| Literature DB >> 31692830 |
Malumani Malan1,1, Wu Xuejingzi1, Song Ji Quan2.
Abstract
Usually most patients with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) may present rather late when the tumor is in protuberant phase due to its rarity and indolent onset. It has a high propensity for local recurrence and destructive nature. Management of DFSP requires a biopsychosocial and Multidisplinary approach regardless of the clinical or immunohistochemical variant. Surgery is the Gold standard management of localized disease. DFSP rarely exhibits any lymphatic or hematogenous dissemination. It is because of its high recurrence rate associated with Wide Local Excision (WLE), the introduction of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has really helped in reducing the rates of recurrence of DFSP. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis and systemic review is to advocate for MMS over WLE for DFSP and other cutaneous malignancies using DFSP as a prototype. The objective of this study were to conduct a meta-analysis on comparative surgical methods used in the cure of DFSP with regards to WLE verses MMS, to evaluate the cure rates with relation to recurrence rates, offer a recommendation on the various treatment modalities based on the location of lesion, and use of adjuvant therapy in different clinical-medical setups. A comprehensive retrospective analysis search in EMBASE, Google Scholar and Medline (PubMed) for studies published from 2008 to 2018 containing the surgical management of DFSP with WLE verses MMS were reviewed. Five studies of moderate-quality evidence (level B) with a pooled patient load of 684 was analyzed and found for recurrence of DFSP after WLE and MMS to be 9.10% and 2.72% respectively after an average follow-up time for both groups of 5.32 years with a female predominance of 1.58. The trunk is the commonest site for the DFSP lesion which was at 52.80% then the upper and lower extremities zones and the head and neck zones at 31.75% and 15.45% respectively. The pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) analysis indicated that there was a direct relationship with regards the reduced recurrence rate of DFSP in the MMS group compared to the WLE group (OR:0.31;95%; CI :0.17-0.56). Furthermore, there was significant association between the reduced recurrence rate with the MMS in DFSP patients with a statistical P-value of 0.0001 at 95% CI. The expected increased recurrence rate by zones was in WLE head and neck zone at 38.19% then trunk and extremities zone at 13.34%. In the MMS group it was at of 23.4% as compared to 16.0% in the head and neck zone. Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS) is more efficacious in the cure rate and recurrence reduction of DFSP and should be advocated for as first line therapy especially in high recurrence prone zones. © Malumani Malan et al.Entities:
Keywords: Darier-Ferrand; Dermatofibrosarcoma; Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS); dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP); recurrence rate; wide local excision (WLE)
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31692830 PMCID: PMC6815477 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2019.33.297.17692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Figure 1Flow diagram of the five retrospective comparative non randomised studies included in the meta-analysis
Characteristics features and recurrence rates of our meta-analysis, by type of surgery
| Studies and Year | DuBay | Foroozan | Meguerditchian | Paradisi | Veronese |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective Review | Retrospective Study of NRCT | Retrospective Review | Retrospective Trial | Retrospective Review | |
| U.S. A | U.S. A | UK, Canada | Italy | Italy | |
| 158 | 264 | 48 | 79 | 135 | |
| 40 (3-88) | 53 (29-73) | 40 | 44 (10-83) | 46 (7-86) | |
| 2.24 | 2.05 | 1.18 | 1.26 | 1.18 | |
| Site of lesion | |||||
| 44.6% | NA | 39.6% | 63.3% | 63.7% | |
| 36.8% | NA | 37.5% | 25.3% | 27.4% | |
| 18.6% | NA | 22.9% | 11.4% | 8.9% | |
| 1.5% | 6.6% | 0.0 % (0.0-16.8) | 0.0 % (0.0-8.6) | 5.5% | |
| 7.4% | 13.2% | 3.6% (0.1-18.3) | 13.2 % (4.4-28.1) | 8.1% | |
| MMS1 (1.8%) | NA | NA | MMS NA WLE 9.68% | Trunk 45% Extremities 33% | |
| MMS 1(10%) WLE11 (47.8%) | NA | NA | MMS NA WLE 28.57% | 22% | |
| 5.7 years | 5 years (3-5.4) | 5.8 years | 5.4 years (2-15) | 4.7 years | |
| To compare long-term outcomes after MMS and WLE. | Efficacy of Mohs micrographic surgery | Wide excision or Mohs micrographic surgery for the treatment of DFSP | DFSP: wide local excision vs. Mohs micrographic surgery | To evaluate the cure rates of Mohs Tübingen technique (MTT) and wide local excision |
MMS: Mohs micrographic surgery; NA: not available; WLE: wide local excision
Summary of the characteristics of our meta-analysis
| Summary Table: characteristic features of meta-analysis | Value* |
|---|---|
| Average Age of diagnosis | 44.6 years |
| Female: Male Ratio | 1.58 |
| Average follow-up time for both groups | 5.32 years |
| Trunk | 52.80% |
| Extremities | 31.75% |
| Head & Neck | 15.45% |
| WLE | 9.10% |
| MMS | 2.72% |
| Trunk & Extremities | 13.34% |
| Head & Neck | 38.19% |
| Trunk & Extremities | 23.4% |
| Head & Neck | 16.0% |
Forest plot showing OR with 95% CI of MMS and WLE comparing recurrence rates of DFSP by these surgical methods in comparative NRCT, Z=3.85(P=0.0001)
| MMS | WLE | Odds Ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Events | Total | Events | Total | Weight | M-H,Random.95%CI |
| 1 | 71 | 6 | 87 | 7.7% | 0.29[0.02, 1.64] | |
| 10 | 90 | 53 | 174 | 65.8% | 0.29[0.14, 0.59] | |
| 0 | 20 | 1 | 28 | 3.3% | 0.45[0.02, 11.55] | |
| 0 | 44 | 5 | 38 | 4.1% | 0.07[0.00, 1.28] | |
| 4 | 73 | 5 | 62 | 19.1% | 0.66[0.17, 2.58] | |
| Total (95%CI) | 298 | 389 | 100.0% | 0.31[0.17, 0.56] | ||
| 15 | 70 | |||||
Heterogeneity: Tau2=0.00; Chi2=2.54, df=4 (P=0.64); I2=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=3.85(P=0.0001)
Quality assessment of included studies
| Risk of bias | Applicability Concerns | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Patient Selection | Index Test | Reference Standard | Flow and Timing | Patient Selection | Index Test | Standard Reference |
| L | U | L | L | L | L | L | |
| L | U | L | L | L | L | L | |
| L | U | L | U | U | L | L | |
| L | U | L | L | L | L | L | |
| L | U | L | L | L | L | L | |
L: reference to low risk; U: reference to unclear risk; H: reference to high risk