Electrochemotherapy vs radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Electrochemotherapy has gained international traction and commendation in national guidelines as an effective tool in the management of cutaneous malignancies not amenable to surgical resection. Despite this, no level 5 evidence exists comparing it to radiotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous malignancies. This systematic review aimed to examine the literature directly and indirectly comparing electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies. MATERIALS & METHODS: The protocol for this review was registered on the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the protocol ID CRD42021285415. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were undertaken from database inception to 28 December 2021. Studies in humans comparing treatment with electrochemotherapy to radiotherapy and reporting tumour response with a minimum four week follow-up were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results are provided as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Two case series with a total of 92 patients were identified as relevant to this study. Both case series examined patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. One case series examined elderly patients with predominantly head/neck lesions. The other examined younger patients with predominantly limb lesions who had cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma directly attributable to a rare skin condition. CONCLUSION: There is little literature presenting comparative data for electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases. Included studies were marred by serious risk of bias particularly due to confounding. The inherent bias and heterogeneity of the included studies precluded synthesis of a consolidated comparison of clinical outcomes between the two therapies. Further research is required in this domain in the form of clinical trials and observational studies to inform guidelines for electrochemotherapy treatment.

Use of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics following excision of ulcerated skin lesions in the UK: a national, multispeciality survey of clinicians.

Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in the UK, and up to a third of lesions are ulcerated at the time of excision. Ulceration has been shown to increase the risk of developing surgical site infection following excision, with some studies finding infection rates of 33%. However, no specific guidelines for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in such cases exist. We surveyed 129 clinicians (covering Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery, and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) who all excise skin lesions on a regular basis. There was significant variability in their practice with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis, with 9% always prescribing them and 19% never prescribing them. Variation exists both among and between specialities. This variation increases the risk of antimicrobial resistance and shows a paucity of good clinical evidence, indicating that a well-designed clinical trial is needed to guide future practice.

Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine skin antisepsis before upper limb surgery (CIPHUR): an international multicentre prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common and costly complication of surgery. International guidelines recommend topical alcoholic chlorhexidine (CHX) before surgery. However, upper limb surgeons continue to use other antiseptics, citing a lack of applicable evidence, and concerns related to open wounds and tourniquets. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different topical antiseptics before upper limb surgery. METHODS: This international multicentre prospective cohort study recruited consecutive adults and children who underwent surgery distal to the shoulder joint. The intervention was use of CHX or povidone-iodine (PVI) antiseptics in either aqueous or alcoholic form. The primary outcome was SSI within 90 days. Mixed-effects time-to-event models were used to estimate the risk (hazard ratio (HR)) of SSI for patients undergoing elective and emergency upper limb surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2454 patients were included. The overall risk of SSI was 3.5 per cent. For elective upper limb surgery (1018 patients), alcoholic CHX appeared to be the most effective antiseptic, reducing the risk of SSI by 70 per cent (adjusted HR 0.30, 95 per cent c.i. 0.11 to 0.84), when compared with aqueous PVI. Concerning emergency upper limb surgery (1436 patients), aqueous PVI appeared to be the least effective antiseptic for preventing SSI; however, there was uncertainty in the estimates. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The findings align with the global evidence base and international guidance, suggesting that alcoholic CHX should be used for skin antisepsis before clean (elective upper limb) surgery. For emergency (contaminated or dirty) upper limb surgery, the findings of this study were unclear and contradict the available evidence, concluding that further research is necessary.