The Skin Centre, Tauranga, New Zealand.
Department of Dermatology, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust, Walsall, UK.
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022 Oct;47(10):1794-1804. doi: 10.1111/ced.15266. Epub 2022 Jul 12.
Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is considered the gold-standard treatment for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) particularly for sites with a high-risk of incomplete excision such as the central face, for tumours with an aggressive growth pattern and consequent unpredictable subclinical extension and for recurrent tumours. However, the process is more time-consuming than for standard excision (SE), and the magnitude of benefit is uncertain. This article aims to provide a more complete picture of current evidence, including a review of cosmetic outcomes, tissue-sparing ability and cost-effectiveness of MMS. Although robust evidence is lacking, there is a large volume of observational data supporting a low recurrence rate after MMS. The risk of incomplete excision and higher recurrence rate of standard excision favours the use of MMS at high-risk sites. There is some low-certainty evidence that MMS results in a smaller defect size compared with SE, and that incomplete excision with SE results in larger defects. Larger defects may affect cosmetic outcome but there is no direct evidence that MMS improves cosmetic outcome compared with SE. There is conflicting evidence regarding the cost of MMS compared with SE, as some studies consider MMS less expensive than SE and others consider it more expensive, which may reflect the healthcare setting. A multicentre 10-year randomized controlled trial comparing MMS and SE in the treatment of high-risk BCC would be desirable, but is unlikely to be feasible or ethical. Collection of robust registry data capturing both MMS and SE outcomes would provide additional long-term outcomes.
Mohs 显微外科手术(MMS)被认为是基底细胞癌(BCC)的金标准治疗方法,特别是对于中央面部等高切除不完全风险的部位、具有侵袭性生长模式和随之而来的不可预测的临床下延伸以及复发性肿瘤的肿瘤。然而,该过程比标准切除术(SE)耗时更长,并且获益的幅度不确定。本文旨在提供当前证据的更全面的图片,包括 MMS 的美容结果、组织保留能力和成本效益的回顾。尽管缺乏强有力的证据,但有大量的观察性数据支持 MMS 后复发率低。标准切除不完全切除和更高的复发率有利于在高风险部位使用 MMS。有一些低确定性证据表明,与 SE 相比,MMS 导致的缺陷尺寸更小,并且 SE 不完全切除会导致更大的缺陷。更大的缺陷可能会影响美容效果,但没有直接证据表明 MMS 比 SE 改善美容效果。与 SE 相比,MMS 的成本存在相互矛盾的证据,因为一些研究认为 MMS 比 SE 便宜,而另一些研究认为 MMS 更贵,这可能反映了医疗保健环境。一项比较 MMS 和 SE 治疗高危 BCC 的 10 年多中心随机对照试验是理想的,但不太可能可行或符合道德。收集同时捕捉 MMS 和 SE 结果的可靠登记数据将提供额外的长期结果。