-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde [BVS]) using the search terms "nipple sparing mastectomy" and "areola-sparing mastectomy". Also, we searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared to modified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and meta-analyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for non-randomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSM compared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSM studies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nipples; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Skin
PubMed: 27898991
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008932.pub3 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Mar 2021There is a global rise in skin cancer incidence, resulting in an increase in patient care needs and healthcare costs. To optimize health care planning, costs, and...
There is a global rise in skin cancer incidence, resulting in an increase in patient care needs and healthcare costs. To optimize health care planning, costs, and patient care, Ontario Health developed a provincial skin cancer plan to streamline the quality of care. We conducted a systematic review and a grey literature search to evaluate the definitions and management of skin cancer within other jurisdictions, as well as a provincial survey of skin cancer care practices, to identify care gaps. The systematic review did not identify any published comprehensive skin cancer management plans. The grey literature search revealed skin cancer plans in isolated regions of the United Kingdom (U.K.), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for skin cancer quality indicators and regional skin cancer biopsy clinics, and wait time guidelines in Australia and the U.K. With the input of the Ontario Cancer Advisory Committee (CAC), unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancers and the appropriate cancer services were created. A provincial survey of skin cancer care yielded 44 responses and demonstrated gaps in biopsy access. A skin cancer pathway map was created and a recommendation was made for regional skin cancer biopsy clinics. We have created unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancer and a skin cancer pathways map, which will allow for the implementation of both process and performance metrics to address identified gaps in care.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Ontario; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 33809399
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28020114 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence from all randomised trials.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of gefitinib as first-line, second-line or maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 February 2017. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, clinical trial registries and references lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials assessing gefitinib, alone or in combination with other treatment, compared to placebo or other treatments in the first- or successive-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, excluding compassionate use.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed the search results to select those with sound methodological quality. We carried out all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We recorded the following outcome data: overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, tumour response and quality of life. We also collected data for the following subgroups: Asian ethnicity and positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which examined 12,089 patients.General populationGefitinib did not statistically improve overall survival when compared with placebo or chemotherapy in either first- or second-line settings. Second-line gefitinib prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90, P < 0.0001) when compared with placebo. Maintenance gefitinib improved progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91, P = 0.007) after first-line therapy.Studies in patients of Asian ethnicity or that conducted subgroup analysesSecond-line gefitinib prolonged overall survival over placebo (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P = 0.01). In the first-line setting, progression-free survival was improved with gefitinib over chemotherapy alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, P = 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Gefitinib given in combination with a chemotherapy regimen improved progression-free survival versus either gefitinib alone or chemotherapy alone (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96, P = 0.03; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively). In the second-line setting, progression-free survival was superior in patients given gefitinib over placebo or chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.009; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, P = 0.002; moderate quality of evidence, respectively). Combining gefitinib with chemotherapy in the second-line setting was superior to gefitinib alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97, P = 0.04). As maintenance therapy, gefitinib improved progression-free survival when compared with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54, P < 0.00001).Patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumoursStudies in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours showed an improvement in progression-free survival in favour of gefitinib over first-line and second-line chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61, P < 0.00001; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib as maintenance therapy following chemotherapy improved overall and progression-free survival (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, P = 0.05; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, P < 0.0001, respectively) in one phase III study when compared to placebo.Toxicities from gefitinib included skin rash, diarrhoea and liver transaminase derangements. Toxicities from chemotherapy included anaemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity.In terms of quality of life, gefitinib improved Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 10.50, 95% CI 9.55 to 11.45, P < 0.000001), lung cancer subscale (SMD 3.63, 95% CI 3.08 to 4.19, P < 0.00001) and Trial Outcome Index (SMD 9.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 18.48, P < 0.00001) scores when compared with chemotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review shows that gefitinib, when compared with standard first- or second-line chemotherapy or maintenance therapy, probably has a beneficial effect on progression-free survival and quality of life in selected patient populations, particularly those with tumours bearing sensitising EGFR mutations.Patients with EGFR mutations lived longer when given maintenance gefitinib than those given placebo.One study conducted subgroup analysis and showed that gefitinib improved overall survival over placebo in the second-line setting in patients of Asian ethnicity. All other studies did not detect any benefit on overall survival. The data analysed in this review were very heterogenous. We were limited in the amount of data that could be pooled, largely due to variations in study design. The risk of bias in most studies was moderate, with some studies not adequately addressing potential selection, attrition and reporting bias. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the applicability of the resultsCombining gefitinib with chemotherapy appears to be superior in improving progression-free survival to either gefitinib or chemotherapy alone, however further data and phase III studies in these settings are required.Gefitinib has a favourable toxicity profile when compared with current chemotherapy regimens. Although there is no improvement in overall survival, gefitinib compares favourably with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations with a prolongation of progression-free survival and a lesser side effect profile.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Disease-Free Survival; Gefitinib; Genes, erbB-1; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mutation; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29336009
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006847.pub2 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Aug 2023The internet is a primary source of health information for patients, supplementing physician care. Google Trends (GT), a popular tool, allows the exploration of public... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The internet is a primary source of health information for patients, supplementing physician care. Google Trends (GT), a popular tool, allows the exploration of public interest in health-related phenomena. Despite the growing volume of GT studies, none have focused explicitly on oncology, creating a need for a systematic review to bridge this gap.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to systematically characterize studies related to oncology using GT to describe its utilities and biases.
METHODS
We included all studies that used GT to analyze Google searches related to malignancies. We excluded studies written in languages other than English. The search was performed using the PubMed engine on August 1, 2022. We used the following search input: "Google trends" AND ("oncology" OR "cancer" or "malignancy" OR "tumor" OR "lymphoma" OR "multiple myeloma" OR "leukemia"). We analyzed sources of bias that included using search terms instead of topics, lack of confrontation of GT statistics with real-world data, and absence of sensitivity analysis. We performed descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
A total of 85 articles were included. The first study using GT for oncology research was published in 2013, and since then, the number of publications has increased annually. The studies were categorized as follows: 22% (19/85) were related to prophylaxis, 20% (17/85) pertained to awareness events, 11% (9/85) were celebrity-related, 13% (11/85) were related to COVID-19, and 47% (40/85) fell into other categories. The most frequently analyzed cancers were breast (n=28), prostate (n=26), lung (n=18), and colorectal cancers (n=18). We discovered that of the 85 studies, 17 (20%) acknowledged using GT topics instead of search terms, 79 (93%) disclosed all search input details necessary for replicating their results, and 34 (40%) compared GT statistics with real-world data. The most prevalent methods for analyzing the GT data were correlation analysis (55/85, 65%) and peak analysis (43/85, 51%). The authors of only 11% (9/85) of the studies performed a sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of studies related to oncology using GT data has increased annually. The studies included in this systematic review demonstrate a variety of concerning topics, search strategies, and statistical methodologies. The most frequently analyzed cancers were breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin, and cervical cancers, potentially reflecting their prevalence in the population or public interest. Although most researchers provided reproducible search inputs, only one-fifth used GT topics instead of search terms, and many studies lacked a sensitivity analysis. Scientists using GT for medical research should ensure the quality of studies by providing a transparent search strategy to reproduce results, preferring to use topics over search terms, and performing robust statistical calculations coupled with sensitivity analysis.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Bias; Biomedical Research; COVID-19; Internet; Search Engine; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37540544
DOI: 10.2196/47582 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022The prevalence of Merkel cell polyomavirus(MCPyV) in Merkel cell carcinoma(MCC) and non-MCC skin lesions and its possible role in the etiology of other skin diseases...
The prevalence of Merkel cell polyomavirus(MCPyV) in Merkel cell carcinoma(MCC) and non-MCC skin lesions and its possible role in the etiology of other skin diseases remain controversial. To systematically assess the association between MCPyV infection and MCC, non-MCC skin lesions, and normal skin. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a comprehensive search for eligible studies was conducted using Medline Ovid, Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases until August 2021; references were searched to identify additional studies. Observational studies that investigated the association between MCPyV infection and MCC, non-MCC skin lesions, and normal skin using polymerase chain reaction(PCR) as a detection method and provided sufficient data to calculate the prevalence of MCPyV positivity. A total of 50 articles were included in the study after exclusion criteria were applied. Two reviewers independently reviewed and assessed the eligibility of the studies, and all disagreements were resolved by consensus. To determine the association between MCPyV and MCC, overall odds ratio (OR) were calculated with 95% CI using a random-effects model. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed to examine the prevalence rate of MCPyV+ in MCC, non-MCC skin lesions, and normal skin. The primary analysis was the prevalence rate of MCPyV+ in MCC. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence rate of MCPyV+ in non-MCC skin lesions and normal skin. A total of 50 studies involving 5428 patients were reviewed based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Compared with the control group, MCPyV infection was significantly associated with MCC (OR = 3.51, 95% CI = 2.96 - 4.05). The global prevalence of MCPyV+ in MCC, melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, Bowen's disease, actinic keratosis, keratoacanthoma, seborrheic keratosis, and normal skin was 80%, 4%, 15%, 15%, 21%, 6%, 20%, 10%, and 11%, respectively. The current results suggest that MCPyV infection is significantly associated with an increased risk of MCC. However, the low prevalence rate of MCPyV+ in non-MCC skin lesions does not exclude a pathogenic association of this virus with the development of non-MCC skin lesions.
PubMed: 35392226
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.868781 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Dec 2015To summarize the current knowledge about the potential relationship between hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the risk of several extra-liver cancers. (Review)
Review
AIM
To summarize the current knowledge about the potential relationship between hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the risk of several extra-liver cancers.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement. We extracted the pertinent articles, published in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, using the following search terms: neoplasm/cancer/malignancy/tumor/carcinoma/adeno-carcinoma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, kidney/renal-, cholangio-, pancreatic-, thyroid-, breast-,oral-, skin-, prostate-, lung-, colon-, stomach-, haematologic. Case series, case-series with control-group, case-control, cohort-studies as well as meta-analyses, written in English were collected. Some of the main characteristics of retrieved trials, which were designed to investigate the prevalence of HCV infection in each type of the above-mentioned human malignancies were summarised. A main table was defined and included a short description in the text for each of these tumours, whether at least five studies about a specific neoplasm, meeting inclusion criteria, were available in literature. According to these criteria, we created the following sections and the corresponding tables and we indicated the number of included or excluded articles, as well as of meta-analyses and reviews: (1) HCV and haematopoietic malignancies; (2) HCV and cholangiocarcinoma; (3) HCV and pancreatic cancer; (4) HCV and breast cancer; (5) HCV and kidney cancer; (6) HCV and skin or oral cancer; and (7) HCV and thyroid cancer.
RESULTS
According to available data, a clear correlation between regions of HCV prevalence and risk of extra-liver cancers has emerged only for a very small group of types and histological subtypes of malignancies. In particular, HCV infection has been associated with: (1) a higher incidence of some B-cell Non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma types, in countries, where an elevated prevalence of this pathogen is detectable, accounting to a percentage of about 10%; (2) an increased risk of intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma; and (3) a correlation between HCV prevalence and pancreatic cancer (PAC) incidence.
CONCLUSION
To date no definitive conclusions may be obtained from the analysis of relationship between HCV and extra-hepatic cancers. Further studies, recruiting an adequate number of patients are required to confirm or deny this association.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Neoplasms; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26668515
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i45.12896 -
Cancers Jun 2022Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) treated with nonsurgical therapies can be monitored with noninvasive skin imaging. The precision of dermoscopy, reflectance confocal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) treated with nonsurgical therapies can be monitored with noninvasive skin imaging. The precision of dermoscopy, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in detecting clearance is unclear. We aim to report the proportion of persisting tumors identified with noninvasive technologies available in the literature.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted on the PubMed and Cochrane Public Library Databases for articles published prior to November 2021. Statistical analyses were conducted with MedCalc 14.8.1 software.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies (352 lesions) reporting noninvasive imaging for NMSC clearance following nonsurgical treatment were included. Most ( = 7) reported basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and one study reported squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) clearance. A meta-analysis of the BCC clearance revealed that the summary effect for RCM was higher, as compared to the other techniques. Interestingly, the sensitivity and specificity for OCT were 86.4% (95% CI: 65.1-97.1) and 100% (95% CI: 94.8-100.0), respectively, whilst, for RCM, they reached 100% (95%CI: 86.8-100) and 72.5% (95% CI: 64.4-79.7), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Routine clinical examination and dermoscopy underperform when employed for NMSC clearance monitoring, although they represent the first approach to the patient. OCT and RCM seem to improve the detection of persistent BCC after medical treatment.
PubMed: 35740502
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122836 -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2024Standard non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) treatment involves surgery, recently combined with chemotherapy or immunotherapy in cases of advanced tumors. EVs, including... (Review)
Review
Standard non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) treatment involves surgery, recently combined with chemotherapy or immunotherapy in cases of advanced tumors. EVs, including exosomes, are integral to carcinogenesis, and are found in NMSC releasing mediators impacting tumor progression. Nevertheless, the precise intercellular signaling role of NMSC-derived EVs remains unclear. This review aims to elucidate their potential role in NMSC diagnosis and treatment. This systematic review encompassed literature searches in electronic databases from inception to September 2023, based on certain inclusion and exclusion criteria, addressing NMSC-derived EVs, their molecular cargo, and their implications in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of NMSC. Key components were identified. Extracellular vesicle (EV) proteins and RNA have emerged as diagnostic biomarkers in EV-based liquid biopsy. Circular RNA CYP24A1, known for its molecular stability, holds promise as a diagnostic biomarker. Long noncoding RNAs (lincRNA-PICSAR) and Desmoglein 2 (DSg2) are linked to drug resistance, serving as prognostic biomarkers. EV mediators are being actively investigated for their potential role as drug delivery agents. In conclusion, this systematic review showed that NMSC-derived EVs display promise as therapeutic targets and diagnostic biomarkers. Further research is imperative to fully comprehend EV mechanisms and explore their potential in cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Topics: Humans; Extracellular Vesicles; Exosomes; Liquid Biopsy; Skin Neoplasms; Biomarkers
PubMed: 38473864
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25052617 -
Cureus Jul 2020Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world and consists of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell... (Review)
Review
Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world and consists of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the most common non-melanoma skin cancers. The ideal surgical treatment for BCC is complete removal, and it can be achieved either with safety margins or with micrographic control. The currently accepted treatment for basal cell carcinoma is an elliptical excision with a 4-mm surgical margin of clinically normal skin. However, because of cosmetic and functional constraints on the face, a 4-mm surgical margin is often not feasible. We used PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google scholar as our main databases to search for the relevant published studies and used "Basal cell carcinoma" and "narrow excision margins" as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords. Fifteen studies were finalized for the review, which included 3843 lesions. The size of the lesions ranged from 3 to 30 mm, with a mean size of 11.7 mm. Surgical margins varied from 1 to 5 mm. This review was done to evaluate if small, well-defined primary BCCs can be excised using narrow surgical margins. Based on the reviewed literature, we found that for primary well-demarcated BCCs smaller than 2 cm, in the low-risk group, a safety margin of 3 mm gives satisfactory results. In the high-risk group, and for lesions larger than 2 cm, a 4-6 mm margin is suggested for getting clear margins. Mohs micrographic surgery is advocated for more complex and recurrent lesions where the clinical margin is not apparent. However, micrographic surgery is not readily available in many places and requires more training and experience. Therefore, excision with 2 mm margins for clinically well-defined lesions with close follow-up can be followed to preserve the healthy tissue in anatomic constraint lesions and avoid the need for complex reconstructive procedures.
PubMed: 32821563
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.9211 -
Head and Neck Pathology Sep 2023This systematic review aimed to conduct a complete investigation of the demographic aspects, clinicopathological features, degrees of epithelial dysplasia, and malignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to conduct a complete investigation of the demographic aspects, clinicopathological features, degrees of epithelial dysplasia, and malignant transformation rate of actinic cheilitis.
METHODS
The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020201254). A search without year and language restrictions was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Virtual Health Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and gray literature. Studies that provided information on patients with actinic cheilitis were included, excluding those with general information on other diseases or other types of cheilitis. Risk of bias was explored using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Narrative and quantitative data syntheses were performed using meta-analyses and subgroup analyses. Association tests were also performed.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies (728 patients) were included. The most prevalent clinical signs were dryness (99%), blurred demarcation between the lip vermilion and skin (82%), scaling (69%), and atrophy (69%). Regarding epithelial dysplasia, a prevalence of mild dysplasia (34.2%), followed by moderate (27.5%), and severe (14.9%). The malignant transformation rate was 14%. Crusts, ulcerations, and erythematous areas were associated with lip carcinoma (p < 0.001), and scaling was associated with actinic cheilitis (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This study revealed several features of actinic cheilitis, providing an overview of the disease. It is suggested that new studies help develop policy guides for the standardization of clinical criteria, enabling more rigorous and homogeneous analysis of actinic cheilitis.
Topics: Humans; Cheilitis; Lip Neoplasms; Skin; Carcinoma in Situ; Cell Transformation, Neoplastic
PubMed: 36892803
DOI: 10.1007/s12105-023-01543-z