EVIDENCE-BASED ONCOLOGY

Little evidence available on treatments for basal cell carcinoma of the skin: Abstracted from:Bath-Hextall F, Bong J, Perkins W et al. Interventions for basal cell carcinoma of the skin: systematic review.BMJ2004;329:705–8.☆,☆☆,☆☆☆

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer with 2 million treatments per year with little evidence-based guidelines for treatment. There are three classes of interventions (surgical, destructive, and topical) for BCC, and this study aimed to determine whether there are preferences or avoidances in comparisons of different types of treatments for BCC in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials, and ClinicalTrials.Gov were used to identify eligible published and registered ongoing RCTs.

Fifty-five trials (42 published and 13 registered trials) were identified. Only one unpublished registered trial compared a topical vs. a surgical intervention, and only one trial compared a topical vs. a destructive intervention. Conversely, 44 of the 55 trials compared interventions within the same treatment class and 9 of 55 trials compared surgical vs. destructive interventions. In most trials, selection of same-class comparators was not necessitated by the type of BCC lesions (nonaggressive superficial or nodular vs. aggressive, infiltrative, morpheic BCCs, P = 0.155) or their location (face vs. nonfacial, P = 0.137).

This is the first time that an evaluation of network geometry is applied to address issues of comparisons between different families of interventions that belong to different specialties and practices (medical vs. surgical). Previous evaluations of homophily have addressed different families of interventions, in which all interventions are medical (drugs) and performed in the same health-care settings. The noncommunicating bodies of evidence between medical and surgical interventions that we document highlight a problem of unnecessary sequestration of the evidence and the corresponding health-care practices.

A common problem in day-to-day practice is the approach to take following resection of basal cell carcinoma with positive margins. In such cases, it is important to decide whether we should take a wait-and-see approach or consider re-excision or radiotherapy. To make this decision, 4 key points need to be clarified: the significance of positive margins; whether positive margins are equivalent to tumor persistence; whether negative margins equate with complete excision; and the rate of recurrence in cases of re-excision compared with those in which a wait and see approach is taken. Having addressed each of these points, the approach will depend on the characteristics of the individual case. Based on the evidence presented, an aggressive approach involving re-excision would seem indicated in aggressive cases, whereas a flexible strategy combining observation, surgery, and radiotherapy (or other treatments) can be used in less aggressive cases.

Un problema habitual en la práctica diaria es la actitud que debemos adoptar tras la resección quirúrgica de un epitelioma basocelular con afectación de alguno de los bordes. Que tipo de actitud debemos adoptar en estos casos: ¿observar?, ¿reextirpar?, ¿radiar? Para responder, en el artículo se desgranan una serie de conceptos: cuál es el significado de bordes afectos; ¿es equivalente borde afecto a persistencia tumoral?; ¿es equivalente borde libre a extirpación tumoral completa?; cuál es el porcentaje de recidivas al comparar la reextirpación y la observación.

Después de aclarar cada una de las preguntas, la respuesta sobre qué actitud tomar depende de las características de cada caso. Con las evidencias que se presentan parece indicada una actitud agresiva de reintervención en los casos graves y una estrategia flexible que combine la observación, la cirugía y la radioterapia (u otros tratamientos) en los casos menos agresivos.

The ability of tumors to provoke formation of cancer-associated secondary immunodeficiency (CASID) with predominant suppression of CMI and cancer-associated secondary immunodeficiency with clinical autoimmunity syndrome (CASICAS) with triggering of a set of the autoimmune deviations is appearing to be a key event in the restriction of hosts’ anti-tumor immunity. Earlier the existence of the above-mentioned syndromes was demonstrated in BCC and GBM patients. In order to reach a point where immunological phenotypes in GBM and BCC can be clarified clinically and, partly, pathogenically, we have conducted a series of studies of typical and atypical types of immune responsiveness in patients with GBM and BCC. For GBM and BCC three scenarios of the involvement of the immune responsiveness have been established in a series of our studies, i.e., (i) malignancy with no immunopathology, (ii) malignancy as CASID, and (iii) malignancy as CASICAS. All of those scenarios demonstrated significant differences in their immune-mediated manifestations which, in turn, were proven to reveal close associative relationships with a specific clinicopathologic type and clinical manifestations of the tumor. CASID and CASICAS share two common features, i.e., (i) signs of immunodeficiency and (ii) a tandem of the deviations within the adaptive and innate links of the host immune responsiveness. At the same time, CASID and CASICAS are distinct pathogenically and clinically, and in terms of depth of the immune deviations observed, CASID patients manifest a breakage in both links, whereas in CASICAS patients, a breakage in the adaptive link would dominate. To get these differences clarified, we summarized major types of the immune imbalances and sets of clinical and clinicopathologic manifestations to illustrate the above-mentioned features in CASID and CASICAS patients. There are distinct close correlations between clinicopathologic features of the disease course and sets of the immune-mediated imbalances in patients harboring the tumors. The latter implicates a panel of the new immunodiagnostic and immunoprognostic criteria for patients with solid tumors, i.e., BCC, MCC and GB, which is of great value for clinical practice. In particular, the blood levels of some of the immunocompetent cells, state of their functional activity, serum titers of the antigenic markers and autoantibodies, apoptotic parameters, and others may be accepted as additional and clinically informative criteria to be implemented for immunological monitoring and immunotherapy of patients with solid tumors.

Quality of life is an important treatment outcome for conditions that are rarely fatal, such as cutaneous basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (typically called nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC)). The purpose of this study was to compare quality-of-life outcomes of treatments for NMSC. We performed a prospective cohort study of 633 consecutive patients with NMSC diagnosed in 1999 and 2000 and followed for 2 years after treatment at a university-based private practice or a Veterans Affairs clinic. The main outcome was tumor-related quality of life 1 to 2 years after therapy, measured with the 16-item version of Skindex, a validated measure. Skindex scores vary from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) in three domains: Symptoms, Emotions, and Function. Treatments were electrodessication and curettage (ED&C) in 21%, surgical excision in 40%, and Mohs surgery in 39%. Five hundred and eight patients (80%) responded after treatment. Patients treated with excision or Mohs surgery improved in all quality-of-life domains, but quality of life did not improve after ED&C. There was no difference in the amount of improvement after excision or Mohs surgery. For example, mean Skindex Symptom scores improved 9.7 (95% CI: 6.9, 12.5) after excision, 10.2 (7.4, 12.9) after Mohs surgery, and 3.4 (−0.9, 7.6) after ED&C. We conclude that, for NMSC, quality-of-life outcomes were similar after excision and Mohs surgery, and both therapies had better outcomes than ED&C.