| Literature DB >> 20101335 |
Mohmad Ashraf Teli1, N A Khan, M Ashraf Darzi, Meenu Gupta, A Tufail.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The spectrum of skin cancer in Kashmir valley is drastically different from the rest of the country. Maxwell was the first to report skin cancer of lower extremities in Kashmiri population, developing on/over erythema ab igne, and attributed it to the use/or exposure of Kangri. These tumors have an aggressive biological behavior with a substantial risk of loco-regional metastasis in 30-50% cases. Because of unique geographical distribution of Kangri cancer, there is dearth of literature regarding the natural history, loco-regional and distant metastatic pattern and treatment recommendations in these tumors. AIMS: To study the metastatic pattern of these skin tumors and to assess the impact of various treatment modalities and use of prophylactic nodal treatment in this clinical entity.Entities:
Keywords: Erythema ab igne; Kangri cancer; lymph nodal irradiation; squamous cell carcinoma
Year: 2009 PMID: 20101335 PMCID: PMC2807710 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.57610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Dermatol ISSN: 0019-5154 Impact factor: 1.494
Figure 1Components of Kangri
Figure 2Erythema abigne on medial aspect of thigh and leg
Figure 3A T3 Kangri cancer
Figure 4Post operative nodal recurrence
Figure 5Post operative fungating nodal recurrence
Distribution of cases according to various demographic and clinical parameters (n = 266)
| Parameter | No | % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Males | 156 | 58.64 |
| Females | 110 | 41.36 |
| Habitat | ||
| Rural | 183 | 68.80 |
| Urban | 83 | 31.20 |
| Age | ||
| Less than 40 years | 12 | 04.51 |
| 41-50 years | 43 | 16/.16 |
| 51-60 years | 78 | 29.32 |
| 61-70 years | 99 | 37.21 |
| More than 70 years | 34 | 12.78 |
| Site of involvement | ||
| Thighs (total) | 191/266 | 71.80 |
| Right | 102/191 | 53.40 |
| Left | 89/191 | 46.60 |
| Anterior abdominal wall | 59/266 | 22.18 |
| Legs (total) | 15/266 | 05.63 |
| Right | 08/15 | 53.33 |
| Left | 07/15 | 46.67 |
| Feet | 01/266 | 00.37 |
| Histopathological differentiation | ||
| Well differentiated | 192 | 72.18 |
| Moderately differentiated | 16 | 06.01 |
| Poorly differentiated | 03 | 01.12 |
| Not specified | 55 | 20.67 |
Overall and prophylactic nodal irradiation (treatment design)
| T1 lesion – Surgery | T2 lesions – Surgery | T3 lesions – Surgery |
|---|---|---|
| a) R0 status – Close follow-up | a) R0 status – Prophylactic nodal RT alone | Post OP. RT to local site (55 Gy) to all + Prophylactic Inguino-femoral nodal RT to all |
| b) R1 status – LVI/peri-neural invasion – doubtful marginal status – Post OP. RT to local site only (50 Gy) | b) R1 status – LVI – peri-neural invasion doubtful marginal status | |
| – Post OP. RT to local site (55 Gy) | ||
| + Prophylactic IFN RT |
Dose of RT local site: 50-55 Gy/ 5-5.5 weeks; R0 = Negative resection line status; R1 = Positive resection line status, RT = Radiotherapy; LVI = Lymph vascular invasion; IFN RT = Inguino-femoral nodal radiotherapy. Note: Prophylactic-inguino-femoral nodes = 45 Gy/4 weeks - given to patients with N0/Nx status only.
Distribution of cases according to treatment modalities received visa vis loco-regional and distant failure pattern (n = 244)
| Local recurrence (%) | Regional nodal recurrence (%) | Distant metastases (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment of primary site | |||
| Surgery alone (n = 161) | 25/161 (15.5) | 50/161 (31.05) | 04/161 (02.48) |
| Surgery + local radiotherapy (n = 83) | 01/83 (01.20) | 08/83 (09.63) | 02/83 (02.40) |
| Total = 244 | 26/244 (10.65) | 53/244 (21.72) | 06/244 (02.45) |
| Treatment of regional nodes | |||
| No treatment (n = 91) | 10/91 (10.98) | 20/91 (21.97) | 19/91 (20.87) |
| Therapeutic radiotherapy (n = 70) | 3/70 (04.30) | 05/70 (07.14) | 08/70 (11.42) |
| Elective nodal dissection (n = 28) | 1/28 (03.57) | 04/28 (14.28) | 06/28 (21.42) |
| Prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 55) | 2/55 (03.63) | 01/55 (01.81) | 00/55 (00.00) |
| Total = 244 | 16/244 (6.55) | 30/244 (12.29) | 33/244 (13.52) |
Statistical intercomparison of various follow-up parameters visa vis treatment modalities used
| Group comparison | Local recurrence | Nodal recurrence | Distant metastases | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | OR | OR | ||||
| A vs B | 15.07 | 0.000 | 04.22 | 0.00 | 01.03 | 0.971 |
| C vs D | 02.76 | 0.209 | 03.66 | 0.018 | 20.04 | 0.168 |
| C vs E | 03.33 | 0.417 | 01.69 | 0.537 | 00.97 | 1.000 |
| C vs F | 03.27 | 0.209 | 15.21 | 0.002 | 29.03 | 0.001 |
| D vs E | 01.12 | 1.000 | 00.46 | 0.472 | 00.47 | 0.338 |
| D vs F | 01.19 | 1.000 | 04.15 | 0.337 | 14.19 | 0.026 |
| E vs F | 00.98 | 1.000 | 09.00 | 0.077 | 30.00 | 0.002 |
(For the primary) – A = 5 Surgery alone; B = Surgery + local radiation (For regional nodes); C = No treatment; D = Therapeutic radiation; E = Elective dissection; F = Prophylactic radiotherapy
= Not significant
= Significant; vs = Versus; OR = Odds ratio