ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Extra-Anogenital Giant Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extra-anogenital giant cSCCs are rare but have worse outcomes compared to smaller tumors. Prompted by limited data, the authors conducted a retrospective study to gather more information about giant cSCCs to optimize clinical care. We identified seven cases of giant cSCCs from a review of cSCC cases treated in the Unit of Dermatosurgery between 2016 and 2022. Most patients were male (85.71%) with a mean age of 80.29 ± 12.22 years. UV radiation was the most common risk factor (five cases) followed by smoking (three cases) and hidradenitis suppurativa (one case). Most giant cases were located in the head area (71.4%) and the diameter of lesions ranged from 6 to 18 cm. All patients corresponded to tumor stage T3, and 42.86% of patients had lymph node metastases. Surgical excision was the treatment of choice in most cases (85.71%), while a combination of cemiplimab and RP1 was used in some cases due to the ineffectiveness of treatment or contraindications to other therapies. The authors emphasize the importance of early detection and prevention of modifiable risk factors, such as UV radiation, and a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. Other therapies, including immunotherapy, may become increasingly important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.