Back

Local Control Comparison of Early-Stage Epidermal Skin Cancers Treated With and Without Dermal Image Guidance: A Meta-Analysis

Yu, L.; Moloney, M.; Tran, A.; Zheng, S.; Rogers, J.

2022-09-21 dermatology
10.1101/2022.09.19.22280122 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundVarious treatments exist for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), but the mainstay is surgical removal. Superficial radiotherapy (SRT) is one non-surgical technique that has been used for over a century but fell out of favor due to the advent of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). A new technology that combines a 22 megahertz (MHz) dermal ultrasound with SRT (US-SRT) enables tumor visualization before, during, and after treatment, and demonstrates increased cure rates and reduced recurrences. MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis comparing the local control (LC) of four studies using traditional non-image-guided forms of radiotherapy for NMSC treatment to two seminal studies utilizing high-resolution dermal ultrasound-guided SRT (HRUS-SRT). The four traditional radiotherapy studies were obtained from a comprehensive literature search used in an article published by the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) on curative radiation treatment of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and squamous cell carcinoma in-situ (SCCIS) lesions. The meta-analysis employed a logit as the effect size indicator with Q-statistic to test the null hypothesis. ResultsLC rates for the 2 US-SRT studies were statistically superior to the 4 traditional therapies individually and collectively. When stratified by histology, statistically superior outcomes for US-SRT were observed in all subtypes with p-values ranging from p < 0.0001 to p = 0.0438. These results validated an earlier analysis using a logistic regression statistical method showing the same results. ConclusionUS-SRT is statistically superior to non-image-guided radiotherapies for NMSC treatment. This modality may represent the future standard of non-surgical treatment for early-stage NMSC.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.9%
2
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
3
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.4%
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.3%
7
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
9
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
Experimental Dermatology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
15
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
16
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
18
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
20
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
22
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
25
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%