BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the commonest skin cancer in the white population. It is traditionally treated by surgical excision (SE) or by Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, cost, complications and acceptability of periocular BCCs when operated by MMS or SE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 23 November 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SE with MMS for treatment of periocular BCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review and hence none were included for analysis. Results of non-randomised studies describing the individual techniques are reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions could be reached regarding which method of treatment (SE or MMS) resulted in a lower recurrence or complication rate for periocular BCC. No studies were found comparing the cost of either method directly. High quality RCTs are therefore needed to improve the evidence base for the management of this condition.
BACKGROUND:Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the commonest skin cancer in the white population. It is traditionally treated by surgical excision (SE) or by Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, cost, complications and acceptability of periocular BCCs when operated by MMS or SE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 23 November 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SE with MMS for treatment of periocular BCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review and hence none were included for analysis. Results of non-randomised studies describing the individual techniques are reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions could be reached regarding which method of treatment (SE or MMS) resulted in a lower recurrence or complication rate for periocular BCC. No studies were found comparing the cost of either method directly. High quality RCTs are therefore needed to improve the evidence base for the management of this condition.
Authors: M P Treacy; N C Wynne; J L Gale; E Duignan; B Moran; A M Flynn; P Ormond; R Barry; R Khan; P Moriarty; L Cassidy Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: José F Millán-Cayetano; Inés Fernández-Canedo; Jessica Martín-Vera; Sergio A Rodríguez-Lobalzo; Rafael Fúnez-Liébana; Francisco Rivas-Ruiz; Nuria Blázquez-Sánchez Journal: Indian J Dermatol Date: 2022 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.757