How dermatologic surgeons decide to proceed with surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer when site identification is initially uncertain: A nationwide, multicenter, prospective study - 18/12/24


Abstract |
Background |
Few studies show how dermatologic surgeons manage problems with site identification.
Objective |
To estimate frequency and characterize management of skin cancer treated by surgery when the anatomic location of the tumor is in question.
Methods |
Nationwide, prospective, multisite cohort study.
Results |
Among 17,076 cases at 22 centers, 98 (0.60%) were lesions in question for which site identification was initially uncertain, with these more often in patients who were male, older, and biopsied more than 30 days ago. Surgeons employed on average 5.0 (95% CI: 4.61-5.39) additional techniques to confirm the site location, with common approaches including: re-checking available documentation (90 lesions, 92%); performing an expanded physical examination (89 lesions, 91%); and asking the patient to point using a mirror (61 lesions, 62%). In 15%, photographs were requested from the biopsying provider, and also in 15%, frozen section biopsies were obtained. In 10%, the referring physician was contacted. Eventually, surgeons succeeded in definitively identifying 82% (80 of 98) of initially uncertain sites, with the remaining 18% (18 of 98) postponed. Most postponed surgeries were at non-facial sites.
Limitations |
Sites were academic centers.
Conclusions |
When the anatomic location of the tumor is uncertain, dermatologic surgeons use multiple methods to identify the site, and sometimes cases are postponed.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : cutaneous surgery, dermbase, lesion in question, Mohs micrographic surgery, skin cancer, uncertain lesion location
Abbreviations used : IQR, LIQ
Plan
| Funding sources: None. |
|
| Patient consent: Not applicable for recognizable or identifiable patient information in our publication. Consent for participation was obtained by the authors prior to enrollment in the study. |
|
| IRB approval status: Study procedures were performed under the authorization of 2 expedited Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, which collectively authorized data collection and managed transmittal of de-identified data across institutions to enable analysis. All data collected were de-identified, and informed consent was waived per IRB direction. |
Vol 92 - N° 1
P. 85-91 - janvier 2025 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
