Lui 2004.

Methods	D: This was an open‐label, randomised phase II multicentred study RD: The study randomised participants, although it did not provide details of the randomisation process. Randomisation was stratified by number of tumours and by centre AC: This was unclear B: There was no evidence of blinding in the study
Participants	North America: 54 participants (421 multiple non‐melanoma skin cancers, including superficial and nodular basal cell carcinoma, and 34 Bowen's disease); 4 North American university‐based clinics. The study recruited participants with at least 2 non‐pigmented biopsy‐proven non‐melanoma skin cancers Mean age = 55 years (22 to 79 years) Most had Fitzpatrick skin type II or III Inclusion criteria of the trial All sites included
Interventions	Single intravenous infusion of 14 mg m‐² verteporfin followed 1 to 3 hours later by exposure to 1 of 3 different light doses from a non‐thermal LED panel: T1: 60 J cm‐² red light T2: 120 J cm‐² red light T3: 180 J cm‐² red light The tumours were re‐treated 3 months after initial treatment if complete response was not achieved ‐ the re‐treatment dose increased to 18 mg m‐², but the dose remained the same
Outcomes	The lesion was the unit of analysis Histopathological response at 6 months after first verteporfin PDT (using 2 mm punch biopsy) Clinical and cosmetic response assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment. Participants and investigators assessed the cosmetic outcome at each follow‐up visit
Notes	Intervention product information/details verteporfin (QLT Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia) red light (688 +/‐ 10 nm) The exposed area included a 3 to 4 mm peritumoural margin Adverse events and cosmetic outcome was reported for all tumours with no stratification according to tumour type Follow‐up visits after month 6 were optional, and 2‐year follow‐up data were only available for 66% (276/421) of tumours (breakdown according to tumour subtype was not provided). 7 participants (51 lesions) withdrew from the study prior to 6 months (2 were lost to follow up; 4 withdrew for unspecified reasons; and 1 requested withdrawal owing to inconvenience of travel and treatment site pain requiring the use of codeine)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The paper did not detail the randomisation process
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	The paper gave no details, but it was an open‐label study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The paper provided details of loss to follow up: 7 participants (51 tumours ‐ number of Bowen's disease not specified) withdrew from the study prior to month 6; 2 were lost to follow up, 4 withdrew for unspecified reasons, and 1 requested withdrawal for inconvenience
Blinding participants	Unclear risk	There was no evidence of blinding
Blinding clinicians	Unclear risk	There was no evidence of blinding
Blinding pathologist	Unclear risk	There was no evidence of blinding
Blinding outcome assessor	Unclear risk	There was no evidence of blinding
Baseline comparability	Unclear risk	There were more participants with SCC in situ in the lower light‐dose treatment arm