinically at three months and if residual disease remains then the two treatments a week apart are repeated. Pain assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score and phototoxicity on a semi-quantitative scale are recorded at 7 days when the participant returns for their second treatment. Follow up for clinical assessment is at 6 months and one year after treatment. Participants also give their opinion of treatment at one year follow up. Assessors of adverse effects and efficacy will be blinded. Data recording and analysis will be undertaken by the study statistician Dr Robert Dawe and analysis will be on an intention to treat basis using appropriate statistical tests comparing the pre-planned outcome measures, with pain as primary outcome and outcome, efficacy and patient satisfaction as secondary outcomes
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| low irradiance LED PDT | Active comparator | Device: Ambulight (Ambicare Health)Ambulight LED portable PDT treatment |
| conventional higher irradiance LED | Active comparator | Device: Ambulight (Ambicare Health)Conventional LED hospital based standard PDT treatment |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Bowen's disease or superficial basal cell carcinoma referred for PDT and lesion not greater than 2.4cm diameter
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Unable to give consent, >2cm diameter, lesions on highly curved surfaces where ambulatory device would not adhere
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Ambulight (Ambicare Health)battery-operated low irradiance red light LED ("skin cancer plaster") | Device | conventional higher irradiance LED, low irradiance LED PDT |
Primary outcome
Pain on VAS Score
Time frame: one week after treatment
assess on visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 0 - 10cm, with 0 representing no pain experienced through to 10 representing the worst pain imaginable. The participant marks across a 0-10cm unmarked line where their level of pain experience is and this is measured eg. 2cm if experiencing mild pain or 8.5cm which would represent severe pain
3 secondary outcomes
Phototoxicity
Time frame: one week after treatment
Clinical Clearance of Lesion
Time frame: 12 months after treatment
Patient Satisfaction
Time frame: one year after treatment - last visit
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Jan 2019.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 19302071Attili SK, Lesar A, McNeill A, Camacho-Lopez M, Moseley H, Ibbotson S, Samuel ID, Ferguson J. An open pilot study of ambulatory photodynamic therapy using a wearable low-irradiance organic light-emitting diode light source in the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Br J Dermatol. 2009 Jul;161(1):170-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09096.x. Epub 2009 Mar 19.
- Background: PubMed 16536822Moseley H, Allen JW, Ibbotson S, Lesar A, McNeill A, Camacho-Lopez MA, Samuel ID, Sibbett W, Ferguson J. Ambulatory photodynamic therapy: a new concept in delivering photodynamic therapy. Br J Dermatol. 2006 Apr;154(4):747-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07145.x.
- Background: PubMed 21679812Ibbotson SH. Irradiance is an important determinant of pain experienced during topical photodynamic therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jul;65(1):201-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.11.060. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 22971187Ibbotson SH, Ferguson J. Ambulatory photodynamic therapy using low irradiance inorganic light-emitting diodes for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer: an open study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2012 Oct;28(5):235-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0781.2012.00681.x.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. peer reviewed publications and presentations at international and national meetings
Related trials for Non-melanoma Skin Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Natural History Study of Early Life Exposures in Agriculture (ELEA)
Prostate Cancer, Leukemia
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Harvesting Cells for Experimental Cancer Treatments
Melanoma, Gastrointestinal Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1
Phase 1 Study of PF-08046033 in Advanced Solid Tumors
Non-Small-Cell Lung, Esophageal Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Gut Microbiome in Patients With Lung and Melanoma Cancer and Intestinal Microbiota in Gynecologic Cancers
Non Small Cell Lung Cancer, Melanoma (Skin Cancer)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sally H Ibbotson, MD principal investigator
University of Dundee
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ambulight (Ambicare Health) in people with Non-melanoma Skin Cancer, run by Sally Ibbotson.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Jan 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 4 Jan 2019). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain on VAS Score (time frame: one week after treatment). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02872909, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Jan 2019.