-
Cancers Nov 2021The aim of this study was to examine the association between indoor tanning use and the risk of overall and early-onset (age < 50) melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to examine the association between indoor tanning use and the risk of overall and early-onset (age < 50) melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). To evaluate the association between indoor tanning and skin cancer, a systematic review of the literature published until July 2021 was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Summary relative risk (RR) from 18 studies with 10,406 NMSC cases and 36 studies with 14,583 melanoma cases showed significant association between skin cancer and indoor tanning (melanoma, RR= 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.39; NMSC, RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.18-1.65; squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.38-1.81; basal cell carcinoma (BCC), RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.00-1.55). The risk was more pronounced in early-onset skin cancer (melanoma, RR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.14-2.69; NMSC, RR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.48-2.68; SCC, RR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.38-2.37; BCC, RR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.15-2.77). Moreover, first exposure at an early age (age ≤ 20 years) and higher exposure (annual frequency ≥ 10 times) to indoor tanning showed increasing risk for melanoma (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.16-1.85; RR = 1.52, 1.22-1.89) and NMSC (RR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.44-2.83; RR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86). These findings provide evidence supporting primary prevention policies regulating modifiable behaviors to reduce the additional risk of skin cancer among younger adults.
PubMed: 34885049
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13235940 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2021Saliva is easy to access, non-invasive and a useful source of information useful for the diagnosis of serval inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases. Following the... (Review)
Review
Saliva is easy to access, non-invasive and a useful source of information useful for the diagnosis of serval inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases. Following the advent of genomic technologies and -omic research, studies based on saliva testing have rapidly increased and human salivary proteome has been partially characterized. As a proteomic protocol to analyze the whole saliva proteome is not currently available, the most common aim of the proteomic analysis is to discriminate between physiological and pathological conditions. The salivary proteome has been initially investigated in several diseases: oral squamous cell carcinoma and oral leukoplakia, chronic graft-versus-host disease, and Sjögren's syndrome. Otherwise, salivary proteomics studies in the dermatological field are still in the initial phase, thus the aim of this review is to collect the best research evidence on the role of saliva proteomics analysis in immune-mediated skin diseases to understand the direction of research in this field. The results of PRISMA analysis reported herein suggest that human saliva analysis could provide significant data for the diagnosis and prognosis of several immune-mediated and inflammatory skin diseases in the next future.
Topics: Biomarkers; Early Diagnosis; Humans; Prognosis; Proteomics; Saliva; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 34209865
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22137018 -
JAMA Dermatology Aug 2017Perineural invasion (PNI) in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) has been associated with an increased risk of poor outcomes. Patients with PNI may present with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Perineural invasion (PNI) in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) has been associated with an increased risk of poor outcomes. Patients with PNI may present with clinical symptoms and/or radiologic evidence of PNI (clinical PNI [CPNI]), yet most patients are asymptomatic and PNI is often found on histologic examination (incidental PNI [IPNI]). Evidence-based estimates of the risks of disease-related outcomes comparing IPNI and CPNI are limited in the dermatology literature.
OBJECTIVES
To review and synthesize outcomes data for patients with CSCC and CPNI or IPNI.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for English-language articles published since inception to November 11, 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
All studies that reported a disease-related outcome (local recurrence, nodal metastasis, distant metastasis, or disease-specific death) of CSCCs with CPNI and IPNI were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Articles were screened for eligibility, and any possible discrepancies in this screening were resolved. Data extracted included study characteristics, tumor characteristics, treatments performed, and disease-related outcomes. Overall risks of disease-related outcomes were generated by pooling patients from eligible studies. χ2 Statistics and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate differences in disease-related outcomes.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Risks of disease-related outcomes and 5-year recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies containing 241 patients with CPNI and 381 patients with IPNI were included in the systematic review and analysis. The overall risks of local recurrence and disease-specific death were significantly higher in patients with CSCC and CPNI compared with those with CSCC and IPNI (local recurrence, 37% vs 17%; P < .001; disease-specific death, 27% vs 6%; P < .001). The risks of nodal metastasis and distant metastasis did not differ significantly by PNI classification. Patients with CSCC and CPNI had poorer mean 5-year recurrence-free survival and disease-specific survival compared with patients with IPNI (recurrence-free survival, 61% vs 76%; P = .009; disease-specific survival, 70% vs 88%; P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Patients with CSCC and CPNI are at an increased risk of local recurrence and disease-specific death compared with patients with CSCC and IPNI and have a 30% risk of death. Patients with PNI may benefit from increased long-term surveillance. Further studies are needed to establish standardized guidelines on follow-up and dermatologic surveillance in this high-risk patient population.
Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Skin Neoplasms; Survival Rate
PubMed: 28678985
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.1680 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jul 2016Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with suspicious skin lesions are first examined with a dermoscope. After examination, those with non-cancerous lesions are discharged, but lesions that are still considered clinically suspicious are surgically removed. VivaScope(®) is a non-invasive technology designed to be used in conjunction with dermoscopy to provide a more accurate diagnosis, leading to fewer biopsies of benign lesions or to provide more accurate presurgical margins reducing the risk of cancer recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VivaScope(®) 1500 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA; Lucid Inc., Rochester, NY, USA; or Lucid Inc., MAVIG GmbH, Munich, Germany) and VivaScope(®) 3000 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA) in the diagnosis of equivocal skin lesions, and VivaScope 3000 in lesion margin delineation prior to surgical excision of lesions.
DATA SOURCES
Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched on 14 October 2014, reference lists of included papers were assessed and clinical experts were contacted for additional information on published and unpublished studies.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies evaluating dermoscopy plus VivaScope, or VivaScope alone, with histopathology as the reference test. A probabilistic de novo economic model was developed to synthesise the available data on costs and clinical outcomes from the UK NHS perspective. All costs were expressed as 2014 prices.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the review, but they were too heterogeneous to be combined in a meta-analysis. One of two diagnostic studies that were deemed most representative of UK clinical practice reported that dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 was significantly more sensitive than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of melanoma (97.8% vs. 94.6%; p = 0.043) and significantly more specific than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of non-melanoma (92.4% vs. 26.74%; p < 0.000001). The results of another study suggest 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.16% to 100%] sensitivity for dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 versus 100% (95% CI 91.51% to 100%) for dermoscopy alone. Specificity varied from 51.77% to 80.2% depending on the analysis set used. In terms of margin delineation with VivaScope, one study found that 17 out of 29 patients with visible lentigo maligna (LM) had subclinical disease of > 5 mm beyond the dermoscopically identified margin. Using 'optimistic' diagnostic data, the economic model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8877 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (£9362 per QALY), while the 'less favourable' diagnostic data resulted in an ICER of £19,095 per QALY (£25,453 per QALY) in the diagnosis of suspected melanomas. VivaScope was also shown to be a dominant strategy when used for the diagnostic assessment of suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Regarding margin delineation of LM, mapping with VivaScope was cost-effective, with an ICER of £10,241 per QALY (£11,651 per QALY). However, when VivaScope was used for diagnosis as well as mapping of LM, then the intervention cost was reduced and VivaScope became a dominant strategy.
LIMITATIONS
There is an absence of UK data in the included studies and, therefore, generalisability of the results to the UK population is unclear.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of VivaScope appears to be a cost-effective strategy in the diagnostic assessment of equivocal melanomas and BCCs, and in margin delineation of LM prior to surgical treatment.
FUTURE WORK
High-quality RCTs are required in a UK population to assess the diagnostic accuracy of VivaScope in people with equivocal lesions.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014433.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermoscopy; Germany; Humans; Melanoma; Microscopy, Confocal; Models, Econometric; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Skin Diseases; Skin Neoplasms; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27483991
DOI: 10.3310/hta20580 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Lenvatinib and sorafenib are first-line oral multikinase inhibitors approved for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the...
OBJECTIVE
Lenvatinib and sorafenib are first-line oral multikinase inhibitors approved for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the primary therapeutic agent among these two remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant research published up to June 30, 2022. After quality assessment and data extraction of the included studies, RevMan 5.3 software was used for analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies containing 3908 patients were included after final scrutiny. Our meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the lenvatinib and sorafenib groups (HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02; = 0.09); however, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.74; < 0.00001), complete response (CR) (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 2.71-11.64; < 0.00001), partial response (PR) (OR = 4.62; 95% CI: 3.06-6.98; < 0.00001), objective response rate (ORR) (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 3.90-8.09; < 0.00001), and disease control rate (DCR) (OR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.79-3.28; < 0.00001) in the lenvatinib group were significantly better than those in the sorafenib group. In terms of treatment safety, lenvatinib had similar incidences of any grade adverse events (AEs) (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.47-2.09; = 0.98) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI; 1.00-1.37; = 0.05) compared to sorafenib. Besides, lenvatinib was significantly associated with a higher incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, fatigue, decreased appetite, and weight loss, whereas sorafenib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and hand-foot skin reaction ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Given its potential survival benefit and good tolerability, lenvatinib is an appropriate and promising alternative to sorafenib as first-line systemic therapy in patients with advanced HCC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD 42022327398.
PubMed: 36620586
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1010726 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Mar 2023Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been increasingly used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been increasingly used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, the superiority of combination therapy to TACE monotherapy remains controversial. Therefore, here we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE plus TKIs in patients with uHCC.
METHODS
We searched four databases for eligible studies. The primary outcome was time to progression (TTP), while the secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), tumor response rates, and adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were collected for TTP and OS, and the data were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis models in STATA software. OR and 95% CIs were used to estimate dichotomous variables (complete remission[CR], partial remission[PR], stable disease[SD], progressive disease[PD], objective response rate[ORR], disease control rate[DCR], and AEs) using RStudio's random-effects model. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 30 studies (9 RCTs, 21 observational studies) with 8246 patients. We judged the risk of bias as low in 44.4% (4/9) of the RCTs and high in 55.6% (5/9) of the RCTs. All observational studies were considered of high quality, with a NOS score of at least 6. Compared with TACE alone or TACE plus placebo, TACE combined with TKIs was superior in prolonging TTP (combined HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80), OS (combined HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.67), and objective response rate (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.23-3.67) in patients with uHCC. However, TACE plus TKIs caused a higher incidence of AEs, especially hand-foot skin reactions (OR 87.17%, 95%CI 42.88-177.23), diarrhea (OR 18.13%, 95%CI 9.32-35.27), and hypertension (OR 12.24%, 95%CI 5.89-25.42).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis found that TACE plus TKIs may be beneficial for patients with uHCC in terms of TTP, OS, and tumor response rates. However, combination therapy is also associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse reactions. Therefore, we must evaluate the clinical benefits and risks of combination therapy. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022298003.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Liver Neoplasms; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Combined Modality Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37004052
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-02961-7 -
Cancers Oct 2022Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) as one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Full-body skin exam and... (Review)
Review
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) as one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Full-body skin exam and biopsy is the gold standard for cSCC diagnosis, but it is not always feasible given constraints on time and costs. Furthermore, biopsy fails to reflect the dynamic changes in tumor genomes, which challenges long-term medical treatment in patients with advanced diseases. Extracellular vesicle (EV) is an emerging biological entity in oncology with versatile clinical applications from screening to treatment. In this systematic review, pre-clinical and clinical studies on cSCC-derived EVs were summarized. Seven studies on the genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics of cSCC-derived EVs were identified. The contents in cSCC-derived EVs may reflect the mutational landscape of the original cancer cells or be selectively enriched in EVs. Desmoglein 2 protein (Dsg2) is an important molecule in the biogenesis of cSCC-derived EVs. Ct-SLCO1B3 mRNA, and CYP24A1 circular RNA (circRNA) are enriched in cSCC-derived EVs, suggesting potentials in cSCC screening and diagnosis. p38 inhibited cSCC-associated long intergenic non-coding RNA (linc-PICSAR) and Dsg2 involved in EV-mediated tumor invasion and drug resistance served as prognostic and therapeutic predictors. We also proposed future directions to devise EV-based cSCC treatment based on these molecules and preliminary studies in other cancers.
PubMed: 36291882
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14205098 -
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 -
Cancers Apr 2023The current tumor staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are considered inadequate and insufficient for evaluating the risk of metastasis and for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The current tumor staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are considered inadequate and insufficient for evaluating the risk of metastasis and for identifying patients at high risk of cSCC. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic significance of a 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) both independently and integrated with clinicopathologic risk factors and established staging systems (American Joint Committee on Cancer, eighth edition (AJCC8) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH)).
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, were systematically searched to identify cohort studies and randomized controlled trials on evaluations of the prediction value of 40-GEP in cSCC patients up to January 2023. The metastatic risk analysis of a given 40-GEP class combined with tumor stage and/or other clinicopathologic risk factors was based upon log hazard ratios (HRs) and their standard error (SE). Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were performed, and data quality was assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 1019 patients from three cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall three-year metastatic-free survival rates were 92.4%, 78.9%, and 45.4% for class 1 (low risk), class 2A (Intermediate risk), and class 2B (high risk) 40-GEP, respectively, indicating a significant variation in survival rates between the risk classification groups. The pooled positive predictive value was significantly higher in class 2B when compared to AJCC8 or BWH. The subgroup analyses demonstrated significant superiority of integrating 40-GEP with clinicopathologic risk factors or AJCC8/BWH, especially for class 2B patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The integration of 40-GEP with staging systems can improve the identification of cSCC patients at high risk of metastasis, potentially leading to improved care and outcomes, especially in the high-risk class 2B group.
PubMed: 37173922
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15092456 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) May 2024Super giant basal cell carcinoma (SGBCC), defined as greater than 20 cm in diameter, is a rare oncological entity, with scarce literature. The authors conducted a... (Review)
Review
Super giant basal cell carcinoma (SGBCC), defined as greater than 20 cm in diameter, is a rare oncological entity, with scarce literature. The authors conducted a review to characterize SGBCC, specifically with regards to age, sex predilection, risk factors, geographical location, body site, metastasis, and treatment. A systematic literature search was conducted from 1972 to 2023. All abstracts, studies, and citations were reviewed. The initial result showed 47 281 articles and were filtered down for human, skin, English language, and SGBCC. The authors identified 20 case reports for our analysis. The sample size was too small to conduct extensive statistical analysis. Majority of the cases were reported in North America and Europe. Males outnumbered almost females 2:1. The mean age was 61 years. The lesion was located on trunk in 16 out of 20 cases. In 13 out of 20 years, the lesion had been present for more than 10 years and 7 out of 20 cases reported metastasis. Several reports documented low socioeconomic status and poor mental health. Regarding treatment, 11 patients underwent surgery, radiation was utilized in 6 patients and immunotherapy (Vismodegib) in 4 patients. Although basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is known to have a favorable prognosis, SGBCC is highly aggressive with ability to metastasize. Our review reveals SGBCC is commonly diagnosed in males in their sixth decade, present for more than 10 years duration, risk factors include low socioeconomic status and poor mental health, commonly found on the trunk with a predilection for metastasis. The authors believe self-neglect is the likely etiology of the large size. Treatment options may be multimodal with a combination of surgery, radiation therapy or immunotherapy (Vismodegib).
PubMed: 38694394
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001958