Overview
Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer in the United States. It is estimated that BCCs occur in 2 million Americans annually, exceeding the incidence of all other cancers combined.1–3 BCCs are at least 2 times more common than squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), the second most common type of skin cancer.1–6 Furthermore, the incidence of this common malignancy is rising rapidly.1,3,6,7 Compared with SCC, BCCs are much less likely to metastasize, with a metastatic rate of <0.1%, and thus generally have a good prognosis.8–10 Although rarely metastatic, BCC can produce substantial local destruction along with disfigurement and may involve extensive areas of soft tissue, cartilage, and bone.
A number of risk factors are associated with the development of BCC. The most recognized environmental carcinogen is sunlight. Evidence reveals that the relationship between sun exposure and BCC is complex and depends on the timing, pattern, and amount of ultraviolet radiation.11–15 Fair skin, red or blond hair, and light eye color are associated with BCC as independent risk factors due to greater susceptibility to ultraviolet damage.13,15–22 BCC risk is increased by both ultraviolet-A and -B radiation as well as by ionizing radiation. Radiation therapy (RT) for other conditions, especially at a young age, is also associated with an increased risk for developing BCC.23–27 Most BCC tumors develop on skin sites exposed to radiation—either from the sun or from therapy.23–25
Literature Search Criteria and Guidelines Update Methodology
Prior to the update of this version of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Basal Cell Skin Cancer, an electronic search of the PubMed database was performed to obtain key literature using the following search term: basal cell skin carcinoma. The PubMed database was chosen because it remains the most widely used resource for medical literature and indexes peer-reviewed biomedical literature.28
The search results were narrowed by selecting studies in humans published in English. Results were confined to the following article types: Clinical Trial; Guideline; Meta-Analysis; Practice Guideline; Randomized Controlled Trial; Systematic Reviews; and Validation Studies.
The data from key PubMed articles as well as articles from additional sources deemed as relevant to these guidelines as discussed by the panel during the Guidelines update have been included in this version of the discussion section. Recommendations for which high-level evidence is lacking are based on the panel’s review of lower-level evidence and expert opinion.
Sensitive/Inclusive Language
NCCN Guidelines strive to use language that advances the goals of equity, inclusion, and representation.29 NCCN Guidelines endeavor to use language that is person-first; not stigmatizing; antiracist, anticlassist, antimisogynist, antiageist, antiableist, and antiweight biased; and inclusive of individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities. NCCN Guidelines incorporate nongendered language, instead focusing on organ-specific recommendations. This language is both more accurate and more inclusive and can help fully address the needs of individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities. NCCN Guidelines will continue to use the terms men, women, female, and male when citing statistics, recommendations, or data from organizations or sources that do not use inclusive terms. Most studies do not report how sex and gender data are collected and use these terms interchangeably or inconsistently. If sources do not differentiate gender from sex assigned at birth or organs present, the information is presumed to predominantly represent cisgender individuals. NCCN encourages researchers to collect more specific data in future studies and organizations to use more inclusive and accurate language in their future analyses.
Genetics
Extensive research has led to advances in the understanding of the genetics of BCC. The sonic hedgehog signaling pathway has emerged as playing a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of BCC, and mutations in a number of molecules in this pathway have been implicated in the development of the disease.30–32 Mutations in the PTCH1 (patched 1) gene on chromosome 9q, which codes for the sonic hedgehog receptor, are the underlying cause of nevoid BCC syndrome and are present in approximately 30%–90% of sporadic BCCs.33–41 Specific ultraviolet-induced mutations in the tumor suppressor gene p53 appear to be a common event in BCC development.35,38,41,42 Certain genetic syndromes greatly predispose affected individuals to skin cancer formation, including BCC, such as albinism43,44 and xeroderma pigmentosum (in which defects exist in ultraviolet light–induced unscheduled DNA repair).45–51
Clinical Presentation and Workup
On clinical presentation of the patient with lesion suspicious of skin cancer, workup for BCC begins with a history and physical examination, biopsy, and if applicable a shave removal. A skin biopsy is then performed on any suspicious lesion. The biopsy should include deep reticular dermis. This procedure is preferred because an infiltrative histology may sometimes be present only at the deeper, advancing margins of a tumor, and superficial biopsies will frequently miss this component.52,53 After BCC diagnosis, a full skin examination is recommended, because individuals with skin cancer often have additional, concurrent precancers or cancers located at other, usually sun-exposed skin sites. These individuals are also at increased risk of developing cutaneous melanoma.54
Risk Stratification of Local BCC Based on Risk Factors for Recurrence
After the complete skin examination, a risk assessment should be performed to determine the treatment plan.55 The NCCN Panel examined risk factors for BCC associated with recurrence (see “Risk Factors for Recurrence” in the algorithm). Any high-risk factor places the skin lesion in the high-risk category, and imaging should be considered if a clinical exam is insufficient to determine disease extent. Skin lesions in populations placed at increased risk may be difficult to assess clinically; therefore, a low threshold for performing skin biopsies in these patients is necessary. Patients with locally advanced disease, which is defined as primary or recurrent extensive disease where surgery and/or RT may not result in a cure or would potentially yield a significant functional limitation, should consider imaging to determine disease extent. For rare cases when patients present with regional or distant metastatic disease at diagnosis, imaging of areas of interest can be performed when there is suspicion of extensive disease before treatment as nodal or distant metastases. Imaging studies may be clinically evident when extensive disease, such as bone involvement, perineural invasion (PNI), or deep soft tissue involvement, is suspected. If perineural disease is suspected, MRI with or without contrast is preferred.56,57 If bone disease is suspected, CT with contrast is preferred unless contraindicated. Imaging modality and targeted area should be at the discretion of the treating team based on the suspected extent of disease (ie, local, regional, metastatic). Histologic confirmation is sufficient to diagnose local recurrence, but MRI can be considered to assess extent of local disease. For nodal or distant metastases, histologic analysis and/or CT imaging can be used for confirmation and to gauge the extent of disease.
History and Physical Examination
Location and Size
Anatomic location58–64 and size60–66 have been known to be a risk factor for BCC recurrence and metastasis for many years. In general, BCCs that develop in the head and neck area, which includes the “H zone” or “mask area” of the face, are more likely to recur than those that develop on the trunk and extremities. Based on a 27-year retrospective review of 5,755 BCCs, recurrences were significantly more common when tumors in high-risk locations (central face, eyebrows, nose, lips, chin, ear, temple, genitalia, nipples/areola, hands, feet, ankles, and nail units) were ≥6 mm in diameter and when tumors in moderate-risk locations (cheeks, forehead, scalp, neck, jawline, pretibial surface) were ≥10 mm in diameter.67 The American Academy of Dermatology in collaboration with American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery developed an appropriate use criteria document in the treatment of cutaneous neoplasms based on 270 clinical scenarios including 69 BCCs,68 which has been incorporated into “Risk Factors for Recurrence” within the algorithm.
Clinical Borders and Primary Versus Recurrent Disease
The low- and high-risk factors of well-defined versus ill-defined clinical tumor borders69–71 and primary versus recurrent disease,62,70,72 respectively, have been extensively documented in the literature.
Immunosuppression
Settings of immunosuppression, such as organ transplantation,73–78 and long-term use of psoralen and ultraviolet-A light,79,80 increase the incidence of BCC. In particular, among patients who have had organ transplants, BCC incidence is approximately 5- to 10-fold higher than in the general population,81–83 occurring in up to half of patients during the 10 years after transplant.84–87 Several large retrospective studies found that BCCs in patients who had received organ transplants were more likely to have the superficial histologic subtype and to occur in extracephalic locations and in younger patients (mean age of onset 15 years lower).88–90 Two of these studies showed similar low recurrence rates for transplant recipients and controls.89,90 Nevertheless, because of NCCN Guidelines Panel Members’ own anecdotal experiences, the panel decided to classify BCCs developing in settings of immunosuppression as potentially high-risk tumors.
Site of Prior Radiotherapy
Tumors developing in sites of prior RT refer to primary BCCs arising in areas previously irradiated for unrelated conditions. All recurrent tumors, irrespective of prior therapy, are defined as high risk. Data from a number of studies with large sample sizes support that prior RT for unrelated, frequently benign conditions is a risk factor for BCC development.23–27,91,92
Pathology
Pathologic Subtypes
Histologic subtyping of BCC as a predictor of risk of recurrence is a well-established concept.93,94 The subtypes encompassed by the term “aggressive growth pattern,” including micronodular, infiltrative, sclerosing, and morpheaform (or desmoplastic) patterns, are more likely to recur than the nodular and superficial BCC.65,69,70,72,95–99 Nonaggressive subtypes include the keratotic variant, infundibulocystic variant, and fibroepithelioma of Pinkus.
Basosquamous carcinomas are tumors that have the histologic appearance of both a BCC and an SCC. Some basosquamous tumors are the result of a BCC colliding with an adjacent SCC. Others represent truly biphenotypic tumors, many of which may have started as BCC, but have subsequently undergone prominent partial squamous metaplasia.100 Data suggest that basosquamous carcinomas have a metastatic capacity that is more similar to that of SCC than BCC.101–103
Perineural Involvement
PNI is uncommon in any nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (2%–6%), and develops less frequently and is less aggressive in BCC versus SCC.104–109 BCC with PNI poses a greatly increased risk of recurrence and is associated with other risk factors including previous recurrent tumors, high grade, larger lesion size, and certain subtypes (infiltrating, morpheaform, and basosquamous).108,110,111 If large nerve involvement is suspected, MRI should be considered to evaluate extent and/or rule out skull involvement in those with head and neck tumors.57,112–114 Additionally, in the presence of PNI, a thorough cranial nerve exam is indicated.
Age and its Effect on BCC Behavior
Whether young age (typically aged ≤40 years) is an independent risk factor for aggressive BCC behavior is debatable. An analysis of a large database of patients with BCC (n=3,381) documented an increased percentage of BCC with aggressive histologic growth patterns in young persons.115 In contrast, results from other analyses of large databases (n=1,000 to >10,000) indicate that patients presenting with BCC at a young age are more likely to have the superficial subtype.116–119 Other analyses report no significant differences in BCC histologic subtype between young versus older patients.120–122 The relationship between tumor location and patient age is also unclear, because several studies showed that younger patients were more likely to present with BCCs on the trunk or extremities,116,121,123,124 while another found no significant association.120
Most large studies (n=50–2,000) have shown no significant association between age and recurrence rate.62,70,120,122 One multivariate analysis, however, showed a positive relationship between increasing age and likelihood of recurrence.125 Age has also been evaluated as a risk factor for developing a second or multiple BCCs and many of these studies using fairly large databases (n=200–2,500) found that the risk of developing more than one BCC is associated with increased age.65,122,124–130 On the contrary, an analysis of a very large database (n=71,924) found a significantly higher risk of subsequent NMSC in patients aged <40 years at the time of their first BCC diagnosis.131 In addition, an analysis of 100 metastatic BCC cases found that patients with distant metastases tended to be younger than those with only regional metastases.132 Consistent with this idea, the Rotterdam Study showed that although the risk of developing a second BCC increased with age,130 the risk of developing multiple BCC lesions was highest in patients who were aged <65 years at the time of their first BCC diagnosis.133 Taken together, these studies suggest that young age, in and of itself, is not considered a risk factor for aggressive BCC. Nevertheless, there is a small subset of patients who develop BCC at a young age and may have particularly aggressive disease. These patients may benefit from regular follow-up.
Treatment Modalities for BCC
Curettage and Electrodesiccation
Although a fast and cost-effective technique for superficial lesions, curettage and electrodesiccation (C&E) does not allow histologic margin assessment. Studies have reported overall 5-year recurrence rates ranging from 1.2% to 40% in patients with BCC selected for C&E, with high-risk locations and histologically aggressive subtypes reporting higher recurrence rates.60,134–143
This technique is deemed effective for properly selected, low-risk BCC with 3 caveats.60,140 First, C&E should not be used to treat areas with terminal hair growth such as the scalp, pubic and axillary regions, or beard area due to the risk that a tumor extending down follicular structures might not be adequately removed. Second, if the subcutaneous layer is reached during the course of C&E, then surgical removal should generally be performed instead. This change in therapy is necessary because the effectiveness of the C&E technique rests on the ability of the clinician to distinguish between firm normal dermis and soft tumor tissue when using a sharp curette. Since subcutaneous adipose is even softer than tumor tissue, the ability of the curette to distinguish and, therefore, selectively and completely remove tumor cells diminishes. Third, if C&E has been performed based only on the appearance of a low-risk tumor, biopsy results of the tissue taken at the time of C&E should be reviewed to make sure that there are no high-risk pathologic features that would require additional therapy. For tumors on the cheeks, forehead, scalp, neck, and pretibial that are less than 6 mm in depth and confined to the dermis, C&E may be considered as an alternative primary treatment option if Mohs micrographic surgery (Mohs) or resection with peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) and standard excision are not feasible due to patient comorbidities.
Shave Removal
Shave removal, the shaving of epidermal or dermal lesions, is a sharp removal by bowl-shaped slicing of the epidermal and dermal lesions, without including fat, and does not require suture closure.144 Like C&E, there is concern for inaccurate margin status assessment with shave removal.145 However, it is a recommended technique for low-risk BCCs located in the trunk or extremities. Shave removal studies have reported 0.5%–30% rate of recurrence over a 3- to 5-year follow-up, multiple tumors treated in single visits, and a risk for misdiagnosis of only 1%.144–147
Standard Excision With Postoperative Margin Assessment
Another therapeutic option for BCC is standard surgical excision followed by postoperative pathologic evaluation of margins. This technique has been reported to achieve 5-year recurrence rates of 0.8%–17.4% for BCC, with lower recurrence rates associated with low-risk tumors and higher recurrence rates associated with high-risk tumors.134,136,142,148–150 Studies have reported variable margins required to completely excise 95% of all tumor.151–156 These margins have been suggested to be 2 to 4 mm for low-risk, well-demarcated tumors smaller than 2 cm,151–155 whereas margins of 4 to 6 mm,152 and in one study, 8 mm,151 were suggested for high-risk BCC. Given this wide variability, studies have reported incomplete excision rates after standard excision ranging from 3.2% to 61.5% depending on tumor location, histologic subtype, and medical provider’s specialty.157–166 Therefore, postoperative margin assessment and identification of clear margins are critical to ensure favorable outcomes with standard excision.
The clinical margins chosen by the panel for the primary treatment of low-risk BCC are based on the work of Zitelli et al.167 Their analysis indicated that for well-circumscribed BCC lesions smaller than 2 cm in diameter, excision with 4-mm clinical margins should result in complete removal in more than 95% of cases. The indications for this approach were also expanded to include re-excision of low-risk primary BCC if positive margins are obtained after an initial excision with postoperative margin assessment. For high-risk BCC, standard excision with wider surgical margins is recommended as the primary treatment. Due to the wide variability of clinical characteristics that may define a high-risk tumor, it is not feasible to recommend a defined margin for standard excision of high-risk BCC. Keen awareness of the subclinical extension of BCC is advised when selecting a treatment modality without complete margin assessment for a high-risk tumor. These margins may need to be modified based on tumor- or patient-specific factors. When standard excision with wider surgical margins yields positive margins, Mohs or other forms of PDEMA or standard re-excision are recommended (if PDEMA is not feasible).
For either low-risk or high-risk BCC, when standard excision is used, tissue rearrangement (eg, flap reconstruction, extensive undermining) should not be undertaken until clear margins are identified. Second intention healing, linear repair, or skin graft are acceptable options.
Mohs and PDEMA
Mohs is the preferred surgical technique over standard excision for re-excision of low-risk BCC after positive margins with standard excision, as well as the primary surgical technique of choice for high-risk BCC because it allows intraoperative analysis of 100% of the excision margin. Mohs is also recommended when standard excision with wider surgical margins is unable to achieve negative margins in high-risk BCC. Two meta-analyses published in 1,989 associated Mohs with 5-year recurrence rates of 1.0% for primary BCC, and 5.6% for recurrent BCC.134,142 In these studies, the recurrence rates for Mohs were lower than those for standard excision (10.1% and 17.4% for primary and recurrent BCC, respectively), and lower than those for any other treatment modality included in the analysis (C&E, cryotherapy, and RT).134,142 Studies on the long-term outcomes (∼4 years) of Mohs have reported overall recurrence rates of 2.9%–3.8%,168,169 specifically 0%–6.5% for primary and 4%–20% for recurrent BCCs.94,170–175 The only prospective randomized trial comparing Mohs to standard excision reported fewer 10-year recurrences with Mohs for both primary (2.5% vs 4.1%; P=.397) and recurrent BCC (2.4% vs 12.1%; P=.015), although the difference was only statistically significant for recurrent tumors. Importantly, a large proportion of recurrences occurred more than 5 years after treatment.143,176,177 Besides lower recurrence rates, Mohs has also been associated with significant tissue sparing compared with standard excision.178,179 It has been demonstrated that H-zone location, recurrent tumor, aggressive subtype, PNI, and tumor size greater than or equal to 11 mm are significantly associated with two or more Mohs stages.110,180 However, superficial BCC, despite being generally considered less aggressive, was shown in a Brazilian study to be 9.03 times more likely to require more than one Mohs stage, likely due to “skip areas” and clinically indistinct borders.181
Excision with PDEMA with permanent section analysis or intraoperative frozen section analysis is an acceptable alternative to Mohs provided it includes a complete assessment of all deep and peripheral margins. A 5-year recurrence rate of 0.58% has been reported with slow Mohs using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections and delayed closure in a UK-based prospective study.182 The descriptive term PDEMA underscores the panel’s belief that complete histologic assessment of the entire marginal surface is the key to optimal tumor removal. For more information, refer to the NCCN Guidelines for Squamous Cell Skin Cancer (available at NCCN.org).
Radiation Therapy
Although surgery is the mainstay of local treatment for BCC, consideration of function and patient preference and other factors may lead to the choice of RT as primary therapy for nonsurgical candidates for both low-risk and high-risk disease and patients with advanced BCC (locally advanced, nodal, and metastatic BCC).183 The recommendations for RT extend to additional treatment of low-risk BCC after positive margins with standard excision. RT is also recommended for high-risk BCC as additional treatment after standard excision, Mohs, or other forms of PDEMA with positive margins and adjuvant treatment after negative margins in case of extensive perineural or large-nerve involvement.184 In these patients, local control has been reported to be 50%–90% with postoperative RT.183,185 There are conflicting data about the value of adjuvant RT after margin-negative surgical excision, particularly after Mohs. For patients with high-risk BCC who have undergone multiple resections and for whom further surgery is not feasible, RT is recommended as part of multidisciplinary consultation if residual disease is present. For specifics about the application of RT, see “Principles of Radiation Therapy” in the algorithm.
Two meta-analyses reported 5-year recurrence rates of 8.7% and 9.8% after RT on primary and recurrent BCC, respectively.134,142 Retrospective analyses of BCC treated with RT have reported 5-year local control, cure, or complete response rates ranging from 93% to 96%,186–189 and 5-year recurrence rates from 4% to 16%.190–192 Efficacy of RT was better for BCCs that were less advanced, primary (vs recurrent), or with a smaller diameter or nodular histologic subtype.186,187,189–191 A prospective study randomizing 347 patients to receive either surgery (standard excision with free margins ≥2 mm from visible borders) or RT as primary treatment of BCC reported higher recurrence rates with RT than surgery (7.5% vs 0.7%; P=.003),193 poorer cosmetic outcomes, and more postoperative complications.194
A small number of prospective studies have reported high rates of tumor control with specific radiation dose fractionation regimens for small BCCs.193,195,196 A systematic review and meta-analysis also reported hypofractionated RT regimens associated with positive cosmetic outcomes.197 The panel recommends ranges of electron beam dose and fractionation that can be used for definite RT and postoperative adjuvant RT. Isotope-based brachytherapy can be an effective treatment for certain sites of disease, particularly on the head and neck.198–201 However, there are insufficient long-term efficacy and safety data to support the routine use of electronic surface brachytherapy.202,203
Superficial Therapies
In patients with superficial BCC, therapies such as topical imiquimod, topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), or photodynamic therapy (PDT) may be considered, although cure rates are approximately 10% lower than for surgical treatment modalities.204–206 Another option for patients with superficial BCC is cryotherapy.207 These options are also recommended for patients for whom surgery or RT is contraindicated or impractical.
Topical Therapies
Imiquimod was found to be effective for treating nodular and superficial BCC in randomized studies.208–213 Two 5-year follow-up studies reported overall treatment success rates of 80.4% and 77.9%, respectively, in patients with superficial BCC treated with imiquimod.212,214 Recurrence seems to be associated with tumor thickness.215 A phase III randomized trial in patients with superficial or nodular BCC showed that imiquimod provided an 82.5% clinical success rate.216,217 For all of these studies, tumors in the H-zone were excluded. Although the clinical success rate was significantly higher with surgical excision using a 4-mm margin (97.7%; P<.001), cosmetic outcomes by dermatologic assessment were significantly better with imiquimod (excellent/good at 3-year follow-up: 61% vs 36%; P<.001). Another topical cream with efficacy against BCC is 5-FU,218,219 which has been shown in a large randomized trial to have a 5-year tumor-free survival probability of 70.0%.205,220,221 Other studies have reported cure rates of up to 90% with this treatment.222–224
Photodynamic Therapy
PDT with photosensitizing agents including 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) and porfimer sodium is another option for superficial BCC.225–227 Multiple randomized trials and a meta-analysis have shown that rates of excellent or good cosmetic outcomes were higher with PDT versus surgery, although surgery was superior to PDT in terms of disease control.149,228–235 Data from clinical trials reported cure rates from 60% to 100% by PDT for patients with BCC.231,236–241 Most of these studies have focused on the superficial and nodular histologic subtypes, and several have found higher cure rates for superficial versus nodular subtypes in both low- and high-risk locations.231,236,241 Ulceration and thickness are associated with lower response to therapy,241 and within the nodular subtype, cure rates are better with thinner lesions.230 Clinical studies have demonstrated PDT activity against “difficult-to-treat” lesions, with a 24-month complete response rate of 78%.236,242 Currently, PDT is being used at some NCCN Member Institutions for premalignant or superficial low-risk lesions on any location on the body, although response rates may be higher on the face and scalp.243,244
Cryotherapy
Cryotherapy has been used for many years as a fast and cost-effective means for removal of BCCs.207 Systematic reviews of historical data in primary BCCs have reported recurrence rates for cryotherapy ranging from 0% to 13%, and mean recurrence rates from pooled analyses ranging between 3% and 4%.134,136,245,246 In prospective trials, cryotherapy has been shown to result in recurrence rates ranging from 5% to 39%.195,247–249 A key limitation of cryotherapy is poorer cosmetic outcomes compared with other treatment options, as demonstrated by prospective randomized trials.248–250
Comparisons of Superficial Therapies
Several randomized studies and meta-analyses have compared superficial therapies for BCC (Table 1). In summary, these studies indicate that in patients with superficial BCC, PDT has similar efficacy as cryotherapy but much better cosmetic outcomes. Whereas a meta-analysis of 23 randomized and nonrandomized trials found no significant difference in efficacy for PDT versus imiquimod,251 a randomized trial showed that treatment success was more likely with imiquimod.205,221 This study also shows superior imiquimod outcomes compared with 5-FU cream. Exploratory subanalyses found that treatment success rates were significantly higher with imiquimod for tumors that are large or truncal, whereas PDT provided significantly better outcomes in older patients with lesions on the lower extremities.252 Safety results showed that while PDT causes moderate to severe pain during treatment administration, imiquimod and 5-FU are more likely to cause moderate to severe local swelling, erosion, crust formation, itching, and wound infections.220 Both cryotherapy and PDT are associated with pain during and after treatment, and data from a randomized trial indicate a trend toward a higher likelihood of pain with PDT.248
Studies Comparing Superficial Therapies in Patients With Superficial BCC
Nicotinamide in Reducing BCC Development
Data from phase II and phase III randomized trials indicated that treatment of actinic keratoses with nicotinamide reduced the occurrence of new BCCs, specifically by 20% at 12-month follow-up.253,254 This is supported by data from another study.255 Other agents that might be effective for the prevention of BCC in individuals at high risk for developing NMSCs include celecoxib,256 acitretin,257 capecitabine,258 and tazarotene.259
Systemic Therapy
For advanced BCC, systemic therapy is recommended as a treatment option for locally advanced (laBCC), metastatic (mBCC), and nodal BCC after multidisciplinary consultation. Other options include surgery, RT, and palliation and best supportive care for certain patients. The systemic therapy options for BCC include hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) and immunotherapy. Vismodegib and cemiplimab are currently recommended options for all advanced BCCs while sonidegib is only recommended for nodal and laBCC.
Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitors
Vismodegib is an HHI approved by the US FDA for the treatment of adults with laBCC or mBCC that has recurred following surgery, or those who are not candidates for surgery or RT.260 The 9-month follow-up data from the SHH4476g trial, a centrally reported, multicenter, phase I, open-label study, had an initial enrollment of 104 patients (laBCC, n=71; mBCC, n=33); however, pathology results excluded 8 patients with laBCC from the efficacy analysis (n=63). This trial reported an objective response rate of 30% in the mBCC group and 43% in the laBCC group, with a median duration of response (DOR) of 7.6 months and 9.5-month median progression-free survival.261 A 39-month follow-up to these data from the ERIVANCE trial, an investigator-reported, multicenter, phase II trial, conveyed an objective response rate of 48.5% in the mBCC group and 60.3% in the laBCC group, with a median DOR of 14.8 months and 26.2 months for each group, respectively.261–264 Results from these trials for vismodegib in BCC are summarized in Table 2. According to these data, nearly all patients treated with vismodegib experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, but a significant proportion of these were low grade (grade ≤2).261–263 Serious adverse events occurred in 25%–32% of patients in these studies. The most common adverse events included muscle spasms, alopecia, taste loss, weight loss, decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea.
Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitors in Advanced BCCa
Vismodegib has also been tested as BCC treatment and prophylaxis in patients with nevoid BCC syndrome. A randomized phase II study in patients with nevoid BCC syndrome and at least 10 operable BCC lesions found that vismodegib significantly reduced incidence of new BCC lesions compared with placebo, and also significantly reduced the size of existing lesions and the number of surgeries needed to remove BCC lesions.265–267
Sonidegib is another FDA-approved HHI agent for the treatment of patients with laBCC that has recurred following surgery or RT, or who are not candidates for surgery or RT.268 Sonidegib is FDA approved for laBCC. The 42-month follow-up data from the centrally reported randomized, multicenter, phase II BOLT trial reported similar objective response rates for the 200-mg and 800-mg doses tested among patients with laBCC (56% and 46%, respectively), while there was a 2-fold difference for patients with mBCC (8% and 17%, respectively).269–273 This trial also reported, for each dose and patient group, median DOR and progression-free survival results that are summarized in Table 2. The 30-month investigator-reviewed data for the BOLT trial analyzing only the 200-mg dose showed a higher objective response rate of 71.2% for laBCC and 23.1% for mBCC (Table 2).271,274 As with vismodegib, nearly all patients experienced at least one AE, and the most common AEs were muscle spasms, dysgeusia, alopecia, nausea, weight decrease, and fatigue. Elevated creatinine kinase was also frequently observed and was one of the most common grade 3–4 AEs, along with elevated lipase.
A key limitation to HHI therapies is that advanced BCC can develop resistance, which limits the DOR. A small investigator-initiated trial in patients with vismodegib-resistant advanced BCC observed no responses during treatment with sonidegib for a median of 6 weeks (range, 3–58 weeks), and in 5 of 9 patients with disease progression.275
Ongoing clinical research is exploring various dosing regimens of vismodegib and sonidegib in a variety of BCC treatment settings, including in the neoadjuvant setting, in patients with multiple BCCs or with radiation-induced multiple BCCs of the scalp, and as maintenance therapy after laBCC complete remission.276–281 Notably, in the neoadjuvant setting, although one trial reported negative results (unmet predefined complete histologic clearance rate),277 results from 2 studies indicated vismodegib may reduce surgical defect area and allow for downstaging of the surgical procedure for laBCCs in functionally sensitive locations.276,279 The VISMEO trial, a centrally reported, phase II, open-label study, had an enrollment of 55 patients with laBCC. This study reported an objective response rate of 71%, with 36.4% recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.279 Some of these studies included small numbers of patients, and thus their results need to be carefully interpreted.
Other HHIs are also being tested in patients with BCC to see if they can provide higher rates of response, more durable responses, responses in less advanced BCC, or responses in BCC resistant to vismodegib. Results from phase I–II trials with small BCC sample sizes (n<40) have shown that itraconazole and saridegib can elicit responses in patients with BCC, although not in patients who previously received vismodegib.282,283
Immunotherapy
Cemiplimab-rwlc is an anti-PD-1 immunotherapy that is FDA-approved for patients with laBCC or mBCC who were previously treated with an HHI or for whom an HHI is not appropriate.284 Cemiplimab is a recommended treatment option for certain patients with advanced BCC including in the neoadjuvant setting for laBCC. A centrally reported, multicenter, phase II, open-label trial tested cemiplimab-rwlc (n=84) for patients with laBCC where local invasion precluding complete resection or in locations for which surgery may result in severe disfigurement or dysfunction and whose disease has progressed on or was intolerant to prior HHI therapy.285 This study reported a median follow-up of 15 months, objective response rate of 31%, and grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events in 48% of patients, while serious adverse events occurred in 35% of patients.285
Due to the rarity of advanced cases, the literature on chemotherapy for BCC is limited to case reports.286–292
Follow-up
Follow-up for BCC should include a history and physical examination, along with a complete skin examination every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years, and then at least annually for life. Imaging may be considered if clinical examination is insufficient for following the disease. Follow-up with a dermatologist is strongly recommended if any of the following criteria are met: past or imminent solid organ, marrow, or hematopoietic cell transplant; ≥1 cutaneous melanomas in the past 5 years; or ≥4 NMSCs within the past 5 years.
Imaging modality and targeted area should be at the discretion of the treating team based on the suspected extent of disease (ie, local, regional, metastatic). Histologic confirmation is sufficient to diagnose local recurrence, but imaging can be considered to assess extent of disease. As part of follow-up, the patients should be educated on sun protection and self-examination. For local recurrence, the primary treatment pathway for high-risk BCC should be followed. For locally advanced, nodal metastases, and distant metastases, the appropriate path should be followed as found within “Advanced BCC” in the algorithm.
An estimated 30%–50% of patients with BCC will develop another BCC within 5 years.126,129,293–296 This represents a 10-fold increase in risk compared with the general population.294 Patients with a prior BCC are also at increased risk of developing SCC and cutaneous melanoma.126,296 A prospective population-based cohort study found that development of a second BCC is most likely during the short-term follow-up period after diagnosis of the first lesion.133 Therefore, close follow-up of patients with BCC in both the short- and long-term is critical.
References
- 1.↑
Asgari MM, Moffet HH, Ray GT, et al. Trends in basal cell carcinoma incidence and identification of high-risk subgroups, 1998–2012. JAMA Dermatol 2015;151:976–981.
- 3.↑
Rogers HW, Weinstock MA, Feldman SR, et al. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer (keratinocyte carcinomas) in the U.S. population, 2012. JAMA Dermatol 2015;151:1081–1086.
- 4.↑
Abbas M, Kalia S. Trends in non-melanoma skin cancer (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) in Canada: a descriptive analysis of available data. J Cutan Med Surg 2016;20:166–175.
- 5.↑
Rudolph C, Schnoor M, Eisemann N, et al. Incidence trends of nonmelanoma skin cancer in Germany from 1998 to 2010. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2015;13:788–797.
- 6.↑
Muzic JG, Schmitt AR, Wright AC, et al. Incidence and trends of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 2000 to 2010. Mayo Clin Proc 2017;92:890–898.
- 7.↑
Christenson LJ, Borrowman TA, Vachon CM, et al. Incidence of basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas in a population younger than 40 years. JAMA 2005;294:681–690.
- 8.↑
von Domarus H, Stevens PJ. Metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Report of five cases and review of 170 cases in the literature. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10:1043–1060.
- 9.↑
Nguyen-Nielsen M, Wang L, Pedersen L, et al. The incidence of metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) in Denmark, 1997–2010. Eur J Dermatol 2015;25:463–468.
- 10.↑
Wadhera A, Fazio M, Bricca G, et al. Metastatic basal cell carcinoma: a case report and literature review. How accurate is our incidence data? Dermatol Online J 2006;12:7.
- 11.↑
Kricker A, Armstrong BK, English DR, et al. Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case-control study in Western Australia. Int J Cancer 1995;60:489–494.
- 12.↑
Kricker A, Armstrong BK, English DR, et al. A dose-response curve for sun exposure and basal cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer 1995;60:482–488.
- 13.↑
Zanetti R, Rosso S, Martinez C, et al. Comparison of risk patterns in carcinoma and melanoma of the skin in men: a multi-centre case-case- control study. Br J Cancer 2006;94:743–751.
- 14.↑
Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Bajdik CD, et al. Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer. I. Basal cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 1995;131:157–163.
- 15.↑
Ramsay HM, Fryer AA, Hawley CM, et al. Factors associated with nonmelanoma skin cancer following renal transplantation in Queensland, Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:397–406.
- 16.↑
Kaskel P, Lange U, Sander S, et al. Ultraviolet exposure and risk of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma in Ulm and Dresden, Germany. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015;29:134–142.
- 17.↑
Khalesi M, Whiteman DC, Tran B, et al. A meta-analysis of pigmentary characteristics, sun sensitivity, freckling and melanocytic nevi and risk of basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Cancer Epidemiol 2013;37:534–543.
- 18.↑
Walther U, Kron M, Sander S, et al. Risk and protective factors for sporadic basal cell carcinoma: results of a two-centre case-control study in southern Germany. Clinical actinic elastosis may be a protective factor. Br J Dermatol 2004;151:170–178.
- 19.↑
Box NF, Duffy DL, Irving RE, et al. Melanocortin-1 receptor genotype is a risk factor for basal and squamous cell carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol 2001;116:224–229.
- 20.↑
Lock-Andersen J, Drzewiecki KT, Wulf HC. Eye and hair colour, skin type and constitutive skin pigmentation as risk factors for basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma. A Danish case-control study. Acta Derm Venereol 1999;79:74–80.
- 21.↑
Chinem VP, Miot HA. Prevalence of actinic skin lesions in patients with basal cell carcinoma of the head: a case-control study. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2012;58:188–196.
- 22.↑
Wu S, Han J, Li WQ, et al. Basal-cell carcinoma incidence and associated risk factors in U.S. women and men. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:890–897.
- 23.↑
Perkins JL, Liu Y, Mitby PA, et al. Nonmelanoma skin cancer in survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3733–3741.
- 24.↑
Karagas MR, Nelson HH, Zens MS, et al. Squamous cell and basal cell carcinoma of the skin in relation to radiation therapy and potential modification of risk by sun exposure. Epidemiology 2007;18:776–784.
- 25.↑
Watt TC, Inskip PD, Stratton K, et al. Radiation-related risk of basal cell carcinoma: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1240–1250.
- 26.↑
Schwartz JL, Kopecky KJ, Mathes RW, et al. Basal cell skin cancer after total-body irradiation and hematopoietic cell transplantation. Radiat Res 2009;171:155–163.
- 27.↑
Karagas MR, McDonald JA, Greenberg ER, et al. Risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers after ionizing radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1848–1853.
- 28.↑
National Institutes of Health. PubMed overview. Accessed September 1, 2023. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/
- 29.↑
Freedman-Cass DA, Fischer T, Alpert AB, et al. The value and process of inclusion: using sensitive, respectful, and inclusive language and images in NCCN content. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023;21:434–441.
- 30.↑
Lesiak A, Sobolewska-Sztychny D, Majak P, et al. Relation between sonic hedgehog pathway gene polymorphisms and basal cell carcinoma development in the Polish population. Arch Dermatol Res 2016;308:39–47.
- 31.↑
Reifenberger J, Wolter M, Weber RG, et al. Missense mutations in SMOH in sporadic basal cell carcinomas of the skin and primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the central nervous system. Cancer Res 1998;58:1798–1803.
- 32.↑
Xie J, Murone M, Luoh SM, et al. Activating smoothened mutations in sporadic basal-cell carcinoma. Nature 1998;391:90–92.
- 33.↑
Gailani MR, Bale SJ, Leffell DJ, et al. Developmental defects in Gorlin syndrome related to a putative tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 9. Cell 1992;69:111–117.
- 34.↑
Soufir N, Gerard B, Portela M, et al. PTCH mutations and deletions in patients with typical nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome and in patients with a suspected genetic predisposition to basal cell carcinoma: a French study. Br J Cancer 2006;95:548–553.
- 35.↑
Ling G, Ahmadian A, Persson A, et al. PATCHED and p53 gene alterations in sporadic and hereditary basal cell cancer. Oncogene 2001;20:7770–7778.
- 36.↑
Heitzer E, Lassacher A, Quehenberger F, et al. UV fingerprints predominate in the PTCH mutation spectra of basal cell carcinomas independent of clinical phenotype. J Invest Dermatol 2007;127:2872–2881.
- 37.↑
Danaee H, Karagas MR, Kelsey KT, et al. Allelic loss at Drosophila patched gene is highly prevalent in basal and squamous cell carcinomas of the skin. J Invest Dermatol 2006;126:1152–1158.
- 38.↑
Reifenberger J, Wolter M, Knobbe CB, et al. Somatic mutations in the PTCH, SMOH, SUFUH and TP53 genes in sporadic basal cell carcinomas. Br J Dermatol 2005;152:43–51.
- 39.↑
Kim MY, Park HJ, Baek SC, et al. Mutations of the p53 and PTCH gene in basal cell carcinomas: UV mutation signature and strand bias. J Dermatol Sci 2002;29:1–9.
- 40.↑
Gailani MR, Ståhle-Bäckdahl M, Leffell DJ, et al. The role of the human homologue of Drosophila patched in sporadic basal cell carcinomas. Nat Genet 1996;14:78–81.
- 41.↑
Zhang H, Ping XL, Lee PK, et al. Role of PTCH and p53 genes in early-onset basal cell carcinoma. Am J Pathol 2001;158:381–385.
- 42.↑
Ziegler A, Leffell DJ, Kunala S, et al. Mutation hotspots due to sunlight in the p53 gene of nonmelanoma skin cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993;90:4216–4220.
- 43.↑
Oluwasanmi JO, Williams AO, Alli AF. Superficial cancer in Nigeria. Br J Cancer 1969;23:714–728.
- 45.↑
Kraemer KH, Lee MM, Scotto J. Xeroderma pigmentosum. Cutaneous, ocular, and neurologic abnormalities in 830 published cases. Arch Dermatol 1987;123:241–250.
- 46.↑
Bradford PT, Goldstein AM, Tamura D, et al. Cancer and neurologic degeneration in xeroderma pigmentosum: long term follow-up characterises the role of DNA repair. J Med Genet 2011;48:168–176.
- 47.↑
Kraemer KH, Lee MM, Andrews AD, et al. The role of sunlight and DNA repair in melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer. The xeroderma pigmentosum paradigm. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:1018–1021.
- 48.↑
Kraemer KH, Lee MM, Scotto J. DNA repair protects against cutaneous and internal neoplasia: evidence from xeroderma pigmentosum. Carcinogenesis 1984;5:511–514.
- 49.↑
Couvé-Privat S, Le Bret M, Traiffort E, et al. Functional analysis of novel sonic hedgehog gene mutations identified in basal cell carcinomas from xeroderma pigmentosum patients. Cancer Res 2004;64:3559–3565.
- 50.↑
Couvé-Privat S, Bouadjar B, Avril MF, et al. Significantly high levels of ultraviolet-specific mutations in the smoothened gene in basal cell carcinomas from DNA repair-deficient xeroderma pigmentosum patients. Cancer Res 2002;62:7186–7189.
- 51.↑
Miller KL, Karagas MR, Kraft P, et al. XPA, haplotypes, and risk of basal and squamous cell carcinoma. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:1670–1675.
- 52.↑
Clements S, Khachemoune A. Upstaging of basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas during definitive surgery: a review of predictive preoperative clinical and histologic features. Arch Dermatol Res 2021;313:319–325.
- 53.↑
Singh B, Dorelles A, Konnikov N, et al. Detection of high-risk histologic features and tumor upstaging of nonmelanoma skin cancers on debulk analysis: a quantitative systematic review. Dermatol Surg 2017;43:1003–1011.
- 54.↑
Chen J, Ruczinski I, Jorgensen TJ, et al. Nonmelanoma skin cancer and risk for subsequent malignancy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1215–1222.
- 55.↑
Morgan FC, Ruiz ES, Karia PS, et al. Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor classification system for basal cell carcinoma identifies patients with risk of metastasis and death. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021;85:582–587.
- 56.↑
Gandhi MR, Panizza B, Kennedy D. Detecting and defining the anatomic extent of large nerve perineural spread of malignancy: comparing “targeted” MRI with the histologic findings following surgery. Head Neck 2011;33:469–475.
- 57.↑
Williams LS, Mancuso AA, Mendenhall WM. Perineural spread of cutaneous squamous and basal cell carcinoma: CT and MR detection and its impact on patient management and prognosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:1061–1069.
- 58.↑
Boeta-Angeles, Bennett RG. Features associated with recurrence (basal cell carcinoma). In: Miller SJ, Maloney ME, eds. Cutaneous Oncology: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. Blackwell Science; 1998:pp. 646–656.
- 59.↑
Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Bart RS, et al. Recurrence rates of treated basal cell carcinomas. Part 3: surgical excision. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1992;18:471–476.
- 60.↑
Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Grin CM, et al. Recurrence rates of treated basal cell carcinomas. Part 2: curettage-electrodesiccation. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1991;17:720–726.
- 61.↑
Dubin N, Kopf AW. Multivariate risk score for recurrence of cutaneous basal cell carcinomas. Arch Dermatol 1983;119:373–377.
- 62.↑
Bøgelund FS, Philipsen PA, Gniadecki R. Factors affecting the recurrence rate of basal cell carcinoma. Acta Derm Venereol 2007;87:330–334.
- 63.↑
Rigel DS, Robins P, Friedman RJ. Predicting recurrence of basal-cell carcinomas treated by microscopically controlled excision: a recurrence index score. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1981;7:807–810.
- 64.↑
Spiller WF, Spiller RF. Treatment of basal cell epithelioma by curettage and electrodesiccation. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;11:808–814.
- 65.↑
van Iersel CA, van de Velden HV, Kusters CD, et al. Prognostic factors for a subsequent basal cell carcinoma: implications for follow-up. Br J Dermatol 2005;153:1078–1080.
- 66.↑
Petrovich Z, Kuisk H, Langholz B, et al. Treatment results and patterns of failure in 646 patients with carcinoma of the eyelids, pinna, and nose. Am J Surg 1987;154:447–450.
- 67.↑
Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Grin CM, et al. Recurrence rates of treated basal cell carcinomas. Part 1: overview. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1991;17:713–718.
- 68.↑
Connolly SM, Baker DR, Coldiron BM, et al. AAD/ACMS/ASDSA/ASMS 2012 appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery: a report of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery. Dermatol Surg 2012;38:1582–1603.
- 69.↑
Dixon AY, Lee SH, McGregor DH. Histologic features predictive of basal cell carcinoma recurrence: results of a multivariate analysis. J Cutan Pathol 1993;20:137–142.
- 70.↑
Jacobs GH, Rippey JJ, Altini M. Prediction of aggressive behavior in basal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1982;49:533–537.
- 71.↑
de Rosa G, Vetrani A, Zeppa P, et al. Comparative morphometric analysis of aggressive and ordinary basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Cancer 1990;65:544–549.
- 72.↑
Codazzi D, Van Der Velden J, Carminati M, et al. Positive compared with negative margins in a single-centre retrospective study on 3957 consecutive excisions of basal cell carcinomas. Associated risk factors and preferred surgical management. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2014;48:38–43.
- 73.↑
Krynitz B, Olsson H, Lundh Rozell B, et al. Risk of basal cell carcinoma in Swedish organ transplant recipients: a population-based study. Br J Dermatol 2016;174:95–103.
- 74.↑
Mackintosh LJ, Geddes CC, Herd RM. Skin tumours in the West of Scotland renal transplant population. Br J Dermatol 2013;168:1047–1053.
- 75.↑
Bernat García J, Morales Suárez-Varela M, Vilata JJ, et al. Risk factors for non-melanoma skin cancer in kidney transplant patients in a Spanish population in the Mediterranean region. Acta Derm Venereol 2013;93:422–427.
- 76.↑
Karczewski M, Stronka M, Karczewski J, et al. Skin cancer following kidney transplantation: a single-center experience. Transplant Proc 2011;43:3760–3761.
- 77.↑
Bordea C, Wojnarowska F, Millard PR, et al. Skin cancers in renal-transplant recipients occur more frequently than previously recognized in a temperate climate. Transplantation 2004;77:574–579.
- 78.↑
DePry JL, Vyas R, Lazarus HM, et al. Cutaneous malignant neoplasms in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol 2015;151:775–782.
- 79.↑
Stern RS, Liebman EJ, Väkevä L. Oral psoralen and ultraviolet-A light (PUVA) treatment of psoriasis and persistent risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer. PUVA follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1278–1284.
- 80.↑
Archier E, Devaux S, Castela E, et al. Carcinogenic risks of psoralen ultraviolet-A therapy and narrowband ultraviolet-B therapy in chronic plaque psoriasis: a systematic literature review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2012;26(Suppl 3):22–31.
- 81.↑
Park GH, Chang SE, Won CH, et al. Incidence of primary skin cancer after organ transplantation: an 18-year single-center experience in Korea. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;70:465–472.
- 82.↑
Jensen AO, Svaerke C, Farkas D, et al. Skin cancer risk among solid organ recipients: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol 2010;90:474–479.
- 83.↑
Hartevelt MM, Bavinck JN, Kootte AM, et al. Incidence of skin cancer after renal transplantation in The Netherlands. Transplantation 1990;49:506–509.
- 84.↑
Harwood CA, Mesher D, McGregor JM, et al. A surveillance model for skin cancer in organ transplant recipients: a 22-year prospective study in an ethnically diverse population. Am J Transplant 2013;13:119–129.
- 85.↑
Brewer JD, Colegio OR, Phillips PK, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for skin cancer after heart transplant. Arch Dermatol 2009;145:1391–1396.
- 86.↑
Rashtak S, Dierkhising RA, Kremers WK, et al. Incidence and risk factors for skin cancer following lung transplantation. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015;72:92–98.
- 87.↑
Fortina AB, Piaserico S, Caforio AL, et al. Immunosuppressive level and other risk factors for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in heart transplant recipients. Arch Dermatol 2004;140:1079–1085.
- 88.↑
Kanitakis J, Alhaj-Ibrahim L, Euvrard S, et al. Basal cell carcinomas developing in solid organ transplant recipients: clinicopathologic study of 176 cases. Arch Dermatol 2003;139:1133–1137.
- 89.↑
Harwood CA, Proby CM, McGregor JM, et al. Clinicopathologic features of skin cancer in organ transplant recipients: a retrospective case-control series. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54:290–300.
- 90.↑
Lott DG, Manz R, Koch C, et al. Aggressive behavior of nonmelanotic skin cancers in solid organ transplant recipients. Transplantation 2010;90:683–687.
- 91.↑
Martin H, Strong E, Spiro RH. Radiation-induced skin cancer of the head and neck. Cancer 1970;25:61–71.
- 92.↑
Lichter MD, Karagas MR, Mott LA, et al. Therapeutic ionizing radiation and the incidence of basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 2000;136:1007–1011.
- 93.↑
Dixon AY, Lee SH, McGregor DH. Factors predictive of recurrence of basal cell carcinoma. Am J Dermatopathol 1989;11:222–232.
- 94.↑
Smeets NW, Kuijpers DI, Nelemans P, et al. Mohs’ micrographic surgery for treatment of basal cell carcinoma of the face—results of a retrospective study and review of the literature. Br J Dermatol 2004;151:141–147.
- 95.↑
Cigna E, Tarallo M, Maruccia M, et al. Basal cell carcinoma: 10 years of experience. J Skin Cancer 2011;2011:476362.
- 96.↑
Szewczyk MP, Pazdrowski J, Dańczak-Pazdrowska A, et al. Analysis of selected recurrence risk factors after treatment of head and neck basal cell carcinoma. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 2014;31:146–151.
- 97.↑
Bartoš V, Pokorný D, Zacharová O, et al. Recurrent basal cell carcinoma: a clinicopathological study and evaluation of histomorphological findings in primary and recurrent lesions. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Panonica Adriat 2011;20:67–75.
- 98.↑
Sartore L, Lancerotto L, Salmaso M, et al. Facial basal cell carcinoma: analysis of recurrence and follow-up strategies. Oncol Rep 2011;26:1423–1429.
- 99.↑
Sloane JP. The value of typing basal cell carcinomas in predicting recurrence after surgical excision. Br J Dermatol 1977;96:127–132.
- 100.↑
Costantino D, Lowe L, Brown DL. Basosquamous carcinoma-an under-recognized, high-risk cutaneous neoplasm: case study and review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006;59:424–428.
- 101.↑
Martin RC 2nd, Edwards MJ, Cawte TG, et al. Basosquamous carcinoma: analysis of prognostic factors influencing recurrence. Cancer 2000;88:1365–1369.
- 103.↑
Wermker K, Roknic N, Goessling K, et al. Basosquamous carcinoma of the head and neck: clinical and histologic characteristics and their impact on disease progression. Neoplasia 2015;17:301–305.
- 104.↑
Hassanein AM, Proper SA, Depcik-Smith ND, et al. Peritumoral fibrosis in basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma mimicking perineural invasion: potential pitfall in Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:1101–1106.
- 105.↑
Lin C, Tripcony L, Keller J, et al. Perineural infiltration of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma without clinical features. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:334–340.
- 106.↑
Garcia-Serra A, Hinerman RW, Mendenhall WM, et al. Carcinoma of the skin with perineural invasion. Head Neck 2003;25:1027–1033.
- 107.↑
Lin C, Tripcony L, Keller J, et al. Cutaneous carcinoma of the head and neck with clinical features of perineural infiltration treated with radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2013;25:362–367.
- 108.↑
Leibovitch I, Huilgol SC, Selva D, et al. Basal cell carcinoma treated with Mohs surgery in Australia III. Perineural invasion. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;53:458–463.
- 109.↑
Jackson JE, Dickie GJ, Wiltshire KL, et al. Radiotherapy for perineural invasion in cutaneous head and neck carcinomas: toward a risk-adapted treatment approach. Head Neck 2009;31:604–610.
- 110.↑
Ratner D, Lowe L, Johnson TM, et al. Perineural spread of basal cell carcinomas treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. Cancer 2000;88:1605–1613.
- 111.↑
Brown CI, Perry AE. Incidence of perineural invasion in histologically aggressive types of basal cell carcinoma. Am J Dermatopathol 2000;22:123–125.
- 112.↑
Galloway TJ, Morris CG, Mancuso AA, et al. Impact of radiographic findings on prognosis for skin carcinoma with clinical perineural invasion. Cancer 2005;103:1254–1257.
- 113.↑
Balamucki CJ, DeJesus R, Galloway TJ, et al. Impact of radiographic findings on for prognosis skin cancer with perineural invasion. Am J Clin Oncol 2015;38:248–251.
- 114.↑
Cernea CR, Ferraz AR, de Castro IV, et al. Perineural invasion in aggressive skin carcinomas of the head and neck. Potentially dangerous but frequently overlooked. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2009;71:21–26.
- 115.↑
Leffell DJ, Headington JT, Wong DS, et al. Aggressive-growth basal cell carcinoma in young adults. Arch Dermatol 1991;127:1663–1667.
- 116.↑
McCormack CJ, Kelly JW, Dorevitch AP. Differences in age and body site distribution of the histological subtypes of basal cell carcinoma. A possible indicator of differing causes. Arch Dermatol 1997;133:593–596.
- 117.↑
Bastiaens MT, Hoefnagel JJ, Bruijn JA, et al. Differences in age, site distribution, and sex between nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma indicate different types of tumors. J Invest Dermatol 1998;110:880–884.
- 118.↑
Scrivener Y, Grosshans E, Cribier B. Variations of basal cell carcinomas according to gender, age, location and histopathological subtype. Br J Dermatol 2002;147:41–47.
- 119.↑
Raasch BA, Buettner PG, Garbe C. Basal cell carcinoma: histological classification and body-site distribution. Br J Dermatol 2006;155:401–407.
- 120.↑
Dinehart SM, Dodge R, Stanley WE, et al. Basal cell carcinoma treated with Mohs surgery. A comparison of 54 younger patients with 1050 older patients. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1992;18:560–566.
- 121.↑
Milroy CJ, Horlock N, Wilson GD, et al. Aggressive basal cell carcinoma in young patients: fact or fiction? Br J Plast Surg 2000;53:393–396.
- 122.↑
Roudier-Pujol C, Auperin A, Nguyen T, et al. Basal cell carcinoma in young adults: not more aggressive than in older patients. Dermatology 1999;199:119–123.
- 123.↑
Lear JT, Smith AG, Bowers B, et al. Truncal tumor site is associated with high risk of multiple basal cell carcinoma and is influenced by glutathione S-transferase, GSTT1, and cytochrome P450, CYP1A1 genotypes, and their interaction. J Invest Dermatol 1997;108:519–522.
- 124.↑
Ramachandran S, Fryer AA, Lovatt T, et al. The rate of increase in the numbers of primary sporadic basal cell carcinomas during follow up is associated with age at first presentation. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:2051–2054.
- 125.↑
Cheretis C, Angelidou E, Dietrich F, et al. Prognostic value of computer-assisted morphological and morphometrical analysis for detecting the recurrence tendency of basal cell carcinoma. Med Sci Monit 2008;14:MT13–MT19.
- 126.↑
Karagas MR, Stukel TA, Greenberg ER, et al. Risk of subsequent basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin among patients with prior skin cancer. JAMA 1992;267:3305–3310.
- 127.↑
Lovatt TJ, Lear JT, Bastrilles J, et al. Associations between ultraviolet radiation, basal cell carcinoma site and histology, host characteristics, and rate of development of further tumors. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;52:468–473.
- 128.↑
Richmond-Sinclair NM, Pandeya N, Williams GM, et al. Clinical signs of photodamage are associated with basal cell carcinoma multiplicity and site: a 16-year longitudinal study. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2622–2629.
- 129.↑
Flohil SC, Koljenović S, de Haas ER, et al. Cumulative risks and rates of subsequent basal cell carcinomas in the Netherlands. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:874–881.
- 130.↑
Verkouteren JAC, Smedinga H, Steyerberg EW, et al. Predicting the Risk of a Second Basal Cell Carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol 2015;135:2649–2656.
- 131.↑
Milán T, Pukkala E, Verkasalo PK, et al. Subsequent primary cancers after basal-cell carcinoma: a nationwide study in Finland from 1953 to 1995. Int J Cancer 2000;87:283–288.
- 132.↑
McCusker M, Basset-Seguin N, Dummer R, et al. Metastatic basal cell carcinoma: prognosis dependent on anatomic site and spread of disease. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:774–783.
- 133.↑
Kiiski V, de Vries E, Flohil SC, et al. Risk factors for single and multiple basal cell carcinomas. Arch Dermatol 2010;146:848–855.
- 134.↑
Rowe DE, Carroll RJ, Day CL Jr. Long-term recurrence rates in previously untreated (primary) basal cell carcinoma: implications for patient follow-up. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1989;15:315–328.
- 135.↑
Barlow JO, Zalla MJ, Kyle A, et al. Treatment of basal cell carcinoma with curettage alone. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54:1039–1045.
- 136.↑
Thissen MR, Neumann MH, Schouten LJ. A systematic review of treatment modalities for primary basal cell carcinomas. Arch Dermatol 1999;135:1177–1183.
- 137.↑
Chren MM, Torres JS, Stuart SE, et al. Recurrence after treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer: a prospective cohort study. Arch Dermatol 2011;147:540–546.
- 138.↑
Julian C, Bowers PW, Pritchard C. A comparative study of the effects of disposable and Volkmann spoon curettes in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol 2009;161:1407–1409.
- 139.↑
Blixt E, Nelsen D, Stratman E. Recurrence rates of aggressive histologic types of basal cell carcinoma after treatment with electrodesiccation and curettage alone. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:719–725.
- 140.↑
Rodriguez-Vigil T, Vázquez-López F, Perez-Oliva N. Recurrence rates of primary basal cell carcinoma in facial risk areas treated with curettage and electrodesiccation. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;56:91–95.
- 141.↑
Kopf AW, Bart RS, Schrager D, et al. Curettage-electrodesiccation treatment of basal cell carcinomas. Arch Dermatol 1977;113:439–443.
- 142.↑
Rowe DE, Carroll RJ, Day CL Jr. Mohs surgery is the treatment of choice for recurrent (previously treated) basal cell carcinoma. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1989;15:424–431.
- 143.↑
van Loo E, Mosterd K, Krekels GA, et al. Surgical excision versus Mohs’ micrographic surgery for basal cell carcinoma of the face: a randomised clinical trial with 10 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:3011–3020.
- 144.↑
Emmett AJ, Broadbent GD. Shave excision of superficial solar skin lesions. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:47–54.
- 145.↑
Dando EE, Abban C, Shehu Wingrove A, et al. Deep shave removal of suspected basal cell carcinoma: a prospective study. Dermatol Surg 2023;49:130–134.
- 146.↑
Abramson AK, Krasny MJ, Goldman GD. Tangential shave removal of basal cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:387–392.
- 147.↑
Wu X, Elkin EB, Jason Chen CS, et al. Traditional versus streamlined management of basal cell carcinoma (BCC): a cost analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015;73:791–798.
- 148.↑
Kuijpers DI, Thissen MR, Berretty PJ, et al. Surgical excision versus curettage plus cryosurgery in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg 2007;33:579–587.
- 149.↑
Rhodes LE, de Rie MA, Leifsdottir R, et al. Five-year follow-up of a randomized, prospective trial of topical methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy vs surgery for nodular basal cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 2007;143:1131–1136.
- 150.↑
Wetzig T, Woitek M, Eichhorn K, et al. Surgical excision of basal cell carcinoma with complete margin control: outcome at 5-year follow-up. Dermatology 2010;220:363–369.
- 151.↑
Schell AE, Russell MA, Park SS. Suggested excisional margins for cutaneous malignant lesions based on Mohs micrographic surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013;15:337–343.
- 152.↑
Quazi SJ, Aslam N, Saleem H, et al. Surgical margin of excision in basal cell carcinoma: a systematic review of literature. Cureus 2020;12:e9211.
- 153.↑
Bisson MA, Dunkin CS, Suvarna SK, et al. Do plastic surgeons resect basal cell carcinomas too widely? A prospective study comparing surgical and histological margins. Br J Plast Surg 2002;55:293–297.
- 154.↑
Gulleth Y, Goldberg N, Silverman RP, et al. What is the best surgical margin for a basal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1222–1231.
- 155.↑
Thomas DJ, King AR, Peat BG. Excision margins for nonmelanotic skin cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112:57–63.
- 156.↑
Fraga SD, Besaw RJ, Murad F, et al. Complete margin assessment versus sectional assessment in surgically excised high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatol Surg 2022;48:704–710.
- 157.↑
Su SY, Giorlando F, Ek EW, et al. Incomplete excision of basal cell carcinoma: a prospective trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1240–1248.
- 158.↑
Farhi D, Dupin N, Palangié A, et al. Incomplete excision of basal cell carcinoma: rate and associated factors among 362 consecutive cases. Dermatol Surg 2007;33:1207–1214.
- 159.↑
Kappelin J, Nielsen K, Nilsson F, et al. Surgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma: a case series on factors influencing the risk of an incomplete primary excision. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;34:2518–2525.
- 160.↑
Dieu T, Macleod AM. Incomplete excision of basal cell carcinomas: a retrospective audit. ANZ J Surg 2002;72:219–221.
- 161.↑
Ramdas K, van Lee C, Beck S, et al. Differences in rate of complete excision of basal cell carcinoma by dermatologists, plastic surgeons and general practitioners: a large cross-sectional study. Dermatology 2018;234:86–91.
- 162.↑
Sexton M, Jones DB, Maloney ME. Histologic pattern analysis of basal cell carcinoma. Study of a series of 1039 consecutive neoplasms. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990;23:1118–1126.
- 163.↑
Sherry KR, Reid LA, Wilmshurst AD. A five year review of basal cell carcinoma excisions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:1485–1489.
- 164.↑
Griffiths RW, Suvarna SK, Stone J. Basal cell carcinoma histological clearance margins: an analysis of 1539 conventionally excised tumours. Wider still and deeper? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007;60:41–47.
- 165.↑
Masud D, Moustaki M, Staruch R, et al. Basal cell carcinomata: risk factors for incomplete excision and results of re-excision. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69:652–656.
- 166.↑
Malik V, Goh KS, Leong S, et al. Risk and outcome analysis of 1832 consecutively excised basal cell carcinomas in a tertiary referral plastic surgery unit. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:2057–2063.
- 167.↑
Wolf DJ, Zitelli JA. Surgical margins for basal cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 1987;123:340–344.
- 168.↑
Weesie F, Naus NC, Vasilic D, et al. Recurrence of periocular basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma after Mohs micrographic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Dermatol 2019;180:1176–1182.
- 169.↑
Drucker AM, Adam GP, Rofeberg V, et al. Treatments of primary basal cell carcinoma of the skin: a systematic review and network meta- analysis. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:456–466.
- 170.↑
Wennberg AM, Larkö O, Stenquist B. Five-year results of Mohs’ micrographic surgery for aggressive facial basal cell carcinoma in Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol 1999;79:370–372.
- 171.↑
Veronese F, Farinelli P, Zavattaro E, et al. Basal cell carcinoma of the head region: therapeutical results of 350 lesions treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2012;26:838–843.
- 172.↑
Litwin AS, Rytina E, Ha T, et al. Management of periocular basal cell carcinoma by Mohs micrographic surgery. J Dermatolog Treat 2013;24:232–234.
- 173.↑
Sin CW, Barua A, Cook A. Recurrence rates of periocular basal cell carcinoma following Mohs micrographic surgery: a retrospective study. Int J Dermatol 2016;55:1044–1047.
- 174.↑
Leibovitch I, Huilgol SC, Selva D, et al. Basal cell carcinoma treated with Mohs surgery in Australia II. Outcome at 5-year follow-up. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;53:452–457.
- 175.↑
Malhotra R, Huilgol SC, Huynh NT, et al. The Australian Mohs database, part II: periocular basal cell carcinoma outcome at 5-year follow-up. Ophthalmology 2004;111:631–636.
- 176.↑
Mosterd K, Krekels GA, Nieman FH, et al. Surgical excision versus Mohs’ micrographic surgery for primary and recurrent basal-cell carcinoma of the face: a prospective randomised controlled trial with 5-years’ follow-up. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:1149–1156.
- 177.↑
Smeets NW, Krekels GA, Ostertag JU, et al. Surgical excision vs Mohs’ micrographic surgery for basal-cell carcinoma of the face: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:1766–1772.
- 178.↑
Muller FM, Dawe RS, Moseley H, et al. Randomized comparison of Mohs micrographic surgery and surgical excision for small nodular basal cell carcinoma: tissue-sparing outcome. Dermatol Surg 2009;35:1349–1354.
- 179.↑
Gniadecki R, Glud M, Mortensen K, et al. Favourable results of Mohs micrographic surgery for basal cell carcinoma. Dan Med J 2015;62:A5171.
- 180.↑
Flohil SC, van Dorst AM, Nijsten T, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery for basal cell carcinomas: appropriateness of ‘Rotterdam’ criteria and predictive factors for three or more stages. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013;27:1228–1235.
- 181.↑
Takata Pontes L, Fantelli Stelini R, Cintra ML, et al. The importance of superficial basal cell carcinoma in a retrospective study of 139 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery in a Brazilian university hospital. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2015;70:721–725.
- 182.↑
Morris DS, Elzaridi E, Clarke L, et al. Periocular basal cell carcinoma: 5-year outcome following Slow Mohs surgery with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections and delayed closure. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:474–476.
- 183.↑
Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, Hinerman RW, et al. Radiotherapy for cutaneous squamous and basal cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Laryngoscope 2009;119:1994–1999.
- 184.↑
Mendenhall WM, Ferlito A, Takes RP, et al. Cutaneous head and neck basal and squamous cell carcinomas with perineural invasion. Oral Oncol 2012;48:918–922.
- 185.↑
Han A, Ratner D. What is the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with perineural invasion? Cancer 2007;109:1053–1059.
- 186.↑
Wilder RB, Kittelson JM, Shimm DS. Basal cell carcinoma treated with radiation therapy. Cancer 1991;68:2134–2137.
- 187.↑
Wilder RB, Shimm DS, Kittelson JM, et al. Recurrent basal cell carcinoma treated with radiation therapy. Arch Dermatol 1991;127:1668–1672.
- 188.↑
Childers BJ, Goldwyn RM, Ramos D, et al. Long-term results of irradiation for basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the nose. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;93:1169–1173.
- 189.↑
Hernández-Machin B, Borrego L, Gil-García M, et al. Office-based radiation therapy for cutaneous carcinoma: evaluation of 710 treatments. Int J Dermatol 2007;46:453–459.
- 190.↑
Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Gladstein AH, et al. Recurrence rates of treated basal cell carcinomas. Part 4: X-ray therapy. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1992;18:549–554.
- 191.↑
Zagrodnik B, Kempf W, Seifert B, et al. Superficial radiotherapy for patients with basal cell carcinoma: recurrence rates, histologic subtypes, and expression of p53 and Bcl-2. Cancer 2003;98:2708–2714.
- 192.↑
Cognetta AB, Howard BM, Heaton HP, et al. Superficial x-ray in the treatment of basal and squamous cell carcinomas: a viable option in select patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012;67:1235–1241.
- 193.↑
Avril MF, Auperin A, Margulis A, et al. Basal cell carcinoma of the face: surgery or radiotherapy? Results of a randomized study. Br J Cancer 1997;76:100–106.
- 194.↑
Petit JY, Avril MF, Margulis A, et al. Evaluation of cosmetic results of a randomized trial comparing surgery and radiotherapy in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:2544–2551.
- 195.↑
Hall VL, Leppard BJ, McGill J, et al. Treatment of basal-cell carcinoma: comparison of radiotherapy and cryotherapy. Clin Radiol 1986;37:33–34.
- 196.↑
Garcia-Martin E, Gil-Arribas LM, Idoipe M, et al. Comparison of imiquimod 5% cream versus radiotherapy as treatment for eyelid basal cell carcinoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:1393–1396.
- 197.↑
Zaorsky NG, Lee CT, Zhang E, et al. Hypofractionated radiation therapy for basal and squamous cell skin cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2017;125:13–20.
- 198.↑
Ashby MA, Pacella JA, de Groot R, et al. Use of a radon mould technique for skin cancer: results from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute (1975–1984). Br J Radiol 1989;62:608–612.
- 199.↑
Cipriani C, Desantis M, Dahlhoff G, et al. Personalized irradiation therapy for NMSC by rhenium-188 skin cancer therapy: a long-term retrospective study. J Dermatolog Treat 2022;33:969–975.
- 200.↑
Sedda AF, Rossi G, Cipriani C, et al. Dermatological high-dose-rate brachytherapy for the treatment of basal and squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Exp Dermatol 2008;33:745–749.
- 201.↑
Guibert M, David I, Vergez S, et al. Brachytherapy in lip carcinoma: long-term results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:e839–e843.
- 202.↑
Ballester-Sánchez R, Pons-Llanas O, Candela-Juan C, et al. Two years results of electronic brachytherapy for basal cell carcinoma. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2017;9:251–255.
- 203.↑
Bhatnagar A, Loper A. The initial experience of electronic brachytherapy for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer. Radiat Oncol 2010;5:87.
- 204.↑
Braathen LR, Szeimies RM, Basset-Seguin N, et al. Guidelines on the use of photodynamic therapy for nonmelanoma skin cancer: an international consensus. International Society for Photodynamic Therapy in Dermatology, 2005. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;56:125–143.
- 205.↑
Jansen MHE, Mosterd K, Arits AH, et al. Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing effectiveness of photodynamic therapy, topical imiquimod, and topical 5-fluorouracil in patients with superficial basal cell carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol 2018;138:527–533.
- 206.↑
Drew BA, Karia PS, Mora AN, et al. Treatment patterns, outcomes, and patient satisfaction of primary epidermally limited nonmelanoma skin cancer. Dermatol Surg 2017;43:1423–1430.
- 207.↑
Afsar FS, Erkan CD, Karaca S. Clinical practice trends in cryosurgery: a retrospective study of cutaneous lesions. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 2015;32:88–93.
- 208.↑
Peris K, Campione E, Micantonio T, et al. Imiquimod treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell carcinoma: 12-week open-label trial. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:318–323.
- 209.↑
Eigentler TK, Kamin A, Weide BM, et al. A phase III, randomized, open label study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of imiquimod 5% cream applied thrice weekly for 8 and 12 weeks in the treatment of low-risk nodular basal cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;57:616–621.
- 210.↑
Geisse J, Caro I, Lindholm J, et al. Imiquimod 5% cream for the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma: results from two phase III, randomized, vehicle-controlled studies. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;50:722–733.
- 211.↑
Schulze HJ, Cribier B, Requena L, et al. Imiquimod 5% cream for the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized vehicle-controlled phase III study in Europe. Br J Dermatol 2005;152:939–947.
- 212.↑
Quirk C, Gebauer K, De’Ambrosis B, et al. Sustained clearance of superficial basal cell carcinomas treated with imiquimod cream 5%: results of a prospective 5-year study. Cutis 2010;85:318–324.
- 213.↑
Marks R, Gebauer K, Shumack S, et al. Imiquimod 5% cream in the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma: results of a multicenter 6-week dose-response trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;44:807–813.