C B van Lee1, B M Roorda2, M Wakkee1, Q Voorham3, A L Mooyaart4, H C de Vijlder5, T Nijsten1, R R van den Bos1. 1. Department of Dermatology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. PALGA: The Nationwide Network and Registry of Histology and Cytopathology, Houten, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Dermatology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has been associated with an increased risk of local functional and aesthetic comorbidity, metastasis and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of recurrence between Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and standard excision for cSCC of the head and neck. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with a cSCC treated with MMS or standard excision at the departments of dermatology of a secondary or tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands between 2003 and 2012. To detect all recurrences, patients were linked to the Dutch pathology registry. To compare the risk of recurrence between MMS and standard excision, hazard ratios (HRs) were used adjusted for clinical tumour size > 2 cm and deep tumour invasion. RESULTS: A total of 579 patients with 672 cSCCs were included: 380 cSCCs were treated with MMS and 292 with standard excision. The risk of recurrence was 8% (22 of 292) after standard excision during a median follow-up of 5·7 years [interquartile range (IQR) 3·5-7·8], which was higher than the 3% (12 of 380) after MMS during a median follow-up of 4·9 years (IQR 2·3-6·0). The cumulative incidence of recurrence was higher for standard excision than for MMS during the entire follow-up period of 8·6 years. Carcinomas treated with MMS were at a three times lower risk of recurrence than those treated with standard excision when adjusted for tumour size and deep tumour invasion (adjusted HR 0·31, 95% confidence interval 0·12-0·66). CONCLUSIONS: MMS might be superior to standard excision for cSCCs of the head and neck because of a lower rate of recurrence.
BACKGROUND: Recurrent cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has been associated with an increased risk of local functional and aesthetic comorbidity, metastasis and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of recurrence between Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and standard excision for cSCC of the head and neck. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with a cSCC treated with MMS or standard excision at the departments of dermatology of a secondary or tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands between 2003 and 2012. To detect all recurrences, patients were linked to the Dutch pathology registry. To compare the risk of recurrence between MMS and standard excision, hazard ratios (HRs) were used adjusted for clinical tumour size > 2 cm and deep tumour invasion. RESULTS: A total of 579 patients with 672 cSCCs were included: 380 cSCCs were treated with MMS and 292 with standard excision. The risk of recurrence was 8% (22 of 292) after standard excision during a median follow-up of 5·7 years [interquartile range (IQR) 3·5-7·8], which was higher than the 3% (12 of 380) after MMS during a median follow-up of 4·9 years (IQR 2·3-6·0). The cumulative incidence of recurrence was higher for standard excision than for MMS during the entire follow-up period of 8·6 years. Carcinomas treated with MMS were at a three times lower risk of recurrence than those treated with standard excision when adjusted for tumour size and deep tumour invasion (adjusted HR 0·31, 95% confidence interval 0·12-0·66). CONCLUSIONS: MMS might be superior to standard excision for cSCCs of the head and neck because of a lower rate of recurrence.
Authors: Ethan Walker; Yiqiao Liu; InYoung Kim; David L Wilson; James P Basilion; Daniel L Popkin; Mark Biro; Sukanya Raj Iyer; Harib Ezaldein; Jeffrey Scott; Miesha Merati; Rachel Mistur; Bo Zhou; Brian Straight; Joshua J Yim; Matthew Bogyo; Margaret Mann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J Claveau; J Archambault; D S Ernst; C Giacomantonio; J J Limacher; C Murray; F Parent; D Zloty Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Lindy Paulina Johanna Arts; Rick Waalboer-Spuij; Kees-Peter de Roos; Monique R T M Thissen; Luc J Scheijmans; Mieke J Aarts; Simone Oerlemans; Marnix L M Lybeert; Marieke W J Louwman Journal: Dermatology Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 5.366
Authors: Roel E Genders; Nick Marsidi; Marlies Michi; Erik P Henny; Jelle J Goeman; Marloes S van Kester Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: A J G Leus; M Frie; M S Haisma; J B Terra; B E C Plaat; R J H M Steenbakkers; G B Halmos; E Rácz Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Ignazio Stanganelli; Francesco Spagnolo; Giuseppe Argenziano; Paolo A Ascierto; Franco Bassetto; Paolo Bossi; Vittorio Donato; Daniela Massi; Cesare Massone; Roberto Patuzzo; Giovanni Pellacani; Pietro Quaglino; Paola Queirolo; Iris Zalaudek; Giuseppe Palmieri Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 6.639