Surgical Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma

Back

Goals and Options

The goal of surgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is to destroy or remove the tumor so that no malignant tissue is allowed to proliferate further. Factors to consider when choosing therapy include the histologic subtype of BCC, the location and size of tumors, the age of the patient, the patient's ability to tolerate surgery, likely outcome to patient's appearance.and the expense.[1]

Recurrent tumors are generally more aggressive than primary lesions, and subclinical extension also tends to be increased. Tumors that are aggressive and those occurring near vital or cosmetically sensitive structures are best treated with methods that allow for an examination of the tissue margins.

Knowledge of the behavior of the different clinical and pathologic types of BCC is essential in choosing the appropriate therapy. The most common surgical methods of treating BCC are curettage, excision with margin examination, and Mohs micrographic surgery (see the image below). Radiotherapy is another common BCC treatment, and cryotherapy is sometimes used. BCC recurrence after irradiation makes surgery mandatory.



View Image

Postoperative wound after Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrates the extensive subclinical involvement that is typical of many infiltrating and morphe....

For more detailed information regarding the treatment of BCC, refer to guidelines and appropriate use criteria from the American Academy of Dermatology and other recognized sources, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.[2, 3]  [4, 5, 6]

Go to Basal Cell Carcinoma for more complete information on this topic.

Electrodesiccation and Curettage

Electrodesiccation and curettage is the most widely used method for removing primary BCCs. Although this technique is quick to destroy tumor cells, its adequacy cannot be assessed immediately, as the surgeon cannot visually detect the depth of microscopic tumor invasion and surgical margin.

Technique

A looped blade (curette) is used to vigorously scrape tumor away from adjacent normal skin.[7] One may start with a larger curette to debulk the tumor and then follow with a smaller curette to better remove smaller fragments of tumor from surrounding stroma. This technique works best on nodular or superficial BCC, because these tumors tend to be friable and do not tend to be embedded in fibrous stroma. The instrument is applied firmly and used in multiple directions over the tumor and immediately adjacent skin.

Curetting is often followed by electrodesiccation, and the entire process may be repeated 1-2 more times. If electrodesiccation is not performed, vigorous and firm scraping in several directions is especially important. Many recurrences after curettage are believed to be due to insufficient aggressiveness on the part of the surgeon. The overall cure rate exceeds 90% for low-risk BCCs. The method is quick, simple, and less expensive than most other methods.

Limitations

Curettage is a relatively blind technique in which the specimen cannot be examined for margin control. This lack of microscopic margin control limits the usefulness of curettage in high-risk areas, such as the face and ears.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) advises that this technique should not be used in hair-bearing areas (eg, the scalp, or the beard area in males), because a tumor that extends down follicular structures may not be adequately removed. In addition, margin control with curettage relies on the operator’s ability to distinguish between firm normal dermis and soft tumor tissue; however, subcutaneous adipose is softer than tumor tissue, so that ability is lost with BCCs that extend into adipose. In such cases, the NCCN recommends that surgical excision should generally be performed.[2]

Furthermore, the aggressive subtypes of BCC, such as morpheaform (sclerosing), infiltrating, micronodular, and recurrent tumors, are usually not friable and therefore unlikely to be removed by using the curette. The success of this treatment, even in nonaggressive tumors at low-risk sites, is highly dependent on the operator's experience and technique.[5]

Finally, healing by secondary intention (granulation) often leads to atrophic white scars that may not be satisfactory in aesthetically important areas.

Advantages

Electrodesiccation and curettage is a brief procedure (< 5 min) and is effective in treating primary nodular and superficial BCC. Cure rates are as high as 95%. Tumors ranging from 2-5 mm in diameter have a 15% recurrence rate, whereas tumors with a diameter of 3 cm or greater have a 50% recurrence rate within 5 years when treated by this procedure.

Disadvantages

The success of electrodesiccation and curettage is operator dependent and often leaves a white atrophic scar. The procedure is less effective on the nose, and the tumor often tracks down pilosebaceous units.

Electrodesiccation and curettage is less effective than Mohs micrographic surgery in treating the infiltrating, micronodular, morpheaform (sclerosing), and recurrent types of BCC; Mohs micrographic surgery is considered the treatment of choice in most of those cases.

The curettage and cauterization procedure is not suitable for patients with cardiac pacemakers or for the treatment of morpheaform lesions, deeply invasive and ulcerated lesions, or recurrent tumors with ill-defined borders.

Curettage Without Desiccation

After adequate anesthesia is administered to the patient, the tumor is scraped using a curette.[8] This is often repeated twice more.

Advantages

This procedure is brief (< 5 min) and is effective in treating primary nodular and superficial BCC. Cure rates may be as high as 95%, although this method has been studied less than has electrodesiccation and curettage. Curettage alone is believed by some authors to have a better cosmetic outcome than that of electrodesiccation and curettage.

Disadvantages

This procedure is neither widely accepted nor commonly performed. The success of curettage is operator dependent and often leaves a white, atrophic scar. It is less effective on the nose, and the tumor often tracks down pilosebaceous units.

Curettage is less effective in treating the infiltrating, micronodular, morpheaform, and recurrent types of BCC than is Mohs micrographic surgery, which is considered the treatment of choice in most instances.

Curettage With Er:YAG Laser Ablation

After adequate anesthesia has been administered to the patient, the tumor is scraped using a curette. The newly formed ulcer is then ablated, along with a narrow (< 1 mm) margin of adjacent epidermis. This is often repeated 2 more times.

Advantages

Curettage with Er:YAG laser ablation is brief (< 5 min), is effective in treating primary nodular and superficial BCC, and is believed by some authors to have a better cosmetic outcome than does electrodesiccation and curettage. Cure rates may be as high as 95%, although this procedure has been studied less than has electrodesiccation and curettage.

Disadvantages

Curettage with Er:YAG laser ablation is less commonly performed than electrodesiccation and curettage. The success of the procedure is operator dependent and may leave a white, atrophic scar. It is less effective on the nose, and the tumor often tracks down pilosebaceous units.

Curettage with Er:YAG laser ablation is less effective in treating the infiltrating, micronodular, morpheaform, and recurrent types of BCC than is Mohs micrographic surgery, which is considered the treatment of choice in most instances.

Laser Ablation Without Curettage

A carbon dioxide laser is applied most frequently to the superficial type of BCC. This procedure may be considered when a bleeding diathesis is present, as bleeding is unusual when this laser is used. This procedure provides a bloodless field, minimal postoperative pain, and good postoperative appearance without scar formation. In cases of superficial T1-T2 BCC, laser microsurgery appears to be a safe and effective treatment modality without conjunctival extension.

The carbon dioxide laser is best known for its cosmetic use in laser resurfacing,[9, 10] as well as for its use in ablating superficial and nodular BCCs, with reported recurrence rates varying from 50%, with older devices, to 3%.[11]

Limitations

After treatment, changes in skin color may develop, which may be seen within a few weeks or may take at least 1 year or longer to be apparent. Additionally, scars may be seen and hypertrophic (thick) scars have been reported.

Advantages

Laser ablation without curettage may have less scarring than traditional electrodesiccation and curettage, but comparative studies are needed.

Disadvantages

This procedure has been studied less than other methods, and a great variance in recurrence rates has been reported. Hypopigmentation may develop, which may not be apparent for a year or more.

Surgical Excision

This method can usually be performed in an ambulatory setting and provides the pathologist with a specimen to examine the tissue margins. Healing time is generally shorter with sutured closure than with granulation, and cosmesis compares favorably with that of curettage.

Technique

After adequate anesthesia has been administered to the patient, a No. 15 or No. 10 blade is used to incise down to the subcutis.[12]

Limitations

Surgical excision is operator dependent, as those who are more experienced may be better at detecting the clinical margins. To increase the likelihood of complete tumor removal, one must include a margin of normal-appearing skin in order to remove all clinically invisible tumor extension. The larger the amount of clinically normal-appearing skin removed, the higher the cure rate, although the more extensive removal leaves a larger surgical defect and a poorer cosmetic result in most patients. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommends surgical excision with 4-mm clinical margins and histologic margin assessment for low-risk primary BCC. Standard excision may be considered for select high-risk tumors. However, AAD guidelines advise strong caution when selecting treatment for high-risk tumors without complete margin assessment. [5]

(See the images below.)



View Image

Basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Intraoperative view showing the extent of resection (inferior view).

Pathologic evaluation of the excised tissue can be performed via routine paraffin processing, which may take 1 day or longer, or by using frozen sections, in which the results are available in as little as 15 minutes.

Advantages

Surgical excision usually produces good to excellent cosmetic results and cure rates as high as 95%.

Disadvantages

Surgical excision is operator-dependent, as those who are more experienced may be better at clinically detecting tumor margins and thus require smaller margins (removal of normal-appearing skin). Excision is less effective in treating tumors without clearly defined clinical margins (eg, infiltrating BCC, micronodular BCC, morpheaform BCC), and is far less effective in treating recurrent BCC than it is in treating primary BCC. If a positive margin occurs, additional surgery is needed.

When standard excision is performed for high-risk tumors, a linear repair, skin graft, or healing by second intention is recommended. If a repair requiring significant tissue rearrangement is indicated, closure should be delayed until negative histologic margins are confirmed.[5, 2]

Surgical excision is more time-consuming and costly than curettage. In addition, this method requires the sacrifice of normal tissue to obtain acceptable cure rates. Margins of at least 4 mm are needed, even with the least aggressive BCCs, to achieve 95% cure rates and as much at least 8 mm for more aggressive tumors.[13]

If standard "bread-loaf" tissue sectioning is used, areas of margin involvement may be missed under microscopy, because only a small percentage of the peripheral and deep margins are evaluated.

The 5-year recurrence rate for primary tumors greater than 1.5 cm in diameter is approximately 12%. Primary tumors that measure greater than 3 cm in diameter have a 5-year recurrence rate of 23%.[12]

Mohs Micrographically Controlled Surgery

In 2015, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) released consensus guidelines for the treatment of basal cell carcinomas that recommended MMS as the treatment of choice for high-risk BCCs and for those in cosmetically sensitive locations. The guidelines also noted that MMS offers complete tumor margin analysis while other surgical options do not.[4]  

The 2018 American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines for management of BCC found evidence to strongly support the use of MMS for both primary and recurrent BCC at increased risk for recurrence on the basis of factors such as anatomic location and histologic growth pattern.[5]

The American Academy of Dermatology, in collaboration with the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery, has developed criteria for rating the appropriateness of Mohs micrographic surgery in 69 BCC scenarios.[3]

Mohs micrographic surgery is indicated for the following tumors:

Note the image below.



View Image

Postoperative wound after Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrates the extensive subclinical involvement that is typical of many infiltrating and morphe....

Technique

Mohs surgery involves removal of the clinically apparent tumor and a thin rim of normal-appearing skin around the defect.[14, 15] This saucer-shaped tissue specimen represents tissue adjacent to the tumor or the margin surrounding the tumor and is sectioned and marked so that the entirety of the undersurface and outer edges of the tumor are examined microscopically to minimize sampling error. Use of the frozen-section technique allows for an examination of tissue while the patient is in the office. The tissue is mapped microscopically so that if any foci of tumor persist, further excision can be directed to only those areas, to spare the normal tissue.

After adequate anesthesia is administered to the patient, the clinically apparent tumor is often removed by curettage or excision.[16] The surgeon then removes a thin layer of tissue (called a stage), usually less than 1 mm in thickness, from the surrounding epidermis and either the dermis or subcutis, which is then examined under the microscope. 

The tumor is removed and processed to allow for localization of any tumor that might persist. This process allows the surgeon to take additional stages (pieces or sections) from the location where the tumor persists. According to many authors, Mohs micrographic surgery is the criterion standard of care for BCC treatment, because it is associated with the lowest recurrence rate.[17]

Sometimes, massive, invasive BCC tumors may be treated with Mohs surgery to clear peripheral margins with deeper aspects that have been treated surgically by other disciplines.[18]

Limitations

A limitation of MMS is the unavailability of tissue blocks for molecular testing or further evaluation of high-risk or unusual features by use of paraffin sections.[5]

Advantages

Mohs micrographically controlled surgery has the highest cure rate of any treatment modality for BCC (99% for primary BCC, 90-95% for recurrent BCC) and it spares as much uninvolved skin as possible. It is the treatment of choice for infiltrating, micronodular, morpheaform, and recurrent types of BCC.

With the Mohs technique, almost 100% of the tissue margins are examined, compared with standard vertical (bread-loaf) sectioning, in which less than 1% of the outer margins are examined. Because relatively thin layers are taken only in areas of proven tumor, this technique is tissue sparing. Excision and repair can usually be performed on the same day. Of most importance, Mohs micrographic surgical excision has the best long-term cure rates of any treatment modality for BCC.

In an analysis, the 5-year recurrence rate for BCC treated with Mohs micrographic surgery was 1%, compared with 7.5% after cryosurgery, 7.7% after desiccation and curettage, 8.7% after radiotherapy, and 10.1% after surgical excision.[19]  In another study, Malhotra et al reported a 5-year recurrence rate of 0% for primary tumors and of 7.8% for recurring tumors after Mohs microsurgery.[20]

Disadvantages

The chief disadvantages of Mohs surgery are its expense and time requirement compared with curettage. However, Mohs excision compares favorably with standard surgical excision when the savings of treating fewer recurrences with this technique are factored in.[19, 4]  In addition, with standard surgical excision, 32-39% of cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer require a second excision to obtain clear margins.[19]

A review of 20,821 Mohs procedures reported 149 adverse events (0.72%), four of which were serious (0.02%), but none fatal. Infections accounted for 61.1% of adverse events; dehiscence and partial or full necrosis, for 20.1%; and bleeding and hematoma for 15.4%. Bleeding and wound-healing complications occurred mostly in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy. Risk for adverse adverse was modestly lower with the use of some antiseptics and antibiotics and sterile gloves, but the clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of those measures remains uncertain.[21, 22]

Cryosurgery

Cryosurgery may be considered for small, clinically well-defined primary tumors. This procedure is especially useful for patients who are debilitated with medical conditions that preclude other types of surgery. Cryosurgery is a viable alternative for treating BCC involving the inner canthus, thereby minimizing damage to the lacrimal system. Generally, this procedure is not recommended for BCC, especially for morpheaform lesions, deeply invasive and ulcerated lesions, or recurring tumors with ill-defined borders. Although tissue sparing, this technique temporary leaves the wound open, and scarring or hypopigmentation may result.

Technique

At least 3 freeze-thaw cycles with liquid nitrogen (−196°C, freezing duration of 40-60 seconds) with tissue temperature of −50°C are required to destroy basal cell carcinoma. A margin of skin that clinically appears normal also must be destroyed to fully eradicate subclinical extension. Most patients experience pain and swelling after the area thaws.[23]

Contraindications

Absolute contraindications for cryosurgery include patients with cold intolerance, cryoglobulinemia, cryofibrinogenemia, Raynaud disease (only for treatment of lesions on the hands and feet), platelet deficiency disorders, and morphea- or sclerosing-type of BCC. Relative contraindications to cryosurgery include tumors of the free eyelid margin.

Limitations

Caution should be used before treating nodular, ulcerative BCC that is greater than 3 cm or recurrent carcinomas following surgical excision. Edema is common following treatment, especially around the periorbital region. Eschar may form and may persist for about 4 weeks. Following treatment, permanent pigment loss at the treatment site is sometimes unavoidable. Atrophy and hypertrophic scarring, as well as instances of motor and sensory neuropathies, have been reported.

Advantages

Cryosurgery has good cosmetic results and cure rates when used to treat tumors with well-defined clinical margins (eg, nodular BCC). The procedure is a good option for patients who are not surgical candidates and who are unable or unwilling to undergo radiation.

Overall, BCC of the eyelid treated with cryosurgery has a high cure rate; in a study, 92% of BCCs treated did not recur during a mean follow-up period of 5 years (range, 1.6-8.4 y). Cryosurgery is also cost-effective and well tolerated.

Disadvantages

Cryosurgery success is operator-dependent, as accurate clinical detection of tumor margins increases the effectiveness of treatment. In addition, patients must be willing to endure the immediate posttreatment swelling, resultant necrosis of treated areas, and unpredictable scarring that can occur with this approach. Other concerns include the lack of histologic confirmation of malignancy removal, and recurrent carcinoma can become extensive because it can be obscured by fibrous scar tissue.[23]

This method is not commonly used for the treatment of BCC, except by a few experienced cryosurgeons.

Immunocryosurgery

This newer therapy combines the use of the topically applied imiquimod with cryosurgery and may be considered for small, clinically well-defined primary tumors, although larger studies are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy of this treatment. Like cryosurgery, this procedure may be useful for patients who are debilitated with medical conditions that preclude other types of surgery. Use in high-risk lesions should be with extreme caution until further studies are available. Such high-risk lesions may include morpheaform or sclerotic lesions, deeply invasive and ulcerated lesions, or recurring tumors with ill-defined borders. Although tissue sparing, this technique temporarily leaves the wound open, and scarring or hypopigmentation may result.[24]

Technique

Patients apply imiquimod 5% gel topically to the tumor daily for 5 weeks. At the conclusion of the second week, liquid nitrogen is applied to the clinically apparent tumor. If available, a temperature probe may be inserted into the skin at a lateral margin. Treatment stops when the temperature at the lateral margins reaches -60°C. Most patients experience pain and swelling after the area thaws. One month after the completion of imiquimod, a second treatment with cryosurgery may be performed if the tumor appears to have persisted.

Contraindications

Absolute contraindications for cryosurgery include the following:

Relative contraindications to cryosurgery include tumors of the free eyelid margin.

Limitations

As few studies exist, treatment should be used with caution, especially if one does not use a temperature probe. Other limitations are identical to those seen with cryosurgery.

Advantages

Both imiquimod and cryosurgery have good cosmetic results and cure rates when used independently for appropriate tumors. The procedure may be an option for patients who are not surgical candidates and are unable or unwilling to undergo radiation.

Reported cure rates are somewhat promising, although larger studies are needed.

Disadvantages

Cryosurgery success is operator dependent, as accurate clinical detection of tumor margins increases the effectiveness of treatment. Therefore, cure rates may vary among providers. In addition, patients must be willing to endure the irritation that is common during imiquimod treatment and the immediate post-procedure swelling, resultant necrosis of treated areas, and unpredictable scarring that can occur with cryosurgery.

Photodynamic Therapy

Although not a surgical procedure, photodynamic therapy (PDT) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of superficial or nodular BCC. Cure rates for those cases range from 70% to 90%.[25, 1]

Technique

PDT is a 2-part treatment consisting of topical application of a photosensitizer, either 5-ALA or MAL, followed by one to several hours of incubation by light irradiation, typically with a blue, red, or broadband light source. Application of the photosensitizer is often preceded by light curettage of BCCs. Usually a single treatment cycle is performed, but treatments may be repeated.[5]

Advantages

For patients who are not surgical candidates or cannot apply medication, photodynamic therapy is a viable option.

Disadvantages

Two treatment sessions are recommended. Moderate to severe pain and burning sensation is common, as is local redness. Patients must strictly avoid sunlight for at least 48 hours, or ultraviolet exposure may further activate the medication, causing severe sunburn.[1] Cure rates are typically less than other commonly used modalities.

Author

Robert S Bader, MD, Dermatologist, Section of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Broward Health - North

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Andrew Scott Kennedy, MD, Physician-in-Chief, Radiation Oncology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Laura Diomede, University of Bari School of Medicine, Italy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Luigi Santacroce, MD, Assistant Professor, Medical School, State University at Bari, Italy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

William D James, MD, Paul R Gross Professor of Dermatology, Vice-Chairman, Residency Program Director, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

Disclosure: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier; WebMD.

Acknowledgements

Sanjiv S Agarwala, MD Chief of Oncology and Hematology, St Luke's Cancer Center, St Luke's Hospital and Health Network; Professor, Temple University School of Medicine

Sanjiv S Agarwala, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for Cancer Research, American Society for Head and Neck Surgery, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and European Society for Medical Oncology

Disclosure: BMS Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Novartis Consulting fee Consulting; Merck Consulting fee Consulting

Michael Giono Barakat California Surgical Institute

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Daniel Berg, MD, FRCP(C) Professor of Dermatology, Director of Dermatologic Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine

Daniel Berg, MD, FRCP(C) is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Cutaneous Oncology, and American Society for Dermatologic Surgery

Disclosure: Genentech Honoraria Review panel membership

Gregory Caputy, MD, PhD, FICS Chief Surgeon, Aesthetica Plastic and Laser Surgery Center, Inc

Gregory Caputy, MD, PhD, FICS is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, International College of Surgeons, International College of Surgeons US Section, Pan-Pacific Surgical Association, and Wound Healing Society

Disclosure: Syneron Corporation Salary Speaking and teaching

Edward F Chan, MD Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

Edward F Chan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, American Society of Dermatopathology, and Society for Investigative Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Robert A Copeland Jr, MD Chair, Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Howard University College of Medicine

Robert A Copeland Jr, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mark T Duffy, MD, PhD Consulting Staff, Division of Oculoplastic, Orbito-facial, Lacrimal and Reconstructive Surgery, Green Bay Eye Clinic, BayCare Clinic; Medical Director, Advanced Cosmetic Solutions, A BayCare Clinic

Mark T Duffy, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Medical Association, American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sigma Xi, and Society for Neuroscience

Disclosure: Allergan - Botox Cosmetic Honoraria Speaking and teaching

Hon-Vu Q Duong, MD Clinical Instructor of Ophthalmology and Ophthalmic Pathology, Westfield-Nevada Eye and Ear; Senior Lecturer of Neurosciences:Anatomy and Physiology, Nevada State College

Hon-Vu Q Duong, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Dirk M Elston, MD Director, Ackerman Academy of Dermatopathology, New York

Dirk M Elston, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Jaime R Garza, MD, DDS, FACS Consulting Staff, Private Practice

Jaime R Garza, MD, DDS, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American College of Surgeons, American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, Texas Medical Association, and Texas Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Allergan None Speaking and teaching; LifeCell None Consulting; GID, Inc. Grant/research funds Other

Shahin Javaheri, MD Chief, Department of Plastic Surgery, Martinez Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic; Consulting Staff, Advanced Aesthetic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery

Shahin Javaheri, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Shang I Brian Jiang, MD Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and Dermatology, Director, Dermatologic and Mohs Micrographic Surgery, Program Director, UCSD Dermatologic and Mohs Surgery Fellowship, University of California School of Medicine, San Diego

Shang I Brian Jiang, MD, is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and Association of Professors of Dermatology

Disclosure: DUSA Corporation Grant/research funds PI for Industry Sponsored Clincal Trial

Klaus-Dieter Lessnau, MD, FCCP Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine; Medical Director, Pulmonary Physiology Laboratory; Director of Research in Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital

Klaus-Dieter Lessnau, MD, FCCP is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, American Thoracic Society, and Society of Critical Care Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA Professor of Otolaryngology, Dentistry, and Engineering, University of Colorado School of Medicine

Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and American Head and Neck Society

Disclosure: Covidien Corp Consulting fee Consulting; US Tobacco Corporation Unrestricted gift Unknown; Axis Three Corporation Ownership interest Consulting; Omni Biosciences Ownership interest Consulting; Sentegra Ownership interest Board membership; Medvoy Ownership interest Management position; Cerescan Imaging Consulting; Headwatersmb Consulting fee Consulting; Venturequest Royalty Consulting

Maurice Y Nahabedian, MD, FACS Associate Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital

Maurice Y Nahabedian, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Plastic Surgeons, American College of Surgeons, American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Johns Hopkins Medical and Surgical Association, and Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Lifecell corp Honoraria Speaking and teaching

Samia Nawaz, MBBS, MD Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Health Science Center

Samia Nawaz, MBBS, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, and International Academy of Pathology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Ron W Pelton, MD, PhD Private Practice, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Ron W Pelton, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American College of Surgeons, American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, AO Foundation, and Colorado Medical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Michael L Ramsey, MD Director, Mohs Surgery Fellowship, Co-Director, Procedural Dermatology Fellowship, Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center

Michael L Ramsey, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Cutaneous Oncology, and Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Rana Rofagha Sajjadian, MD Clinical Instructor, Department of Dermatology, University of Irvine, California; Division of Mohs Surgery, Department of Dermatology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Rana Rofagha Sajjadian, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and American Society for MOHS Surgery

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Thomas M Roy, MD Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, Quillen Mountain Home Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Fellowship Program Director, East Tennessee State University, James H Quillen College of Medicine

Thomas M Roy, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, American Thoracic Society, Southern Medical Association, and Wilderness Medical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

M Sherif Said, MD, PhD Associate Professor of Pathology, Director of Head and Neck Pathology, Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine

M Sherif Said, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Clinical Pathology and College of American Pathologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Ali Sajjadian, MD, FACS Private Practice, Newport Beach, California; Former Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery, Former Director of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Satellite Centers, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Ali Sajjadian, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, California Medical Association, Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons, and PennsylvaniaMedical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Negar Sajjadian, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Shariati Hospital

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Wayne Karl Stadelmann, MD Stadelmann Plastic Surgery, PC

Wayne Karl Stadelmann, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, New Hampshire Medical Society, Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons, and Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Katherine Szyfelbein, MD Staff Physician, Department of Dermatology, Boston University, Boston Medical Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

R Stan Taylor, MD The JB Howell Professor in Melanoma Education and Detection, Departments of Dermatology and Plastic Surgery, Director, Skin Surgery and Oncology Clinic, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

R Stan Taylor, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Dermatological Association, American Medical Association, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Christian Medical & Dental Society, and Society for Investigative Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References

  1. Skin Cancer Foundation. Basal Cell Carcinoma Treatment. skincancer.org. Available at https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/basal-cell-carcinoma/bcc-treatment-options. May 2019; Accessed: October 1, 2019.
  2. [Guideline] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Basal Cell Skin Cancer. NCCN. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nmsc.pdf. Version 1.2019 — August 31, 2018; Accessed: October 16, 2019.
  3. [Guideline] Ad Hoc Task Force, 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. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Oct. 67 (4):531-50. [View Abstract]
  4. [Guideline] Kauvar AN, Cronin T Jr, Roenigk R, Hruza G, Bennett R, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. Consensus for nonmelanoma skin cancer treatment: basal cell carcinoma, including a cost analysis of treatment methods. Dermatol Surg. 2015 May. 41 (5):550-71. [View Abstract]
  5. [Guideline] Work Group., Invited Reviewers., Kim JYS, Kozlow JH, Mittal B, Moyer J, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of basal cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Mar. 78 (3):540-559. [View Abstract]
  6. [Guideline] Peris K, Fargnoli MC, Garbe C, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of basal cell carcinoma: European consensus-based interdisciplinary guidelines. Eur J Cancer. 2019 Sep. 118:10-34. [View Abstract]
  7. Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Grin CM, Bart RS, Levenstein MJ. Recurrence rates of treated basal cell carcinomas. Part 2: Curettage-electrodesiccation. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1991 Sep. 17(9):720-6. [View Abstract]
  8. Barlow JO, Zalla MJ, Kyle A, DiCaudo DJ, Lim KK, Yiannias JA. Treatment of basal cell carcinoma with curettage alone. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Jun. 54(6):1039-45. [View Abstract]
  9. Horlock N, Grobbelaar AO, Gault DT. Can the carbon dioxide laser completely ablate basal cell carcinomas? A histological study. Br J Plast Surg. 2000 Jun. 53(4):286-93. [View Abstract]
  10. Humphreys TR, Malhotra R, Scharf MJ, Marcus SM, Starkus L, Calegari K. Treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in situ with a high-energy pulsed carbon dioxide laser. Arch Dermatol. 1998 Oct. 134(10):1247-52. [View Abstract]
  11. Kavoussi H, Ebrahimi A. Treatment and cosmetic outcome of superpulsed CO2 laser for basal cell carcinoma. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Panonica Adriat. 2013 Sep. 22(3):57-61. [View Abstract]
  12. Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Bart RS, Grin CM, Levenstein MS. Recurrence rates of treated basal cell carcinomas. Part 3: Surgical excision. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1992 Jun. 18(6):471-6. [View Abstract]
  13. Schell AE, Russell MA, Park SS. Suggested Excisional Margins for Cutaneous Malignant Lesions Based on Mohs Micrographic Surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2013 Jun 6. 1-7. [View Abstract]
  14. Bennett RG. Current concepts in Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Clin. 1991 Oct. 9(4):777-88. [View Abstract]
  15. Roenigk RK. Mohs' micrographic surgery. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988 Feb. 63(2):175-83. [View Abstract]
  16. Lawrence CM. Mohs' micrographic surgery for basal cell carcinoma. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1999 Mar. 24(2):130-3. [View Abstract]
  17. Smeets NW, Krekels GA, Ostertag JU, Essers BA, Dirksen CD, Nieman FH, et al. Surgical excision vs Mohs' micrographic surgery for basal-cell carcinoma of the face: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004 Nov 13-19. 364(9447):1766-72. [View Abstract]
  18. Ducic Y, Marra DE, Kennard C. Initial Mohs surgery followed by planned surgical resection of massive cutaneous carcinomas of the head and neck. Laryngoscope. 2009 Apr. 119(4):774-7. [View Abstract]
  19. Tierney EP, Hanke CW. Cost effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery: review of the literature. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009 Oct. 8(10):914-22. [View Abstract]
  20. Malhotra R, Huilgol SC, Huynh NT, Selva D. The Australian Mohs database, part II: periocular basal cell carcinoma outcome at 5-year follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2004 Apr. 111(4):631-6. [View Abstract]
  21. Cherian P, Gunson T, Borchard K, Tai Y, Smith H, Vinciullo C. Oral Antibiotics Versus Topical Decolonization to Prevent Surgical Site Infection After Mohs Micrographic Surgery-a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Dermatol Surg. 2013 Oct. 39(10):1486-1493. [View Abstract]
  22. Alam M, Ibrahim O, Nodzenski M, Strasswimmer JM, Jiang SI, Cohen JL, et al. Adverse Events Associated With Mohs Micrographic Surgery: Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of 20?821 Cases at 23 Centers. JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Oct 2. [View Abstract]
  23. Wiznia LE, Federman DG. Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma in the Elderly: What Nondermatologists Need to Know. Am J Med. 2016 Jul. 129 (7):655-60. [View Abstract]
  24. Nakuçi M, Bassukas ID. Office-based treatment of basal cell carcinoma with immunocryosurgery: feasibility and efficacy. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Panonica Adriat. 2013. 22(2):35-8. [View Abstract]
  25. Arits AH, Mosterd K, Essers BA, Spoorenberg E, Sommer A, De Rooij MJ, et al. Photodynamic therapy versus topical imiquimod versus topical fluorouracil for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma: a single blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun. 14(7):647-54. [View Abstract]

Postoperative wound after Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrates the extensive subclinical involvement that is typical of many infiltrating and morpheaform basal cell carcinomas.

Basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Intraoperative view showing the extent of resection (inferior view).

Postoperative wound after Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrates the extensive subclinical involvement that is typical of many infiltrating and morpheaform basal cell carcinomas.

Postoperative wound after Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrates the extensive subclinical involvement that is typical of many infiltrating and morpheaform basal cell carcinomas.

Basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Intraoperative view outlining the extent of resection (lateral view). The surgical resection involved zygomatic bone and the lateral orbit. The eye was spared.

Basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Intraoperative view showing the extent of resection (inferior view).