ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2024
Incomplete Excision Rate for Lentigo Maligna and Associated Risk Factors.
Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard treatment for lentigo maligna (LM) is surgical excision, yet insights into the frequency of and risk factors for incomplete excisions remain limited. The primary objectives were to assess the incomplete excision rate (IER) in primary LM and to explore potential risk factors for incomplete excisions. A retrospective analysis was conducted encompassing consecutive histopathologically confirmed LMs from 2014-2020. Descriptive statistics were used for LM characteristics and IER, while uni- and multivariate analyses were used for calculating risk factors. The study included 395 LMs with an IER of 16.7% (n = 66). Risk factors for higher incomplete excision rates included: head and neck lesions (p = 0.0014), clinical excision margins < 5 mm (p = 0.040), and utilization of preoperative partial biopsies (p = 0.023). Plastic surgeons had higher IERs than dermatologists (p = 0.036). Lesion diameter (p = 0.20) and surgeon experience (p = 0.20) showed no associations with incomplete excisions, yet LMs with a diameter ≥ 20 mm exhibited higher incomplete excision rates (23.2%) compared witho those < 10 mm (12.9%). LMs should be excised with at least 5-mm clinical margins, especially in the head and neck area. LMs ≥ 20 mm may be more surgically challenging. High-er incomplete excision rates associated with the use of preoperative biopsies and/or plastic surgeons may reflect challenging anatomical locations, larger lesion diameter, and/or ill-defined borders.
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.