RESUMO
Eccrine porocarcinoma, sharing many features with other skin tumours, is diagnostically challenging. A conventional biopsy might be misleading and surgical excision becomes a primary diagnostic tool and a treatment method. However, the data on surgical safety margins are not consistent. We present a systematic review analysing the surgical margins of porocarcinoma in the head and neck area, which was conducted across the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases including studies published from inception to November of 2023. In this systematic review, the PRISMA-ScR checklist was used, and a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.92 was applied, indicating very good agreement between reviewers. Out of 529 identified articles, 18 studies yielding 20 cases in total were selected for a thorough analysis. Nine (45%) cases were observed in the facial regions, eight (40%) on the scalp, and three (5%) on the neck. The primary treatment of choice was wide local excision with safety margins ranging from 3 to 22 mm (mean: 10.1). It demonstrated that surgical margins do not differ by age or anatomic regions, with the main point of reference being the tumour size. As observed, the bigger the tumour, the wider the safety margins were. However, the limited disclosure of surgical safety margins in analysed case reports impeded our ability to define the minimum safety margins. Further investigation and a consensus on recommended safety margins are required.
RESUMO
Facial basal cell carcinoma (BCC) surgery enhances the quality of life (QoL) but leaves patients with inferior QoL, presumably caused by scarring, emphasizing the need to understand post-surgery aesthetic satisfaction. This study aimed to validate the Lithuanian version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 2.0 and utilise it to identify scar evaluation differences and correlations among POSAS scores and specific aesthetic facial regions, age, gender, surgery types, and short- and long-term QoL. Employing a prospective longitudinal design, 100 patients with facial scars after surgical BCC removal were enrolled. The validation phase confirmed the translated POSAS 2.0 psychometric properties, while the pilot phase used statistical analyses to compare scores among demographic and clinical groups and evaluate correlations between scar assessment and QoL. The findings indicate that the translated Lithuanian version of POSAS 2.0 exhibits good psychometric properties, revealing insights into aesthetic satisfaction with post-surgical facial scars and their impact on QoL. The Lithuanian version of the POSAS 2.0 was established as a valid instrument for measuring post-surgical linear scars. QoL with scar assessment statistically significantly correlates, 6 months after surgery, with worse scores, particularly notable among women, younger patients, and those with tumours in the cheek region.