ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Pathological Insights into the Limitations of Clinical and Dermoscopic Evaluations in Monitoring Sonidegib Treatment Response for Locally Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Study.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionSurgical excision is the standard treatment for basal cell carcinoma (BCC). For locally advanced BCC (laBCC) not suitable for surgery or radiotherapy, Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) such as sonidegib are important options. Clinical observations have shown that sonidegib may lead to pigmentation and scarring, which can affect treatment evaluation. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sonidegib in Chinese patients with laBCC and examined discrepancies between clinical/dermoscopic assessments and pathological findings, including posttreatment pathological changes.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included 54 patients with laBCC treated with sonidegib 200 mg/day for ≥ 3 months (October 2022-July 2025). Response assessment integrated VISIA-based planimetric lesion-area regression, standardized dermoscopy, and dermoscopy-guided multi-site biopsy as the pathological gold standard. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR) and safety.
resultsAt 3 months, ORR was 87% (complete response [CR] 48%; partial response [PR] 39%), and DCR was 100%. Pathology showed complete clearance in 48.1% and residual tumor in 51.9%, with six cases showing apparent histologic subtype shifts. Dermoscopy in patients with complete remission still demonstrated a high false-positive rate (branching blood vessels 53.8%, blue-gray dots 61.5%), leading to decreased diagnostic specificity. Adverse events occurred in 81.5% of patients; 70.4% reported multiple events, most commonly muscle cramps (66.7%), dysgeusia (59.3%), and alopecia (55.6%). All events were grade 1-3, and no patient discontinued treatment as a result of toxicity.
conclusionIn this real-world Chinese laBCC cohort, sonidegib produced a clinically meaningful response with a favorable safety profile. However, clinical and dermoscopic assessments showed substantial false positives due to posttreatment changes; pathological biopsy remains essential to confirm tumor clearance. Advanced noninvasive imaging (e.g., reflectance confocal microscopy) may further improve monitoring. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.