ArticleJournal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics2026
Mohs Surgery vs. Wide Local Excision for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Comparing Recurrence Rates, Economic Value, and Aesthetic Outcomes.
Article in Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), comprising basal-cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (cSCC), represents the most common malignancy worldwide. Surgical management remains the gold standard, yet the choice between Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and wide local excision (WLE) continues to generate debate due to differences in recurrence, cost, and cosmetic outcomes. Objective: To systematically compare MMS and WLE across three domains: long-term recurrence rates, cost-effectiveness, and aesthetic outcomes. Methods: A contemporary synthesis of prospective cohorts, registries, randomized trials, and economic models was performed. Outcomes included 5-year recurrence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and validated patient-reported scar assessments. Results: For high-risk facial BCC and cSCC, MMS reduced 5-year recurrence to ≤ 1% compared with 3-5% after WLE (number-needed-to-treat = 28). Tissue-sparing margins yielded scars 1-2 mm narrower and 38% smaller in surface area, increasing the probability of "good/excellent" cosmesis by 12% per mm saved. Economic analyses demonstrated that, despite higher upfront procedural costs, MMS dominated WLE by saving ≈ $330 per patient and gaining 0.04 QALY over five years. Population-level adoption for intermediate-risk cSCC projected an annual payer surplus of ≈ $200 million and >25,000 QALYs. Patient-reported outcomes (POSAS, SCAR-Q, and FACE-Q) consistently favored MMS, with ≥ 90% rating scars as "good/excellent" versus 74% after WLE. Conclusion: MMS provides superior oncologic control, cosmetic outcomes, and cost-effectiveness compared with WLE for high-risk NMSC. Expanding MMS capacity and embedding patient-centered decision aids could optimize value-based care and deliver durable clinical and economic benefits.
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.