ArticleAmerican journal of clinical dermatology2026
Performance of Staging Systems for Non-head and Neck Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Article in American journal of clinical dermatology, 2026. 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData are limited regarding the performance of staging systems for non-head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (non-HNCSCCs).
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) and American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8) staging system in predicting poor outcomes in non-HNCSCCs. PATIENTS AND
methodsDemographics, tumor features and stages, and outcomes for non-HNCSCCs were collected retrospectively from 11 institutions in two countries. Poor outcomes included local recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death; major poor outcomes excluded local recurrence. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), concordance index (c-index), and 3-year cumulative incidence were calculated. Cumulative incidence function (CIF) plots were created.
results9300 non-HNCSCCs were included. Ninety-five tumors (1%) resulted in major poor outcomes; 250 (2.7%) resulted in poor outcomes. The rate of local recurrence was 1.9%, and the rate of nodal metastasis was 0.74%. Major poor outcomes were predicted with sensitivities 0.48/0.49, specificities 0.98/0.96, PPVs 0.17/0.13, NPVs 0.99/0.99, and c-indices 0.73/0.74 for BWH/AJCC8. Poor outcomes were predicted with sensitivities 0.24/0.26, specificities 0.98/0.97, PPVs 0.22/0.17, NPVs 0.98/0.98, and c-indices 0.61/0.61 for BWH/AJCC8.
conclusionsBoth systems performed similarly in predicting poor outcomes in non-HNCSCCs. Specificity and NPV were high, sensitivity and PPV were low, and c-indices were moderately high. As the c-indices were comparable to those seen in the HNCSCC literature, it is reasonable to use the BWH and AJCC8 staging systems for tumors located off the head and neck. However, further refinement of CSCC staging systems is needed to improve prognostication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40996598What 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.