Efficacy of micrographic surgery versus conventional excision in reducing recurrence for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

Lacerda Priscila Neri1ORCID,Lange Eloana Pasqualin1ORCID,Luna Natália Miranda1ORCID,Miot Hélio Amante1ORCID,Abbade Luciana Patrícia Fernandes1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Dermatology, Infectology, Imaging Diagnosis and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School (FMB) São Paulo State University (UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista) Botucatu Brazil

Abstract

AbstractThe standard of care for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) involves excision by conventional surgery (CS) with a predefined safety margin of resection or micrographic surgery (MS) with microscopic margin control. Previous studies have reported the superiority of MS in reducing recurrences for high‐risk BCC and SCC. This systematic review aimed to assess MS and CS recurrence rates by including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted for related studies in PubMed, LILACS, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINHAL and Cochrane until May 2023. RCTs and cohorts involving patients with BCC or SCC submitted to MS and CS were included. Risk of bias assessment followed Cochrane‐recommended tools for RCTs and cohorts, and certainty of evidence followed the GRADE approach. Pooled estimates were used to determine the relative risk (RR) and absolute risk difference (RD) using a random‐effects model. Seventeen studies were included, two RCTs and fifteen cohorts. There were 82 recurrences in 3050 tumours submitted to MS, with an overall recurrence rate of 3.1% (95% CI 2.0%–4.7%). For CS, there were 209 recurrences in 3453 tumours, with a recurrence rate of 5.3% (95% CI 2.9%–9.3%). The combined estimate of RR was 0.48 (95% CI 0.36–0.63), without heterogeneity nor evidence of publication bias (p > 0.3). The RD resulted in 2.9% (95% CI 1.0%–4.9%; NNT = 35). Regarding subgroup analysis, the RR for BBC was 0.37 (95% CI 0.25–0.54), and RD was 3.7% (95% CI 0.8%–6.5%; NNT = 28). For SCC, RR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.29–1.13), and RD was 1.9% (95% CI 0.8%–4.7%; NNT = 53). Among primary tumours, RR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.28–0.54), and for recurrent tumours was 0.67 (95% CI 0.30–1.50). There is moderate evidence based on two RCTs, and low evidence based on 15 cohort studies that MS is superior to CS in reducing recurrences of BCCs and primary tumours. The development of protocols that maximize the cost‐effectiveness of each method in different clinical scenarios is paramount.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Infectious Diseases,Dermatology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3