Intralesional cryotherapy versus excision and corticosteroids or brachytherapy for keloid treatment: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials

Marc A M Mureau⁴  Jan J V Busschbach¹  Johan W van Neck⁴  Frank B Niessen³  Gerda M Verduijn²  Reinier Timman¹  Eveline Bijlard⁴ 

[1] Department of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy ErasmusMC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam’s, Gravendijkwal, 230 3015 CE, Rotterdam, Netherlands;Department of Radiation Oncology, ErasmusMC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk, 301 3075 EA, Rotterdam, Netherlands;Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU Medical Center, University Medical Centre, Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands;Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery ErasmusMC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam Room EE1591 Dr, Molewaterplein, 50 3015 GE, Rotterdam, Netherlands

关键词: SF36;    Skindex-29;    POSAS;    Cryotherapy;    Corticosteroids;    Brachytherapy;    RCT;    Quality of life;    Keloid;   

Others  :  807775
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-439

 received in 2013-08-26, accepted in 2013-12-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Keloids are a burden for patients due to physical, aesthetic and social complaints and treatment remains a challenge because of therapy resistance and high recurrence rates. The main goal of treatment is to improve the quality of life (QoL); this implies that, apart from surgical outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) need to be taken into account. Decision making in keloid treatment is difficult due to heterogeneity of the condition and the lack of comparative studies.

Methods/Design

This is a multicentre, randomised controlled open trial that compares 1) intralesional cryotherapy versus excision and corticosteroids for primary keloids, and 2) intralesional cryotherapy versus excision and brachytherapy for therapy-resistant keloids. The primary outcome is the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), a 12-item scale (with score 12 indicating the best and 120 indicating the worst scar imaginable). A difference of six points on the total score is considered to be of clinical importance. Secondary outcomes are recurrence rates, volume reduction, Skindex-29 scores, SF-36 scores and complication rates. Primary and secondary outcome measurements are taken at baseline, and at 2, 12, 26 and 52 weeks postoperatively. For analysis, a linear mixed model is used. A total of 176 patients will be included over a period of 2.5 years. The protocol is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam and follows good clinical practice guidelines.

Discussion

The outcomes of this study will improve evidence-based decision making for the treatment of keloids, as well as patient education.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR4151.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bijlard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Schalkwijk J, Kon M: On the nature of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999, 104:1435-1458.
• [2]Brown BC, McKenna SP, Siddhi K, McGrouther DA, Bayat A: The hidden cost of skin scars: quality of life after skin scarring. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008, 61:1049-1058.
• [3]Cohen IK, Beaven MA, Horáková Z, Keizer HR: Histamine and collagen synthesis in keloid and hypertrophic scar. Surg Forum 1972, 23:509-510.
• [4]Cohen IK, Keizer HR, Sjoerdsma A: Collagen synthesis in human keloid and hypertrophic scar. Surg Forum 1971, 22:488-489.
• [5]Syed F, Ahmadi E, Iqbal SA, Singh S, McGrouther DA, Bayat A: Fibroblasts from the growing margin of keloid scars produce higher levels of collagen I and III compared with intralesional and extralesional sites: clinical implications for lesional site-directed therapy. Br J Dermatol 2011, 164:83-96.
• [6]Uitto J, Perejda AJ, Abergel RP, Chu ML, Ramirez F: Altered steady-state ratio of type I/III procollagen mRNAs correlates with selectively increased type I procollagen biosynthesis in cultured keloid fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1985, 82:5935-5939.
• [7]Abergel RP, Pizzurro D, Meeker CA, Lask G, Matsuoka LY, Minor RR, Chu ML, Uitto J: Biochemical composition of the connective tissue in keloids and analysis of collagen metabolism in keloid fibroblast cultures. J Investig Dermatol 1985, 84:384-390.
• [8]Wolfram D, Tzankov A, Pulzl P, Piza-Katzer H: Hypertrophic scars and keloids - A review of their pathophysiology, risk factors, and therapeutic management. Dermatol Surg 2009, 35:171-181.
• [9]Ogawa R: Mechanobiology of scarring. Wound Repair Regen 2011, 19(Suppl 1):s2-s9.
• [10]Shih B, Bayat A: Genetics of keloid scarring. Arch Dermatol Res 2010, 302:319-339.
• [11]Bran GM, Goessler UR, Hormann K, Riedel F, Sadick H: Keloids: current concepts of pathogenesis (review). Int J Mol Med 2009, 24:283-293.
• [12]Lim IJ, Phan TT, Bay BH, Huynh H, Tan WT, Lee ST, Longaker MT: Fibroblasts cocultured with keloid keratinocytes: normal fibroblasts secrete collagen in a keloidlike manner. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2002, 283:C212-C222.
• [13]Seifert O, Mrowietz U: Keloid scarring: bench and bedside. Arch Dermatol Res 2009, 301:259-272.
• [14]Mustoe TA, Cooter RD, Gold MH, Hobbs FD, Ramelet AA, Shakespeare PG, Stella M, Teot L, Wood FM, Ziegler UE: International clinical recommendations on scar management. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002, 110:560-571.
• [15]Ud-Din S, Bayat A: Strategic management of keloid disease in ethnic skin: a structured approach supported by the emerging literature. Br J Dermatol 2013, 169:71-81.
• [16]Tan E, Chua SH, Lim JTE: Topical silicone gel sheet versus intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of keloids - a patient-controlled comparative clinical trial. J Dermatol Treat 1999, 10:251-254.
• [17]Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Robinson PH, Fidler V, Kon M: The use of silicone occlusive sheeting (Sil-K) and silicone occlusive gel (Epiderm) in the prevention of hypertrophic scar formation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998, 102:1962-1972.
• [18]Lawrence WT: In search of the optimal treatment of keloids: report of a series and a review of the literature. Ann Plast Surg 1991, 27:164-178.
• [19]Har-Shai Y, Amar M, Sabo E: Intralesional cryotherapy for enhancing the involution of hypertrophic scars and keloids. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 111:1841-1852.
• [20]Har-Shai Y, Brown W, Labbe D, Dompmartin A, Goldine I, Gil T, Mettanes I, Pallua N: Intralesional cryosurgery for the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids following aesthetic surgery: the results of a prospective observational study. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2008, 7:169-175.
• [21]Har-Shai Y, Sabo E, Rohde E, Hyams M, Assaf C, Zouboulis CC: Intralesional cryosurgery enhances the involution of recalcitrant auricular keloids: a new clinical approach supported by experimental studies. Wound Repair Regen 2006, 14:18-27.
• [22]Furtado F, Hochman B, Ferreira LM: Evaluating keloid recurrence after surgical excision with prospective longitudinal scar assessment scales. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012, 65:e175-e181.
• [23]Arnault JP, Peiffert D, Latarche C, Chassagne JF, Barbaud A, Schmutz JL: Keloids treated with postoperative Iridium 192* brachytherapy: a retrospective study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009, 23:807-813.
• [24]Kal HB, Veen RE, Jurgenliemk-Schulz IM: Dose-effect relationships for recurrence of keloid and pterygium after surgery and radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:245-251.
• [25]van de Kar AL, Kreulen M, van Zuijlen PP, Oldenburger F: The results of surgical excision and adjuvant irradiation for therapy-resistant keloids: a prospective clinical outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007, 119:2248-2254.
• [26]Van De Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, Van Der Horst CMAM, Van Zuijlen PPM: Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005, 116:514-522.
• [27]Truong PT, Lee JC, Soer B, Gaul CA, Olivotto IA: Reliability and validity testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007, 119:487-494.
• [28]Nicholas RS, Falvey H, Lemonas P, Damodaran G, Ghannem A, Selim F, Navsaria H, Myers S: Patient-related keloid scar assessment and outcome measures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 129:648-656.
• [29]Lindeboom JA, van Coppenraet ESB, Kuijper EJ, Polsbroek RM, Horsthuis RB, Prins JM, Lindeboom R: Interpretation and precision of the Observer Scar Assessment Scale improved by a revised scoring. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:1289-1295.
• [30]Both H, Essink-Bot M-L, Busschbach J, Nijsten T: Critical review of generic and dermatology-specific health-related quality of life instruments. J Investig Dermatol 2007, 127:2726-2739.
• [31]Chren MM, Lasek RJ, Flocke SA, Zyzanski SJ: Improved discriminative and evaluative capability of a refined version of Skindex, a quality-of-life instrument for patients with skin diseases. Arch Dermatol 1997, 133:1433-1440.
• [32]Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT: The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ 1993, 306:1440-1444.
• [33]Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Verrips E: Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1055-1068.
• [34]Verbeke G, Molenberghs G: Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. New York: Springer; 2000.
• [35]Verbeke G, Molenberghs G: Liniair Mixed Models in Practice - A SAS Oriented Approach. New York: Springer; 1997.
• [36]Singer JDWJ: Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis - Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. 1st edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
• [37]Little RJA, Rubin DB: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
• [38]Cohen J: A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992, 112:155-159.
• [39]Aberson CL: Applied Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge; 2012.