 |
|
Predictors of Extensive Subclinical Spread in Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Treated With Mohs Micrographic Surgery
R. Sonia Batra, MD, MSc, MPH;
Larisa C. Kelley, MD
Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1043-1051.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background In nonmelanoma skin cancer, the clinically visible portion may represent
a small fraction of microscopic tumor spread. Previous studies have examined
individual risk factors for subclinical spread based on patient and tumor
characteristics. However, these risk factors have not been prioritized or
studied in combination.
Objective To identify the most predictive risk factors for extensive subclinical
tumor spread.
Design Retrospective analysis of 1131 Mohs micrographic surgical cases. Variables
analyzed included patient age, sex, and immune status and lesion size, location,
histologic subtype, and recurrence. Logistic regression was applied to identify
important combinations of tumor characteristics and to quantify relative odds
of spread.
Setting Academic referral center.
Patients Consecutive sample of all referred patients treated by a single Mohs
micrographic surgeon in a 3-year period.
Main Outcome Measure Number of Mohs micrographic surgical layers required to clear a tumor,
with 3 or more layers defined as extensive subclinical spread.
Results The highest-risk tumors, with odds ratios greater than 6.0, were basosquamous
and morpheaform basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the nose, morpheaform BCC on
the cheek, and those with a preoperative size greater than 25 mm. Other important
risk factors were recurrent and nodular BCC on the nose; location on the eyelid,
temple, or ear helix; neck tumors and recurrent BCC in men; and tumor size
greater than 10 mm. Patients younger than 35 years were at lower risk. Increasing
age and immunocompromise were not significant predictors.
Conclusion Identification of lesions likely to exhibit extensive subclinical spread
can help guide management to ensure complete tumor eradication and thereby
reduce the risk of recurrence and its associated morbidity and cost.
INTRODUCTION
APPROXIMATELY 40% to 50% of Americans who live to age 65 years will
have skin cancer at least once.1 Nonmelanoma
skin cancers, such as basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma
(SCC), comprise the majority, with BCC accounting for more than 75% of all
cases.2 Almost all skin cancers are curable
if diagnosed and treated promptly; however, if not treated correctly, they
can cause extensive destruction of normal tissue and even death.3
The clinically visible tumor surface may only represent one fifth of its local
microscopic invasion.4 Therefore, identification
of high-risk lesions with extensive subclinical spread can help determine
optimal treatment and can significantly reduce morbidity and cost.
The degree to which cancers subtly extend into surrounding tissue is
one of the main reasons for recurrence. Unnoticeable extension means that
visual estimates of tumor perimeters may be insufficient and that inadequate
removal may result.2, 5 Any residual
tumor left after treatment greatly increases the likelihood of clinical recurrence.6-8
Because malignant extensions often are not clinically detectable due
to the microscopic nature of tumor spread, complete tumor excision relies
on microscopic tissue margin control. Of the techniques in practice, Mohs
micrographic surgery (MMS) is the most accurate in determining subclinical
spread of skin cancer.9-10 In
contrast to standard vertical sections, which often sample less than 0.1%
of the true surgical margin,11 in MMS, 100%
of the surgical margin is examined, and any residual tumor is successively
excised.
The number of MMS layers required to clear a tumor is indicative of
the degree of subclinical spread. Because the first layer usually takes an
average of 3-mm margins around the clinically apparent tumor, it is minimally
dependent on preoperative size. A tumor requiring more than 1 or 2 layers
for eradication evidences extensive subclinical spread that might surprise
the clinician relying solely on clinical appearance. These tumors are much
less likely to be adequately treated without microscopic margin control.9-10
Because of its accuracy in determining tumor-free margins, patients
referred for MMS typically present with tumors that have a relatively higher
statistical likelihood of local recurrence. Indications for MMS have been
formulated based on studies12-14
that tended to focus on a subset of risk factors for subclinical spread. Tumors
were compared on the basis of one variable alone, for example, histologic
type or anatomic location. Although certain tumor characteristics were found
to be "high risk," this was on the basis of statistically significant differences
from another characteristic without a general comparison between all groups
of characteristics. As a result, there was no way to order or prioritize those
differences that were most important. The separate studies that identified
individual predictors of subclinical spread of nonmelanoma skin cancers did
not quantify the magnitude of risk, which makes interstudy comparison and
generalizability difficult.
The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors that are most
predictive of extensive subclinical spread of tumor. These findings should
expand on previously formulated indications for MMS by identifying the highest-risk
lesions for inadequate treatment and likely recurrence. This information should
be helpful in recommending appropriate referral and in preoperative planning
regarding tumor excision and reconstruction.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS
Retrospective medical chart analysis was performed for 1131 cases of
malignant skin tumors referred for MMS to the Department of Dermatology at
the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between July 8, 1996, and July 19,
1999, and excised by the same Mohs surgeon (L.C.K.). All patients who underwent
MMS during these 3 years were included in the study except 6 patients whose
medical charts were not available. In patients with multiple clinically distinct
tumors, each lesion was counted as a separate primary tumor.15
Mohs micrographic surgery was performed on an outpatient basis under local
anesthesia using the standard technique.12-13,16
An average of 3-mm margins were taken for each layer.
MEDICAL CHART REVIEW
The number of layers required to clear the tumor was detailed on the
operative record, and 3 or more layers was considered the criterion for extensive
subclinical spread of tumor. Variables examined included patient age, sex,
and immune status and lesion preoperative size, general and specific anatomic
location, histologic type, and recurrence status.
For the purposes of analysis, patients were classified into age groups
defined as younger than 35, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to
84, and 85 years and older. A patient was considered immunocompromised if
medical history included human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome, lymphoma, leukemia, or organ transplantation. Preoperative size
was based on measurements of the largest diameter of each tumor taken using
a millimeter ruler. Postoperative defects of MMS were also measured but were
not used in the final analysis because previous studies17
had demonstrated wide variability of tissue stretch in different anatomic
locations. Preoperative size was analyzed according to the following categories:
less than 5, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 mm and greater.
Although tumor size greater than 20 mm is a standard indication for MMS, the
additional classifications quantified the relative size contribution in combination
with other MMS criteria.
Tumors were classified according to anatomic location into the general
categories of nose, ear, eyelid, lip, forehead, cheek, chin, eyebrow, temple,
neck, trunk, extremity, and scalp. The categories of nose, ear, eyelid, and
lip were further subclassified based on specific location. Tumors on the nose
were recorded as ala, bridge, dorsum, sidewall, or tip. Tumors on the ear
were classified as antihelix, concha, lobule, helix, postauricular, or tragus.
Eyelid tumors were specified as lateral canthus, medial canthus, lower eyelid,
or upper eyelid. Tumors of the lip were classified as cutaneous or vermilion.
Tumor classification included nodular BCC, morpheaform BCC, basosquamous
BCC, recurrent BCC, SCC, SCC in situ, recurrent SCC, adenoid cystic carcinoma,
cellular dermatofibroma, desmoplastic trichoepithelioma, dermatofibrosarcoma
protuberans, eccrine carcinoma, keratoacanthoma-like SCC, lentigo maligna,
lymphadenoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and nevus sebaceous. For analysis, the
category of nodular BCC included superficial BCC, morpheaform BCC included
infiltrative BCC and micronodular BCC, and SCC included keratoacanthoma-like
SCC. These groupings were determined based on similar histologic appearance
on frozen section and previous studies18 demonstrating
comparable growth patterns. Tumors with mixed patterns of histologic subtype
were classified according to the dominant pattern based on accepted histopathologic
criteria. Recurrence status was based on patient history or multiple treatments
required during the 3 years of follow-up.
Microsoft Access (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash) was used for data compilation
and management. Stata Version 6.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Tex) was used
for statistical testing.
STATISTICAL METHODS
The goal of statistical analysis was to construct a model of the probability
of extensive subclinical spread based on explanatory characteristics of tumor.
Data were initially tabulated and mean number of MMS layers were compared
using 2-sample t tests. Potential explanatory variables
were tested using the Pearson  2 statistic. One-way analysis
of variance was used for categorical variables. In all cases, P<.05 was considered statistically significant.
This preliminary analysis guided the selection of variables to be included
in the logistic regression.19 Sample sizes
for histologic types other than BCC and SCC were insufficient for meaningful
statistical analysis, and these 17 cases were excluded. Nineteen cases of
lentigo maligna were also excluded because the tumors had been excised using
a modified MMS technique with immunohistochemical staining. The logistic model
was therefore built based on data derived from 1095 cases of nonmelanoma skin
cancers treated with standard MMS.
Univariate analysis identified explanatory variables for the outcome
of 3 or more MMS layers. Variables were checked for interaction and confounding,
and significant interactions were modeled using interaction variables. The
odds of reaching 3 or more MMS layers after controlling for all other variables
in the model was calculated for each risk factor. Odds for other histologic
subtypes were calculated relative to nodular BCC, odds ratios (ORs) for location
were relative to cheek, size was compared with less than 5 mm, and age was
compared with the reference group of younger than 35 years. References were
chosen based on low probability of subclinical spread.
Alternate multiple logistic regression models were compared using the
likelihood ratio test, the Pearson 2 statistic for goodness
of fit, and the percent correct classification table. The pseudo R2, or coefficient of determination, was calculated for
a rough estimate of overall fit.20
This process allowed calculation of ORs in the univariate analysis that
identified important risk factors and allowed comparison of risk within individual
categories. Logistic regression also allowed analysis of the interaction of
risk factors and the comparison and quantification of odds of subclinical
spread in high-risk combinations. An overall model was built that quantified
the ORs for the most significant risk factors contributing to extensive subclinical
spread of tumor.
RESULTS
In total, 1131 cases of skin cancers excised using MMS were analyzed;
244 of these tumors (21.6%) required 3 or more MMS layers to be cleared, which
was considered indicative of extensive subclinical spread of tumor. The overall
mean ± SD number of MMS layers for the data set was 2.06 ± 1.05.
The distribution of MMS layers is shown in Figure 1.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Distribution of skin cancers by
number of Mohs micrographic surgery layers. For all 1131 cases, the mean number
of Mohs micrographic surgery layers was 2.06.
|
|
|
The mean ± SD age of patients in the data set was 64.1 ±
15.3 years vs 65.8 ± 14.5 years among patients with extensive subclinical
spread. This difference was not significant (P =
.13). A summary of patient ages is shown in Figure 2. There were no statistically significant differences in
mean MMS layers based on age. However, the group younger than 35 years had
a significantly reduced OR of requiring 3 or more MMS layers (OR, 0.12; P = .03).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Age distribution of patients who
underwent Mohs micrographic surgery.
|
|
|
There were slightly more men than women (55.3% men and 44.7% women overall).
A higher percentage of men (23.4%) progressed to 3 or more MMS layers than
did women (19.4%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .10). Analyzing the distribution of anatomic locations
by sex revealed interesting trends (Table
1). Men were significantly more likely to have tumors on the ear,
temple, and scalp. Women had more tumors on the nose, the chin, an extremity,
and the cutaneous lip.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Anatomic Locations of Skin Cancers With Sex Distribution*
|
|
|
A similar analysis of histologic subtypes by sex found that women referred
for MMS were more likely to have morpheaform BCCs and basosquamous BCCs than
were men, although the proportion of both histologic subtypes was relatively
low overall (Table 2). Men had
significantly higher numbers of BCCs and SCCs.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Types of Skin Cancer With Sex Distribution
|
|
|
There were 39 immunocompromised patients (3.4%). The mean number of
MMS layers for this group was 2.05, which did not differ significantly from
that for other MMS patients (P = .93). Immunocompromised
patients were not more likely to require 3 or more MMS layers (P = .58).
Preoperative size was a significant predictor of extensive subclinical
spread in a univariate analysis. Increasing ORs from 1.8 to 3.7 were directly
correlated with increasing preoperative size greater than 10 mm (Figure 3).
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Odds of extensive subclinical
spread based on univariate analysis of preoperative tumor size. Odds ratios
were directly correlated with increasing size, and any tumor greater than
10 mm was significantly more likely to exhibit extensive subclinical spread
compared with tumors measuring less than 5 mm.
|
|
|
Univariate analysis on the basis of location revealed that the nose,
ear, eyelid, temple, and neck had significantly higher odds of extensive subclinical
spread than the cheek (Table 3
and Figure 4). Sublocations found
to have elevated odds of subclinical spread relative to the cheek included
the nasal ala, nasal bridge, nasal tip, ear helix, and lower eyelid.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Odds of Extensive Subclinical Spread by Location Relative
to the Cheek*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Odds of extensive subclinical
spread of nonmelanoma skin cancer based on univariate analysis by location.
Odds ratios are relative to the cheek. Asterisk indicates statistical significance,
with a 2-tailed P<.05.
|
|
|
The odds of subclinical spread for other tumor classifications compared
with nodular BCCs in a univariate analysis revealed that morpheaform BCCs
were 2.3 times (P<.001), recurrent BCCs were 3.2
times (P<.001), and recurrent SCCs were 4.2 times
(P = .01) as likely to exhibit extensive subclinical
spread (Figure 5).
|
|
|
|
Figure 5. Odds of extensive subclinical
spread of nonmelanoma skin cancer based on univariate analysis by tumor classification.
Odds ratios were calculated compared with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC).
SCC indicates squamous cell carcinoma.
|
|
|
Interactions between predictor variables were assessed, and of the many
possible combinations, only those of histologic type, anatomic location, and
sex were significant predictors of extensive subclinical spread. Anatomic
location and tumor type had significant high-risk associations (Table 4). All subtypes of BCC were high risk on the nose, whereas
nodular BCC on the ear and morpheaform and recurrent BCC on the cheek exhibited
extensive spread.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. High-Risk Combinations of Tumor Location and Type*
|
|
|
Analysis of interactions between location and histologic type also identified
significant combinations that were low risk. On the ear, SCC had an OR of
0.1, that is, it was 90% less likely to progress to 3 or more MMS layers (P = .048). On the cheek, nodular BCC was the lowest-risk
histologic subtype, with an OR of 0.5 (P = .01).
Male sex significantly increased the likelihood of extensive subclinical
spread in certain combinations. Recurrent BCC in men had an OR of 5.3 compared
with women requiring 3 or more MMS layers (P = .001).
Tumors on the neck in men were also more than 3 times as likely (OR, 3.6)
as those in women to demonstrate wide microscopic extension (P = .02).
Factors that were significant predictors of extensive subclinical spread
in univariate logistic regression models were included in a multivariate analysis.
In the final model, the most significant predictors of extensive subclinical
spread were anatomic location on the nose of any type of BCC; morpheaform
BCC on the cheek; recurrent BCC in men; location on the neck in men; location
on the ear helix, eyelid, or temple; and increasing preoperative size. Being
younger than 35 years was a significant protective factor for extensive subclinical
spread. The ORs are summarized in Table
5 and Figure 6.
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Multivariate Analysis of the Most Significant Predictors of
Extensive Subclinical Spread of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 6. Odds ratios based on univariate
analysis for important predictors of extensive subclinical spread in nonmelanoma
skin cancer. Preoperative size and patient age were also significant predictors,
as in Table 5. BCC indicates basal
cell carcinoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.
|
|
|
COMMENT
Prediction of extensive subclinical spread can help identify tumors
that otherwise might be inadequately treated and might result in a high rate
of recurrence, with associated tissue destruction, morbidity, and cost. Our
findings suggest that the most important predictors of extensive subclinical
spread of nonmelanoma skin cancers are basosquamous, morpheaform, nodular,
and recurrent BCC subtypes on the nose; morpheaform BCC on the cheek; any
tumor on the eyelid, temple, or ear helix; any tumor on the neck in men; recurrent
BCC in men; and preoperative size greater than 10 mm. Patients younger than
35 years were significantly less likely to exhibit extensive subclinical tumor
spread. Increasing age and immunocompromise were not significant explanatory
variables.
The predictors of subclinical spread identified in this study generally
correspond with those in previous studies21-25
that examined individual categories of risk factors. Analysis of interactions
between risk factors also identified several novel combinations that were
significant predictors of extensive subclinical spread. The model allowed
quantification and comparison of risk associated with various tumor characteristics,
which has not to our knowledge appeared in the literature.
Ninety-five percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers occur in patients aged
40 to 79 years13, 26; however,
the relative contribution of increasing age to the risk of subclinical spread
of tumor has not been quantified. Our analysis found that although the mean
number of MMS layers required tended to increase with age, this trend was
not statistically significant. In addition, there was an 88% decreased risk
of extensive subclinical spread in our sample among patients younger than
35 years controlling for all other variables. Our results are consistent with
those of an earlier study27 that found significantly
smaller lesion and defect sizes in young patients and no appreciable differences
in tumor location, histologic type, or clinical morphologic features between
MMS patients younger than 30 years and those older than 56 years. Although
our data indicate that younger patients may exhibit less microscopic tumor
spread than other patients referred for MMS, this should not supersede other
well-established indications for MMS given the heightened cosmetic concern
and the importance of clear margins in this patient population. Further study
with larger patient samples may help clarify tumor behavior unique to younger
people.
Few previous studies28 have compiled
comprehensive data on sex differences in nonmelanoma skin cancer patients
referred for MMS. Sex-based analysis in our data set shed light on epidemiologic
and referral patterns for MMS. Men were more likely to have tumors on areas
left exposed to sun by short or receding hair, such as the ear, temple, and
scalp. Women were undergoing MMS in areas often treated by other modalities,
such as the extremities, which may result from greater concern for scar size.
Sex was significantly associated only with extensive subclinical spread in
lesions on the neck in men and recurrent BCC in men; however, this was not
an independent risk factor.
Previous studies29 have shown an increased
incidence of cutaneous neoplasms among immunosuppressed individuals compared
with the general population and a shift in distribution to 2:1 of SCC to BCC.
In our sample, immune status was not predictive of local subclinical spread.
Our results suggest that although the incidence of skin cancer may be increased
among the immunosuppressed population, the risk of extensive microscopic tumor
spread was not significantly higher compared with others with tumors indicated
for MMS. This may be because of increased surveillance in this population.
Moreover, because increased risk of metastasis of nonmelanoma skin cancer
has been associated with immunocompromise,30
our results indicate that this risk may be attributable to other modes of
spread (eg, hematogenous or lymphangitic) rather than to local tissue infiltration.
Previous studies31 have identified size
greater than 20 mm as an indication for MMS based on higher likelihood of
recurrence. Preoperative size greater than 10 mm proved to be a significant
predictor of marked microscopic spread in our data set, with odds ranging
from 2 to 4 times that of tumors measuring less than 5 mm. These findings
are consistent with those of other studies32-33
that have shown a gradation of risk of recurrence with increasing tumor size.
Several previous studies28, 32-33
have identified high-risk anatomic locations for subclinical spread of nonmelanoma
skin cancer that were generally consistent with the significant sites of nose,
ear, eyelid, eyebrow, and temple in our analysis. A variety of explanations
for the greater potential for spread at these locations has been proposed,
including the existence of embryonic fusion planes,25, 28
higher density of nerves or the presence of perichondrium and periosteum in
close proximity to dermis,34 and high density
of midfacial sebaceous glands, which provide "pockets" for tumor islands.35 The highest-risk sites in our study were found to
overlay cartilage or bone, which may suggest a greater role for silent perichondral
or periosteal spread.
On the other hand, our identification of the neck in men as a high-risk
site differs from previous studies,33, 36
which found generally low recurrence rates in the neck. Although our sample
size was small, none of 9 women compared with 7 of 14 men with neck tumors
required 3 or more MMS layers. Because poikiloderma is more common in men,
such patients may have tumors with less distinct clinical margins than those
in women. Further study may identify anatomic distinctions that help explain
the elevated sex risk.
Examination of histologic subtype in relation to subclinical spread
in the univariate analysis corresponded with results of previously published
studies of high-risk histologic types.18, 37-39
Our study also found recurrent BCC and SCC to evidence 3 to 4 times the risk
of extensive subclinical spread compared with primary nodular BCC. Previous
studies40 have illustrated that recurrent nonmelanoma
skin cancers often display more invasive, sclerotic behavior. Previous treatment
may decrease local host defenses, cause multiple foci of unconnected tumor,
or cause entrapment of tumor cells in scar tissue that are subsequently released
and cause recurrence.41-42 In
multivariate analysis, recurrent BCC in men was especially likely to exhibit
extensive spread, with odds more than 4 times as great as in women. This may
be explained by heightened cosmetic sensitivity in women, who may notice recurrences
earlier.
Analysis of the association between anatomic location and histologic
subtype yielded several surprising results. Squamous cell carcinoma on the
ear, usually considered a high-risk tumor for metastasis,43-45
was a very low risk for extensive subclinical spread. Because dermatologists
already have a high suspicion for SCC on the ear, patients with such tumors
were possibly referred relatively earlier for biopsy and ultimately MMS. In
addition, SCC in this location may have more distinct clinical margins with
less microscopic invasion.
Similarly, although the cheek is usually considered a low-risk anatomic
location, it was one of the highest-risk locations for morpheaform BCCs. Although
basosquamous carcinoma overall showed similar risk of subclinical spread to
nodular BCC, on the nose the risk was drastically increased, and basosquamous
carcinoma on the nose was actually the highest-risk lesion in the study. Identification
of such combinations may help guide further study to elucidate the tumor biologic
characteristics in particular anatomic locations.
Other studies have used various formulas to assess subclinical spread,
such as the difference between the largest postoperative and the largest preoperative
tumor dimension4 or half this value.39 We focused instead on the number of MMS layers because
layers were uniform, were less dependent on preoperative size, and could be
compared between sites more consistently than postoperative size.17 Because our study focused on cases from a single
surgeon, there was consistency in technique. For tumors of larger size or
aggressive histologic type, where classic teaching recommends larger layers,
this method actually underestimates subclinical spread such that any risk
factors still identified are even less likely to be spurious.
Several other studies4, 46-48
have described statistical indicators of the extent of subclinical tumor growth.
Studies are usually confined to either BCCs or SCCs and focus on the risks
associated with age,27 sex,28
immune status,29 anatomic location,28, 34 or histologic subtype18
alone. A recent study37 of postoperative MMS
defects examined multiple variables separately but was limited to the periocular
region. We chose a logistic regression model because it would allow risk factors
to be assessed simultaneously and, by quantifying risk, would allow comparison
and generalizability.
One limitation of our study was the lack of data on previous treatment
modalities for the recurrent tumors. Recurrent skin cancers after radiation
therapy have been shown to exhibit greater tumor extension than tumors that
recur after other types of treatment.41 It
would have been interesting to learn the microscopic tumor proliferation associated
with various previous treatments. In addition, our study lacked information
on the duration of the lesion before MMS. Tumor age has been shown to affect
subclinical extension only indirectly through an increase in tumor diameter48 and was not independently predictive of recurrence.49 However, inclusion of these data in our model may
have yielded more information.
Another limitation was that our study focused on a biased population:
patients already identified as having higher-risk tumors indicated for MMS.
The relatively high proportion of skin cancers with extensive subclinical
spread in our sample yielded statistical power to identify the most predictive
factors. Although these results are generalizable for nonmelanoma skin cancer
in MMS patients, further research may allow the extension of these predictors
to guide management in the general population.
A strength of our study was the large sample size of 1131 MMS cases
and, specifically, 1095 nonmelanoma skin cancers. From an epidemiologic standpoint,
our data were consistent with other referral-based MMS practices at tertiary
care centers. The distribution of sex, age, anatomic locations, and histologic
types for patients with tumors was comparable to other MMS studies2, 27, 50-52
in university settings. More than 3% of cases in the sample were histologic
types other than BCC or SCC, which likely reflects the tertiary care setting
of this study. These other histologic types, such as lentigo maligna or dermatofibrosarcoma
protuberans, are subject to much more variability in terms of MMS technique.53-54 We therefore chose to focus on 1095
cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer treated according to standard MMS.
By analyzing and controlling for the interaction of risk factors, our
final model for prediction of subclinical spread allows identification of
high-risk tumors with greater specificity. A risk scale based on these predictors
has been developed and validated.55 Our results
indicate that certain histologic subtypes are especially problematic in specific
locations, such as basosquamous carcinoma and nodular BCC on the nose, whereas
other low-risk locations such as the neck or cheek are much more likely to
have extensive subclinical spread for men or for morpheaform BCC, respectively.
By quantifying this risk, a patient referred for MMS can be adequately prepared
given the odds of a more extensive surgery. Moreover, the surgeon may be more
likely to plan his or her schedule to accommodate a lesion likely to require
multiple stages, to be especially vigilant in histopathologic examination
of tumors identified as high risk, and to plan for appropriate post-MMS reconstruction
or repair. Most important, identification of lesions likely to require more
extensive MMS may help ensure complete tumor eradication.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication October 10, 2001.
Corresponding author and reprints: Larisa C. Kelley, MD, Department
of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston,
MA 02215.
From the Departments of Dermatology, Stanford University School of
Medicine, Stanford, Calif (Dr Batra), and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr Kelley).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Ries LAG, ed, Kosary CL, ed, Hankey BF, ed, Miller BA, ed, Clegg L, ed, Edwards BK, ed. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1996. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 1999.
2. Miller SJ. Biology of basal cell carcinoma (part 1). J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991;24:1-13.
ISI
| PUBMED
3. Ko CB, Walton S, Keczkes L. Extensive and fatal basal cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 1992;127:164-167.
PUBMED
4. Burg G, Hirsch R, Konz B, Braun-Falco O. Histographic surgery: accuracy of visual assessment of the margins
of basal-cell epithelioma. J Dermatol Surg. 1975;1:21-24.
5. Bieley HC, Kirsner RS, Reyes BA, Garland LD. The use of Mohs micrographic surgery for determination of residual
tumor in incompletely excised basal cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;26:754-756.
PUBMED
6. Gooding CA, White G, Yatsuhashi M. Significance of marginal extension in excised basal cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1965;273:923-924.
7. Hauben DJ, Zirkin H, Mahler D, et al. The biologic behavior of basal cell carcinoma: analysis of recurrence
in excised basal cell carcinoma, part II. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:110-116.
PUBMED
8. Richmond JD, Davie RM. The significance of incomplete excision in patients with basal cell
carcinoma. Br J Plast Surg. 1987;40:63-67.
PUBMED
9. Rowe DE, Carroll RJ, Day CL. Long-term recurrence rates in previously untreated (primary) basal
cell carcinoma: implications for patient follow-up. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1989;15:315-328.
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Rowe DE, Carroll RJ, Day CL. Mohs surgery is the treatment of choice for recurrent (previously treated)
basal cell carcinoma. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1989;15:424-431.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Davidson TM, Nahum AM, Haghighi P, Astanita RW, Salzstein SK, Seagren S. The biology of head and neck cancer: detection and control by parallel histologic sections. Arch Otolaryngol. 1984;110:193-196.
ABSTRACT
12. Hruza GJ. Mohs micrographic surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1990;23:845-864.
PUBMED
13. Shriner DL, McCoy DK, Goldberg DJ, Wagner RF. Mohs micrographic surgery. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;39:79-97.
PUBMED
14. Hendrix JD, Parlette HL. Duplicitous growth of infiltrative basal cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22:535-539.
PUBMED
15. Young J, Percy C, Asire AJ. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: incidence and mortality
data, 1973-1977. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1981;57:1-1082.
16. Fewkes JL, Cheney JL, Pollack SV. Illustrated Atlas of Cutaneous Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Co; 1992.
17. Hudson-Peacock MJ, Matthews JN, Lawrence CN. Relation between size of skin excision, wound, and specimen. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32:1010-1015.
PUBMED
18. Sexton M, Jones GB, Maloney ME. Histologic pattern analysis of basal cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986;14:186-196.
PUBMED
19. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1989.
20. Hamilton LC. Regression With Graphics. Belmont, Calif: Duxbury Press; 1992.
21. Sloane JP. The value of typing basal cell carcinomas in predicting recurrence
after surgical excision. Br J Dermatol. 1977;96:127-132.
PUBMED
22. Jacobs GH, Rippey JJ, Altinibi M. Prediction of aggressive behavior in basal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1982;49:533-537.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
23. Thackray AC. Histological classification of rodent ulcers and its bearing on their
prognosis. Br J Cancer. 1951;5:213-224.
24. Dellon AL. Histologic study of recurrent basal cell carcinoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75:853-859.
PUBMED
25. Panje WR, Ceilley RI. The influence of embryology of the mid-face on the spread of epithelial
malignancies. Laryngoscope. 1979;89:1914-1920.
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Fitzpatrick TB, Johnson RA, Wolff K, Polano MK, Suurmond D. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Clinical Dermatology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Co; 1997.
27. Dinehart SM, Dodge R, Stanley WE, Franks HH, Pollack SV. Basal cell carcinomas treated with Mohs surgery: a comparison of 54
younger patients with 1050 older patients. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1992;18:560-566.
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Mora RG, Robins P. Basal-cell carcinomas in the center of the face: special diagnostic,
prognostic, and therapeutic considerations. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1990;16:1000-1016.
PUBMED
29. Gupta AK, Cardella CJ, Haberman HF. Cutaneous malignant neoplasms in patients with renal transplants. Arch Dermatol. 1986;122:1288-1293.
ABSTRACT
30. Sitz KV, Keppen M, Johnson DF. Metastatic basal cell carcinoma in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome–related
complex. JAMA. 1987;257:340-343.
ABSTRACT
< |
