Search

BACKGROUND: Basal-cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer and its incidence is still rising worldwide. Surgery is the most frequently used treatment for BCC, but large randomised controlled trials with 5-year follow-up to compare treatment modalities are rare. We did a prospective randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of surgical excision with Mohs' micrographic surgery (MMS) for the treatment of primary and recurrent facial BCC. METHODS: Between Oct 5, 1999, and Feb 27, 2002, 408 primary BCCs (pBCCs) and 204 recurrent BCCs (rBCCs) in patients from seven hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to surgical excision or MMS. Randomisation and allocation was done separately for both groups by a computer-generated allocation scheme. Tumours had a follow-up of 5 years. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was recurrence of carcinoma, diagnosed clinically by visual inspection with histological confirmation. Secondary outcomes were determinants of failure and cost-effectiveness. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN65009900. FINDINGS: Of the 397 pBCCs that were treated, 127 pBCCs in 113 patients were lost to follow-up. Of the 11 recurrences that occurred in patients with pBCC, seven (4.1%) occurred in patients treated with surgical excision and four (2.5%) occurred in patients treated with MMS (log-rank test chi(2) 0.718, p=0.397). Of the 202 rBCCs that were treated, 56 BCCs in 52 patients were lost to follow-up. Two BCCs (2.4%) in two patients treated with MMS recurred, versus ten BCCs (12.1%) in ten patients treated with surgical excision (log-rank test chi(2) 5.958, p=0.015). The difference in the number of recurrences between treatments was not significant for pBCC, but significantly favoured MMS in rBCC. In pBCC, Cox-regression analysis showed no significant effects from risk factors measured in the study. In rBCC, aggressive histological subtype was a significant risk factor for recurrence in the Cox-regression analysis. For pBCC, total treatment costs were euro1248 for MMS and euro990 for surgical excision, whereas for rBCC, treatment costs were euro1284 and euro1043, respectively. Dividing the difference in costs between MMS and surgical excision by their difference in effectiveness leads to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro23 454 for pBCC and euro3171 for rBCC. INTERPRETATION: MMS is preferred over surgical excision for the treatment of facial rBCC, on the basis of significantly fewer recurrences after MMS than after surgical excision. However, because there was no significant difference in recurrence of pBCC between treatment groups, treatment with surgical excision is probably sufficient in most cases of pBCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:, (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers in white populations, accounting for 20% of all cutaneous malignancies. Overall, cSCC mostly has very good prognosis after treatment, with 5-year cure rates greater than 90%. Despite the overall favourable prognosis and the proportionally rare deaths, cSCC is associated with a high total number of deaths due to its high incidence. A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was formed to update recommendations on cSCC, based on current literature and expert consensus. Part 1 of the guidelines addresses the updates on classification, epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, staging and prevention in immunocompetent as well as immunosuppressed patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Stratigos reports personal fees and/or research support from Novartis, Roche, BMS, Abbvie, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genesis Pharma, outside the submitted work. Dr. Garbe reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr. Dessinioti has nothing to disclose. Dr. Lebbe reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Avantis Medical Systems, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Incyte, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bataille reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Merck MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bastholt reports personal fees for advisory board activity: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Astra Zeneca, InCyte, MSD/Merck, Bayer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Dréno reports grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Fabre, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr Dummer reports intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME outside the submitted work. Dr. Fargnoli reports personal consulting fees from Almirall, honoraria from Sanofi-Regeneron and participation in Advisory Board for Sanofi-Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Dr. Forsea reports scientific consultant/speaker fee from Novartis, Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr. Harwood reports institutional research grants and honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Galderma, MEDA, Almirall, Pellepharm, Leo Pharma, CERIES, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hauschild reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from MerckPfizer, grants and personal fees from MSD/Merck, grants and personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Pierre Fabre, grants and personal fees from Regeneron, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, grants and personal fees from Novartis Pharma, grants and personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Immunocore, grants and personal fees from Replimune, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees from IO Biotech, personal fees from Dermagnostix, personal fees from Incyte, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, personal fees from Highlight Therapeutics, grants from Huya Biosciences, personal fees from Kyowa Kirin, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hoeller reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Almirall, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kandolf-Sekulovic reports speakers’ honoraria for Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Kaufmann reports institutional research grants (clinical trials) from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biontech, BMS, Celgene, Galderma, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Wyeth. Advisory Board and Honoraria from Merz, Roche, Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kelleners-Smeets reports grants from Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, other from Janssen-Cilag, other from AbbVie, other from Galderma, outside the submitted work. Dr. Malvehy reports research grants from Almirall, ISDIN, Leo Pharma, Galderma, GSK, Cantabria; participation in advisory board meetings for Almirall, Sunpharma, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. Dr. del Marmol reports personal fees from MSD, from BMS, personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from ABVIE, grants from Jansen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno-Ramírez has nothing to disclose. Dr. Pellecani reports grants from university of Modena and Reggio Emilia, during the conduct of the study; grants from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Almirall, grants from Leo Pharma, from null, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peris reports honoraria for advisory board and grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Biogen Celgene, Lilly, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Sandoz outside the submitted work. Dr. Saiag reports honoraria for advisory board and grants from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr. Vieira has nothing to disclose. Dr. Zalaudek reports honoraria and advisory board and grants from Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Novartis, Galderma, Roche, Celgene, Almirall, Leofarma, Mylan, Difa Cooper, Cieffe Labs, La Roche Posay, Pierre Fabre. Dr. Eggermont reports over the last 5 years personal fees as a consultant advisor for Biocad, BioInvent, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), CatalYm, Ellipses, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), HalioDX, Incyte, IO Biotech, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Polynoma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sellas, SkylineDx. Alexander M.M. EGGERMONT: Honoraria, consultancy, SAB, IDMC, lectures for the last 2 years: Agenus, BioInvent, BioNTech, BMS, Brenus, CatalYm, Clover Pharmaceuticals, Ellipses, Galecto, GenOway, GSK, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck&Co/MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDx, TigaTx, Trained Therapeutics,. Equity : IO Biotech, Sairopa, SkylineDX.Dr. Grob reports personal fees for advisory board and as speaker from Amgen, Roche, GSK, Novartis, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer outside the submitted work. Alexander van Akkooi: Advisory Board / Consultancy Honoraria: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Dr Lallas has nothing to disclose. Dr Ioannides reports support from Sanofi in a phase III clinical trial, outside the submitted work.Dr Lorigan reports honoraria (consulting/advisory/speakers' bureau) from BMS, Merck/MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Amgen, Novartis, Oncology Education Canada, Pierre Fabre, Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr Rocken reports study grants from AB Science, Abbott, Abbvie, Alcedis, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, AnaptysBio, argenx, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, CureVac, DelArrivo, Dynavax Technologies, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GSK, Hoffman-La Roche, Hokusai, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Ilkos Therapeutic, Immatics Biotechnologies, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, LEO Pharma, Merck, MSD Sharp & Dome, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, PellePharma, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Sun Pharma, Technische Universitat Dresden, Topaz Therapeutics, UCB, Universitatsklinikum Essen, Universitatsklinik Koln, 4SC, grants for research projects from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung, consulting fees from Galderma, support for attending meetings/travel from EADV, International League of Dermatological Societies, patent PCT/EP2020/072203, stock or stock options from Bristol-Myers Squibb, CureVac, Merck, Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Arenberger has nothing to disclose. Dr Tagliaferri reports honoraria from Elekta, Igea Medical, SunPharma, Sanofi, Roche, Molipharma, Nanobiotix, Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Leiter reports personal fees from MSD, honoraria from MSD, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Almiral Hermal, support for attending meetings/travel from Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, participation in Advisory Board for MSD, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Almiral Hermal, outside the submitted work. Dr Trakatelli reports travel grants from Janssen, UCB, Abbvie, honoraria from UCB, Genesis Pharma, Pierre Fabre Greece, EADV courses, travel expenses for congresses from Abbvie, Pierre Fabre Greece, Genesis Pharma, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers in the white populations, accounting for 20% of all cutaneous malignancies. Factors implicated in cSCC etiopathogenesis include ultraviolet radiation exposure and chronic photoaging, age, male sex, immunosuppression, smoking and genetic factors. A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to update recommendations on cSCC classification, diagnosis, risk stratification, staging and prevention, based on current literature, staging systems and expert consensus. Common cSCCs are typically indolent tumors, and most have a good prognosis with 5-year cure rates of greater than 90%, and a low rate of metastases (<4%). Further risk stratification into low-risk or high-risk common primary cSCC is recommended based on proposed high-risk factors. Advanced cSCC is classified as locally advanced (lacSCC), and metastatic (mcSCC) including locoregional metastatic or distant metastatic cSCC. Current systems used for staging include the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) 8th edition, and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) system. Physical examination for all cSCCs should include total body skin examination and clinical palpation of lymph nodes, especially of the draining basins. Radiologic imaging such as ultrasound of the regional lymph nodes, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scans are recommended for staging of high-risk cSCC. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is currently not recommended. Nicotinamide, oral retinoids, and topical 5-FU have been used for the chemoprevention of subsequent cSCCs in high-risk patients but are not routinely recommended. Education about sun protection measures including reducing sun exposure, use of protective clothing, regular use of sunscreens and avoidance of artificial tanning, is recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Stratigos reports personal fees and/or research support from Novartis, Roche, BMS, Abbvie, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genesis Pharma, outside the submitted work. Dr. Garbe reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr. Dessinioti has nothing to disclose. Dr. Lebbe reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Avantis Medical Systems, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Incyte, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bataille reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MerckMSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bastholt reports personal fees for advisory board activity: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Astra Zeneca, InCyte, MSD/Merck, Bayer. Dr. Dréno reports grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Fabre, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fargnoli reports grants and personal fees from Almirall, grants and personal fees from Leo Pharma, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from UCB, grants and personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, grants and personal fees from Galderma, personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Medac Pharma, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. Dr. Forsea reports scientific consultant/speaker fee from Novartis, Leo Pharma, Solartium, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. Dr. Frenard has nothing to disclose. Dr. Harwood reports institutional research grants and honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Galderma, MEDA, Almirall, Pellepharm, Leo Pharma, CERIES. Dr. Hauschild reports honoraria and/or research grants from: Almirall, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma, MerckSerono, SanofiAventis, Regeneron, MSD/Merck, Philogen, OncoSec outside the submitted work. Dr. Hoeller reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Incyte, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kandolf-Sekulovic reports speakers’ honoraria for Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Kaufmann reports institutional research grants (clinical trials) from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biontech, BMS, Celgene, Galderma, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Wyeth. Advisory Board and Honoraria from Merz, Roche, Novartis. Dr. Kelleners-Smeets reports grants from Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, other from Janssen-Cilag, other from AbbVie, other from Galderma, outside the submitted work. Dr. Malvehy reports research grants from Almirall, ISDIN, Leo Pharma, Galderma, GSK, Cantabria; participation in advisory board meetings for Almirall, Sunpharma, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. Dr. del Marmol reports personal fees from MSD, from BMS, personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from ABVIE, grants from Jansen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Middleton reports personal fees and/or grants from Amgen, Roche, Astrazeneca, GSK, Novartis, Immunocore, BMS, Eisai and Merck. Institutional funding from Millennium, Vertex, Pfizer, Regeneron, TCBiopharma, BiolineRx, Replimune, outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno-Ramírez has nothing to disclose. Dr. Pellecani reports grants from university of modena and reggio emilia, during the conduct of the study; grants from novartis, grants and personal fees from almirall, grants from leo pharma, from null, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peris reports honoraria for advisory board and grants from AbbVie, Almirall, BiogenCelgene, Lilly, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Sandoz outside the submitted work. Dr. Saiag reports honoraria for advisory board and grants from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr. van den Beuken-van Everdingen has nothing to disclose. Dr. Vieira has nothing to disclose. Dr. Zalaudek reports honoraria and advisory board and grants from Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Novartis, Galderma, Roche, Celgene, Almirall, Leofarma, Mylan, Difa Cooper, Cieffe Labs, La Roche Posay, Pierre Fabre. Dr. Eggermont reports over the last 5 years personal fees as a consultant advisor for Biocad, BioInvent, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), CatalYm, Ellipses, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), HalioDX, Incyte, IO Biotech, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Polynoma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sellas, SkylineDx. Dr. Grob reports personal fees for advisory board and as speaker from Amgen, Roche, GSK, Novartis, BMS, Pierre fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In order to evaluate and improve aesthetic outcome for patients undergoing dermatological surgery, a reliable evaluation tool must be used. The 4-point scale and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were both developed for this purpose., Objective: To compare the reliability of the POSAS scale with the 4-point scale for facial linear surgical scars and to assess the influence of different scar characteristics on the overall impression., Methods: Patients visiting the outpatient clinics of the Maastricht University Medical Centre with linear facial scars were included. The 4-point scale and the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) were completed by three independent observers. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) was completed by the patient on the day of the visit and 2 weeks later. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the reliability of the scales. Linear multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate how the score on each aspect affected the overall opinion., Results: Fifty scars in 50 patients were included. The ICC of the 4-point scale was 0.819 (95% CI: 0.708-0.892) for multiple observers and 0.602 (95% CI: 0.447-0.734) for single observer. These were superior to the ICCs of total OSAS scores (0.783 95% CI: 0.547-0.888 for multiple observers and 0.546 95% CI: 0.287-0.726 for single observer). ICCs of individual sub-items on the OSAS scored even lower. The sub-items contributed differently to the overall opinion among the different observers or patient., Conclusion: In terms of reliability, the overall opinion and the 4-point scale were superior to the total POSAS score or the sub-items. Observers do not weight individual scar characteristics equally to arrive at an overall opinion, which challenges the assumption that calculating a total POSAS score by summing of the scores on the individual items is a valid approach., (© 2016 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: The success of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) depends partly on the correct diagnosis of slides., Objectives: To determine reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides., Methods: This was a prospective study evaluating the reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) presence, BCC location on the slide and BCC subtype among six raters who independently assessed 50 Mohs slides twice with a 2-month interval. Slides were randomly selected whereby difficult-to-diagnose slides were oversampled. For each slide, a reference diagnosis was established by an expert panel. Cohen's kappa (κ) was calculated to determine levels of agreement interpersonally (rater vs. reference diagnosis) and intrapersonally (rater at T1 vs. T2). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent risk factors for slides with interpersonal discordant diagnosis. The variables studied were BCC presence, whether a slide was scored as easy or difficult to diagnose, review duration of the 50 slides, profession and years of experience in diagnosis from Mohs slides., Results: Interpersonal and intrapersonal agreement were substantial on BCC presence (κ = 0·66 and 0·68) and moderate on BCC subtype (κ = 0·45 and 0·55). Slides that were scored as difficult to diagnose were an independent risk factor for interpersonal discordant diagnosis on BCC presence (odds ratio 3·54, 95% confidence interval 1·81-6·84)., Conclusions: Reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides was substantial on BCC presence and moderate on BCC subtype. For slides that are scored difficult to diagnose, a second opinion is recommended to prevent misinterpretation and thereby recurrence of skin cancer., (© 2016 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and vitamin-D derivatives can target signaling pathways activated in basal cell carcinoma (BCC)., Objective: We investigated the efficacy of topically applied diclofenac sodium 3% gel, calcitriol 3 μg/g ointment, and a combination of both in superficial BCC (sBCC) and nodular BCC., Methods: Patients with a primary, histologically proven sBCC (n = 64) or nodular BCC (n = 64) were randomized to topical diclofenac, calcitriol, combination of both, or no topical treatment (control group). After self-application twice daily under occlusion (8 weeks), tumors were excised. Primary outcome was posttreatment expression levels of proliferation (Ki-67) and antiapoptosis (B-cell lymphoma [Bcl-2]) immunohistochemical markers. Secondary outcomes were histologic clearance, adverse events, application-site reactions, and patient compliance., Results: sBCC treated with diclofenac showed a significant decrease in Ki-67 (P < .001) and Bcl-2 (P = .001), and after combination therapy for Ki-67 (P = .012). Complete histologic tumor regression was seen in 64.3% (P = .0003) of sBCC (diclofenac) and 43.8% (P = .007) of sBCC (combination therapy) compared with 0.0% of controls. No significant changes were found in nodular BCC. Application-site reactions were mostly mild to moderate., Limitations: The sample size was small., Conclusion: Our results suggest that topical diclofenac is a promising new treatment for sBCC. Its mode of action differs from available noninvasive therapies, and thus has an additive value., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with light emitting diode (LED) illumination is a frequently used treatment modality for actinic keratosis (AK) with excellent cosmetic outcome. A major disadvantage, however, is the high pain score. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) illumination has been suggested, but the long-term efficacy of this treatment is unknown. In this split-face study we prospectively treated 61 patients with AK, with both LED-PDT and PDL-PDT. The mean change in the number of lesions between the end of follow-up and start of therapy was -4.25 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) -5.07; -3.43) for LED-PDT and -3.88 (95% CI -4,76; -2.99) for PDL-PDT, with a non-significant difference (p = 0.258) of -0.46 (95% CI -1.28; 0.35). The percentage decrease from baseline in the total number of AK was 55.8% and 47.8%, respectively, at 12-month follow-up. Visual analogue scale pain score was lower after PDL (mean 2.64) compared with LED illumination (mean 6.47). These findings indicate that PDL-PDT is an effective alternative illumination source fo.

Background: Noninvasive treatments are frequently used in treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC) because of better cosmetic results, lower costs, and less burden on health care services when compared with surgical excision. However, probability of treatment failure is higher after noninvasive therapies and may depend on histologic tumor characteristics., Objective: We sought to investigate whether tumor thickness and adnexal extension are determinants of treatment failure in sBCC treated with topical methylaminolevulinate-photodynamic therapy, imiquimod, or 5-fluorouracil., Methods: Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy, imiquimod, and 5-fluorouracil for treatment of sBCC (ISRCTN79701845). For tumors with treatment failure (n = 112) and a randomly selected control group of tumors without treatment failure (n = 224) data on tumor thickness and adnexal extension were retrospectively collected. Treatment failure was defined as a clinically and histologically persistent or recurrent tumor within 1-year posttreatment., Results: Tumor thickness of included patients ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 mm. Tumor thickness and adnexal extension of sBCC were not significantly associated with treatment failure of methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy, imiquimod, or 5-fluorouracil., Limitations: Follow-up period of 1 year is a limitation., Conclusion: There seems to be no need to determine tumor thickness or adnexal extension in sBCC before treatment., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A recent noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that imiquimod can be considered as superior to methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) in the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC). Knowledge of treatment effectiveness in subgroups of patients is of great value in clinical practice to select the most effective treatment for an individual patient with sBCC., Objectives: To explore whether the relative treatment effect of MAL-PDT and imiquimod is consistent across subgroups defined by patient and tumour characteristics., Methods: Data were derived from a single-blinded, noninferiority, multicentre RCT comparing MAL-PDT, topical imiquimod and fluorouracil (ISRCTN79701845). Treatment success was defined as free of tumour recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Subgroup analyses were performed for subgroups defined by sex, age, tumour location and tumour size., Results: Two hundred and two patients received MAL-PDT and 198 received imiquimod. The superiority of imiquimod vs. MAL-PDT was observed in subgroups of females, sBCC on the trunk and large tumours with risk differences in favour of imiquimod of 18·4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7·8-29·0%], 21·0% (95% CI 10·9-31·1%) and 18·9% (95% CI 7·1-30·7%), respectively. Higher probability of treatment success for imiquimod vs. MAL-PDT was consistently found in all other subgroups with the exception of sBCC localized on the lower extremities in older patients. In the latter subgroup, the risk difference at the expense of imiquimod was -57·3% (95% CI -81·7% to -32·9%)., Conclusions: Imiquimod remains the first-choice treatment for sBCC in terms of effectiveness. In older patients with sBCC on the lower extremities MAL-PDT might be preferred. Results should be interpreted carefully as subgroup analyses were exploratory and not driven by prior hypotheses., (© 2014 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Diagnosis and subsequent treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are frequently based on punch biopsies. Regarding the current TNM classification and stage grouping for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, it is important to identify the high-risk features (infiltration depth > 4 mm, perineural and/or lymphovascular invasion and poor differentiation). This study investigates the agreement of histological high-risk features and TNM grouping stage on 3 mm punch biopsies and subsequent surgical excision in 105 patients diagnosed with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. On punch biopsy, infiltration depth > 4 mm is not identified in 83.3% (30/36), perineural invasion in 90.9% (10/11) and poor differentiation in 85.7% (6/7) of cases. The TNM stage was underestimated on punch biopsy in 15.4% (16/104). This study shows that on a 3 mm punch biopsy, high-risk features in cSCC can remain undetected and that the actual TNM stage is not identified in 1 out of 6 tumours.

Background: In Bowen's disease (BD) there is no consensus on optimal treatment. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective non-invasive treatment modality for BD with excellent cosmetic results., Objective: This retrospective study examines whether clinical and histological features of BD impact PDT response., Methods: Patients with previously untreated BD from 2002 until 2007 were identified at the Maastricht University Medical Centre. Patients treated with PDT were included. All histological slides were re-examined., Results: During the study period 98 tumours were treated with PDT. In univariate analysis severe atypia and higher age were associated with decreased probability of clinical clearance. Higher age was also associated with an increased risk of recurrence. In multivariate analysis severe atypia remained the only independent risk factor for therapy failure., Conclusion: In patients with BD, severe atypia and higher age are associated with an increased risk of treatment failure after PDT., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: A recent noninferiority randomized trial showed that in terms of clinical effectiveness imiquimod was superior and topical fluorouracil noninferior to methylaminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma (sBCC). Although it was expected that MAL-PDT would be more costly than either cream, a full cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary to determine the balance between effectiveness and costs., Objective: To determine whether imiquimod or topical fluorouracil are cost-effective treatments for sBCC compared with MAL-PDT., Methods: An economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective. Data on resource use and costs were collected alongside the randomized clinical trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the incremental costs per additional patient free of tumour recurrence., Results: At 12 months follow-up, the total mean costs for MAL-PDT were €680, for imiquimod cream €526 and for topical fluorouracil cream €388. Both imiquimod and topical fluorouracil were cost-effective treatments compared with MAL-PDT. Comparing costs and effectiveness of both creams led to a incremental investment of €4451 to achieve an additional patient free of tumour recurrence. The acceptability curve showed that, for a threshold value of €4451, the probability of imiquimod being more cost-effective than topical fluorouracil was 50%., Conclusion: Based on the 12 months follow-up results, imiquimod and topical fluorouracil cream are more cost-effective than MAL-PDT for treatment of sBCC. Hence, substituting MAL-PDT with either imiquimod or topical fluorouracil results in cost savings; these savings will be larger for topical fluorouracil. Long-term follow-up effectiveness data are necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of imiquimod vs. topical 5-fluorouracil cream., (© 2014 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of cancer among Caucasians and its incidence continues to rise. Surgical excision (SE) is considered standard treatment, though randomised trials with long-term follow-up are rare. We now report the long-term results of a randomised trial comparing surgical excision with Mohs' micrographic surgery (MMS) for facial BCC., Methods: 408 facial, high risk (diameter at least 1cm, H-zone location or aggressive histological subtype) primary BCCs (pBCCs) and 204 facial recurrent BCCs (rBCCs) were randomly allocated to treatment with either SE or MMS between 5th October 1999 and 27th February 2002. The primary outcome was recurrence of carcinoma. A modified intention to treat analysis was performed., Findings: For primary BCC, the 10-year cumulative probabilities of recurrence were 4.4% after MMS and 12.2% after SE (Log-rank test χ(2) 2.704, p=0.100). For recurrent BCC, cumulative 10-year recurrence probabilities were 3.9% and 13.5% for MMS and SE, respectively (Log-rank χ(2) 5.166, p=0.023). A substantial proportion of recurrences occurred after more than 5years post-treatment: 56% for pBCC and 14% for rBCC., Interpretation: Fewer recurrences occurred after treatment of high risk facial BCC with MMS compared to treatment with SE. The proportion of recurrences occurring more than 5years post-treatment was especially high for pBCC, stressing the need for long-term follow-up in patients with high risk facial pBCC., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Bowen's disease is an in situ squamous cell carcinoma of the skin with various treatment modalities available. A major advantage of surgical excision is the opportunity to histologically examine the resection margins. There is no consensus about the most appropriate margin. This retrospective study evaluates the clearance rates achieved by excision with a 5 mm margin and estimates how that might change after fictitiously reducing the resection margin by 1 or 2 mm. Patients with histologically confirmed Bowen's disease were selected at the Maastricht University Medical Centre from 2002 until 2007. Surgical margins and complete excision rates were evaluated and histological slides were re-examined. To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the safety margin for Bowen's disease. As Bowen's disease is not an invasive disease, minimisation of healthy tissue excision is desirable. Our data show that a hypothetical reduction of the safety margin from 5 mm to 4 or 3 mm decreases the complete excision rate from 94.4% to 87% and 74.1%, respectively.

Background: Although effective in superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the treatment effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in nodular BCC (nBCC) is still questionable. The relation between tumor thickness and PDT failure is unclear., Objective: We sought to compare long-term effectiveness of fractionated 20% 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-PDT with prior partial debulking versus surgical excision in nBCC. The effect of tumor thickness on ALA-PDT failure was analyzed., Methods: 173 primary, histologically proven nBCCs in 151 patients were randomized to fractionated ALA-PDT (n = 85) or surgical excision (n = 88). Two PDT illuminations were performed with a 1-hour interval. Follow-up was at least 5 years posttreatment. Clinical recurrences were confirmed histologically., Results: A total of 171 nBCCs were treated and had a median follow-up of 67 months (range 0-106). At 60 months, 23 tumors had recurred in the ALA-PDT group and 2 tumors in the surgical excision group. Cumulative recurrence probabilities 5 years posttreatment were 30.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.5%-42.6%) for ALA-PDT and 2.3% (95% CI 0.6%-8.8%) for surgical excision (P < .0001). Two tumors in the ALA-PDT group recurred at 72 and 91 months posttreatment. Cumulative probability of recurrence-free survival post-PDT was 65.0% (95% CI 51%-76%) for nBCC measuring greater than 0.7 mm in thickness and 94.4% (95% CI 67%-99%, P = .018) for tumors less than or equal to 0.7 mm., Limitations: Tumor thickness on punch biopsy specimen might differ from the total lesion thickness., Conclusions: In nBCC, 5-year cumulative probability of recurrence after surgical excision is lower than after fractionated ALA-PDT with prior debulking. Although surgical excision remains the gold standard of treatment, PDT might be an alternative for inoperable patients with thin (≤0.7 mm) nBCC., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC) can recur locally and can metastasize. The objective of this study was to identify clinical and histopathological prognostic factors for local recurrence and metastasis in cSCCs at any body site. Clinical and histopathological data were collected from 224 patients with cSCC. During the median follow-up period of 43 months (range 0-73 months) the cumulative probabilities of recurrence-free survival at 1, 2 and 4 years post-treatment were 98.0%, 96.9% and 94.7%, respectively, and for metastasis-free survival 98.1%, 97.0% and 95.9%, respectively. In univariate survival analyses, predictors for local recurrence were every millimetre increase in tumour diameter and in tumour thickness. Predictors for metastasis this was location on the ear, invasion of deeper structures, no surgical treatment, poor differentiation, every millimetre increase in tumour diameter and in tumour thickness. In multivariate survival analysis, every millimetre increase in both tumour diameter and tumour thickness were independent predictors for local recurrence as well as for metastasis and, therefore, it is important to report these in patients' files. Defining prognostic valuables is important for diagnostic work-up, treatment and follow-up for an individual patient.

Background: Diagnosis of clinically suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC) by histological confirmation with punch biopsy has been recommended before treatment. Even shave biopsy has been proposed as useful to predict the correct subtype in primary BCC in 76-81%, whereas the agreement between histological BCC subtype on punch biopsy and subsequent excision specimens in recurrent BCC is 67.1%. However, no large studies on the agreement between histological BCC subtype seen on punch biopsy and the following surgical excision are performed in primary BCC., Objective: The aims of this study were (i) to establish the agreement between histological BCC subtype on punch biopsy and the subsequent surgical excision of primary BCC and; (ii) to investigate the proportion of primary BCCs in which punch biopsy enables identification of the most aggressive growth pattern., Methods: Retrospective analyses of 243 primary BCCs with both punch biopsy and subsequent surgical excision. Analyses were based on the most aggressive histological subtype of the tumour., Results: The agreement between BCC subtype on punch biopsy and the subsequent surgical excision of primary BCCs was 60.9%. A punch biopsy can predict the most aggressive growth pattern of primary BCCs in 84.4%. Seventy-four percentage of all primary BCCs consisted of more than one histological subtype., Conclusion: Dermatologists and other physicians have to be aware of the limited diagnostic value of a punch biopsy to determine the histological BCC subtype of the whole lesion. Misdiagnosis of the subtype will lead to undertreatment in one of six primary BCCs., (© 2012 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology © 2012 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Superficial basal-cell carcinoma is most commonly treated with topical non-surgical treatments, such as photodynamic therapy or topical creams. Photodynamic therapy is considered the preferable treatment, although this has not been previously tested in a randomised control trial. We assessed the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy compared with imiquimod or fluorouracil in patients with superficial basal-cell carcinoma., Methods: In this single blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled multicentre trial, we enrolled patients with a histologically proven superficial basal-cell carcinoma at seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT; two sessions with an interval of 1 week), imiquimod cream (once daily, five times a week for 6 weeks), or fluorouracil cream (twice daily for 4 weeks). Follow-up was at 3 and 12 months post-treatment. Data were collected by one observer who was blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients free of tumour at both 3 and 12 month follow up. A pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10% was used and modified intention-to-treat analyses were done. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN 79701845)., Findings: 601 patients were randomised: 202 to receive MAL-PDT, 198 to receive imiquimod, and 201 to receive fluorouracil. A year after treatment, 52 of 196 patients treated with MAL-PDT, 31 of 189 treated with imiquimod, and 39 of 198 treated with fluorouracil had tumour residue or recurrence. The proportion of patients tumour-free at both 3 and 12 month follow-up was 72.8% (95% CI 66.8-79.4) for MAL-PDT, 83.4% (78.2-88.9) for imiquimod cream, and 80.1% (74.7-85.9) for fluorouracil cream. The difference between imiquimod and MAL-PDT was 10.6% (95% CI 1.5-19.5; p=0.021) and 7.3% (-1.9 to 16.5; p=0.120) between fluorouracil and MAL-PDT, and between fluorouracil and imiquimod was -3.3% (-11.6 to 5.0; p=0.435. For patients treated with MAL-PDT, moderate to severe pain and burning sensation were reported most often during the actual MAL-PDT session. For other local adverse reactions, local skin redness was most often reported as moderate or severe in all treatment groups. Patients treated with creams more often reported moderate to severe local swelling, erosion, crust formation, and itching of the skin than patients treated with MAL-PDT. In the MAL-PDT group no serious adverse events were reported. One patient treated with imiquimod and two patients treated with fluorouracil developed a local wound infection and needed additional treatment in the outpatient setting., Interpretation: Topical fluorouracil was non-inferior and imiquimod was superior to MAL-PDT for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma. On the basis of these findings, imiquimod can be considered the preferred treatment, but all aspects affecting treatment choice should be weighted to select the best treatment for patients., Funding: Grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ZONMW (08-82310-98-08626)., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cosmetic results following non-invasive treatments are difficult to compare. Although qualified objective scar assessment scales are available, they are not used in dermatological studies. Usually a 4-point scale is used in dermatological scars. The reproducibility of this method has never been evaluated. Moreover, significant specific scar characteristics are lacking. The patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) is a scale qualified for the assessments of surgical scars. It has proven to be as reliable as the widely used Vancouver Scar Scale, but has the advantage that it includes the patient's opinion and specifies different scar characteristics., Objective: Both methods were used to evaluate cosmetic results following non-invasive treatments of superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC)., Methods: A total of 54 lesions following non-invasive treatment for BCC in 54 patients were evaluated with the traditional 4-point scale and the POSAS., Results: The 4-point scale showed the best reproducibility and had an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.77) for a single observer and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91) for multiple observers. The ICC of the POSAS was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.21-0.58) for a single observer and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45-0.81) for three observers. The scar characteristics, vascularity and pigmentation were most decisive for the overall opinion., Conclusion: The use of the 4-point scale is a valid method to compare scars of non-invasive dermatological treatments. Supplementary registering vascularity and pigmentation can be useful in future studies., (© 2011 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology © 2011 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

The most common skin cancers are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Conventional excision is still the current treatment of choice for these malignant tumours. Given the many subtypes and high incidence, the treatment of these skin tumours is not only a matter of surgical procedures. There are many different therapeutic options, from smearing to cutting. Those treating patients with non-melanoma skin cancer should have knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of these many options. Radical surgical treatment is desired, but large margins are preferably avoided. Mohs micrographic surgery is a treatment option available for BCC and SCC in the face. Superficial BCC can be effectively treated with optimal cosmetic outcome in various, non-invasive ways.

Background: Several noninvasive treatment modalities are available for superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC)., Objectives: This systematic review aims to determine residue, recurrence and tumour-free survival probabilities of patients with primary sBCC treated with the currently most frequently used therapies., Methods: The PubMed (January 1946 to October 2010), EMBASE (January 1989 to October 2010) and Cochrane (January 1993 to October 2010) databases, and reference lists were searched without date restriction. Inclusion criteria were studies that included primary, histologically proven sBCCs, that reported on residue and/or recurrence probabilities after treatment, and had a minimum follow-up period of 12 weeks. Both randomized and nonrandomized studies were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were the probability of complete response and tumour-free survival, respectively. Two independent reviewers selected 36 studies (14 randomized and 22 nonrandomized), and extracted residue, cumulative recurrence and tumour-free survival probabilities., Results: Pooled estimates of percentages of sBCC with complete response at 12 weeks post-treatment, derived from 28 studies, were 86.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82-90%] for imiquimod treatment, and 79.0% (95% CI 71-87%) for photodynamic therapy (PDT). With respect to tumour-free survival at 1 year, the pooled estimates derived from 23 studies were 87.3% for imiquimod (95% CI 84-91%) and 84.0% for PDT (95% CI 78-90%). Only a small number of studies reported on the results of sBCC treatment with 5-fluorouracil (one), surgical excision (one) and cryotherapy (two)., Conclusions: Pooled estimates from randomized and nonrandomized studies showed similar tumour-free survival at 1 year for imiquimod and PDT. The PDT tumour-free survival was higher in studies with repeated treatments. However, these results were largely derived from nonrandomized studies, and randomized studies with head-to-head comparison of imiquimod and PDT are lacking. There is a need for head-to-head comparison studies between PDT, imiquimod and other treatments with long-term follow-up to enable better recommendations for optimal sBCC treatment., (© 2012 The Authors. BJD © 2012 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Clinical and histopathological differentiation between basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and trichoepithelioma (TE) is a frequent problem. Attempts have been made to identify immunohistochemical markers helpful in differentiating them. A correct diagnosis is important because the tumours are treated differently. Recent studies showed the absence of androgen receptor (AR) expression in benign hair follicle tumours like TE. This study examines whether AR immunostaining is a useful diagnostic test to differentiate between BCC and TE. We randomly selected 75 cases with histological diagnoses of either BCC (subtypes: superficial, nodular or infiltrative) or TE (subtypes: classic or desmoplastic) from the database of the pathology department of Maastricht University Medical Centre. The available haematoxylin &#38; eosin (H&#38;E) slides were reviewed by three independent investigators using predetermined characteristics. Fifty-six slides (38 BCC and 18 TE) with unequivocal histological characteristics of either tumour were used for immunohistochemistry with AR antibodies. Any nuclear expression within the tumour was considered positive. AR expression was present in 5/8 classic TE, 0/10 desmoplastic TE, 22/23 superficial or nodular BCC and in 10/15 infiltrative BCC. Immunohistochemical stain for AR is useful to differentiate between TE and BCC; particularly in desmoplastic TE versus infiltrative BCC (specificity and positive predictive value of 100%).

Background: As a result of the high prevalence, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) causes a significant and expensive health care problem., Objective: In this study, we evaluate the proportional increase in BCC by histological subtype over the last two decades., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all primary histological confirmed BCCs diagnosed in the Maastricht University Medical Centre in The Netherlands in the years 1991, 1999 and 2007., Results: An annual increase of the number of BCCs of 7% for both genders was shown. The age-standardized incidence rates for BCC increased between 1991 and 2007 from 54.2 to 162.1 per 100, 000 men and from 61.7 to 189.8 per 100, 000 women. The proportion of superficial BCC increased significantly from 17.6% to 30.7%., Conclusion: The incidence of BCC is continuing to increase this century. The observed shift to the superficial histological subtype, which can be treated non-surgically, might reduce the workload in the busy dermatologists practice., (© 2010 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology © 2010 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: The type of treatment for a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) depends on the histologic subtype. Histologic examination is usually performed on incisional biopsy specimens. In primary BCC, the histologic subtype is correctly identified with a punch biopsy in 80.7% of cases. In recurrent BCC, correct identification is more difficult because of discontinuous growth caused by scar formation. Because an aggressive histologic subtype has a significantly higher risk for recurrence in these tumors, the histologic subtype is at least as important in recurrent BCC as it is in primary BCC., Objective: To investigate the correlation between histologic findings on punch biopsy specimens and subsequent excision specimens in recurrent BCC. Furthermore, we sought to clarify how often an aggressive histologic subtype was missed, based on the punch biopsy specimen., Methods: We compared the histologic subtype in a punch biopsy specimen with the subsequent excision specimen in recurrent BCC. All BCCs were coded and judged randomly by the same dermatopathologist., Results: In 24 of 73 investigated BCCs (32.9%), the histologic subtype of the initial biopsy did not match with the histologic subtype of the subsequent excision. Of the 37 excised BCCs with an aggressive histologic subtype, 7 (19%) were missed by the initial punch biopsy., Limitations: Intraobserver variation may have affected the results of this study., Conclusions: Discriminating tumors with any aggressive growth is relevant for treatment. However, in recurrent BCC, the histology of the biopsy specimen does not always correlate with the histology of the definitive excision. This may have important therapeutic implications., (Copyright © 2010 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The major drawback of the widely used photodynamic therapy (PDT) is treatment-related pain., Objective: Gain insight into the intensity of and predictive factors for painful burning sensation associated with PDT., Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed at the department of Dermatology in the Maastricht University Medical Centre in Maastricht, a reference centre for dermatological oncology in The Netherlands. A total of 141 lesions in 108 patients were included, treated from November 2008 until June 2009 with PDT for superficial basal cell carcinoma, Bowen's disease (BD) or actinic keratosis (AK). Painful burning sensation was scored based on an 11-point pain intensity numeric rating scale (PI-NRS) (0=no pain; 10=worst possible pain)., Results: The percentage of patients with a PI-NRS score over six was 32.6% and 37.9% during the primary and follow-up PDT session respectively. A total of 76.6% (95/124) of the patients was consistent in pain intensity score reporting. Factors associated with higher PI-NRS scores were treatment of AK or BD, tumour localization in the head/neck region, patient's age over 70, Fitzpatrick skintype I/II, photosensitizer 5-aminolevulinic acid and use of oral analgesics. After mutual adjustment of these factors, Fitzpatrick skintype remained the only independent predictor of PI-NRS scores during PDT., Conclusion: It remains difficult to decide which patients should be considered for pain relieving measures. The solution remains to support all patients treated with PDT with pain relieving techniques or to let the support of pain relieving measures depend on the reported pain score for the primary session., (© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common type of skin cancer and its incidence is still rising. In recent years, new treatment modalities have been developed and existing modalities refined. The aim of this article is to give a histology-based overview of the available evidence-based research. The literature was searched for randomized controlled trials from which the efficacy of investigated treatments was obtained. Where possible, treatment modalities were evaluated specifically. Selection criteria were histological subtype, primary or recurrent basal cell carcinoma and tumour localization. Although surgery remains the preferred treatment for most basal cell carcinomas, patient and tumour characteristics should be taken into account when choosing the most suitable treatment.

Difficulty in differentiation between a solitary basal cell carcinoma, which is known as a malign skin lesion and a benign trichoepithelioma, is a frequent problem in all day dermatologic practice. Clinically as well as histopathologically there are a lot of resemblances between these skin tumors. By means of two real life cases, we give here an overview of the possible problems and appliances in distinguishing these two entities; at the end we do some recommendation about the policy.

Background: Skin cancer incidence rates have been increasing for decades and this increase is expected to continue. Surgical excision (SE) is the treatment of first choice for nodular basal cell carcinoma (nBCC). Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has proven to be an effective treatment for superficial basal cell carcinoma. Its long-term efficacy in nBCC has not yet been established., Objectives: Prospectively compare the efficacy of 5-aminolaevulinic acid (ALA)-PDT and SE in terms of failure rates with long-term follow-up. Determinants of failure in the study population, such as the effect of tumour depth, were analysed retrospectively., Methods: A randomized controlled trial in 173 primary nBCCs in 149 patients. Primary nBCCs were randomly assigned either to PDT (n = 85) or to SE (n = 88). Tumours treated with PDT were illuminated twice on the same day, 4 h after application of ALA cream, 3 weeks after debulking. SE was performed under local anaesthesia with a 3-mm margin, followed by histological examination. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed., Results: In total, 171 primary nBCCs in 149 patients were treated. A 3-year interim analysis revealed that the cumulative incidence of failure was 2.3% for SE and 30.3% for PDT (P < 0.001). Tumour depth and other analysed determinants of failure were not significantly related to treatment failure., Conclusions: SE proved to be significantly more effective than treatment with fractionated illumination ALA-PDT. Therefore, in the treatment of primary nBCC, SE is preferred over PDT following this treatment regimen.

The auricle is a flexible structure because it is formed by elastic cartilage. In the rare occurrence of ectopic auricular ossification, however, the cartilage is replaced by lamellar bone and becomes petrified. Such unphysiological replacement has been reported in association with local trauma, inflammation, systemic diseases, and hypothermia. Here, we report a patient with unilateral ossification of the auricle secondary to frostbite.

A female hairdresser presented with hair fragments embedded under her fingernails in association with yellow-brownish discoloration and distal detachment of the nails. Based on these findings, we made the diagnosis of subungual barber's hair sinus with onycholysis. To our knowledge, this unique clinical picture has not been reported previously. A detailed medical history revealed several risk factors that might have contributed to the disease. Here, we briefly review what is known about barber's hair sinus, an occupational disease that is usually encountered in male hairdressers and only rarely manifests in women.

A 64-year-old woman developed slowly expanding asymptomatic red bumps on the hands and in the face since 1 year. Histopathological examination showed mononucleated and multinucleated giant cells with a characteristic "ground glass" appearance. Based on the clinical and histopathological findings, we made the diagnosis of multicentric reticulohistiocytosis (MRH). This rare variant of histiocytosis was described for the first time in 1950. Clinically, the disorder is characterized by papulonodular cutaneous lesions, and a severe and often destructive arthropathy. The reticulohistiocytoses are a rare group of closely related non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that most commonly manifest in adults. Because MRH can be associated with an underlying malignancies, and an interdisciplinary examination and regimen of these patients is advisable.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé (BHD) syndrome is an autosomal-dominantly inherited cancer syndrome characterized by fibrofolliculomas, lung cysts leading to pneumothorax, and chromophobic/oncocytic renal cell carcinoma. The disease is caused by heterozygous mutations in the BHD gene encoding folliculin and all mutations reported putatively lead to protein truncation. Although the function of folliculin is unknown, it is thought to be a tumor suppressor, with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) initiating tumor formation. Here, we report on four novel BHD gene mutations, including two splice-site mutations, in patients presenting with skin lesions only. We further show that LOH cannot be detected in fibrofolliculomas from three patients, suggesting that for the manifestation of cutaneous tumors in BHD syndrome haplo-insufficiency of folliculin is sufficient to initiate uncontrolled growth. Renal microscopic oncocytosis in BHD is considered as a precursor to malignant kidney tumors and may likewise be the result of haplo-insufficiency, with somatic second-hit mutations or LOH giving rise to malignancy later in life.