Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Volume 60, Issue 1 , Pages 41-47, January 2007

Basal cell carcinoma histological clearance margins: an analysis of 1539 conventionally excised tumours. Wider still and deeper?

  • R.W. Griffiths

      Affiliations

    • Department of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. 26 Cavendish Avenue, Dore, Sheffield S17 3NJ, UK. Tel.: +44 114 2434343; fax: +44 114 2619651.
  • ,
  • S.K. Suvarna

      Affiliations

    • Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK
  • ,
  • J. Stone

      Affiliations

    • Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK

Received 11 April 2006; accepted 16 June 2006. published online 01 September 2006.

Summary 

An analysis of peripheral and deep margins of histological clearance around 1539 consecutive basal cell carcinomas excised by conventional surgery showed that 81 lesions (5.3%) were incompletely excised peripherally; 36 lesions (2.3%) were incompletely excised deeply; 13 lesions (0.8%) were incompletely excised peripherally and deeply. Nine hundred and ninety-six lesions (65%) were excised with a peripheral histological clearance margin<5mm (0.1–4.9mm), whereas 1303 lesions (85%) were excised with a deep histological clearance margin<5mm (0.1–4.9mm). Four hundred and eight lesions (27%) had a peripheral histological clearance margin of 5.0–9.9mm, whereas 170 lesions (11%) had a deep histological margin of 5.0–9.9mm.

Peripheral histological clearance margins exceeded 10mm in 41 lesions (3%) and deep histological margins exceeded 10mm in 17 lesions (1%).

Thus 30% of peripheral histological margins were 5mm or more but only 12% of deep histological margins were 5mm or more. Despite a relative sparing of deep tissue, incomplete excision in depth affected only 36 lesions compared with 81 incomplete peripheral excisions.

Peripheral histological clearance was <5mm (0.1–4.9mm) for 55% of temple lesions, 50% of scalp lesions and 43% for limb lesions. In the cosmetically sensitive areas of peri-orbital region, nose, cheek, lip, neck and chin more than 70% of lesions were excised with a peripheral histological margin<5mm.

This study of conventional surgical excision of basal cell carcinomas with an incomplete excision rate of 8% has shown that 65% of lesions were excised with <5mm histological clearance peripherally and 85% with <5mm deep clearance. These figures for ‘normal tissue sacrifice’ are not excessive when compared with those of ‘tissue sparing’ Mohs' micrographic surgery in which the operator may take a margin of several millimetres of normal tissue in the initial ‘slice’, or in the subsequent ‘safety margin’ beyond the eventual tumour free plane.

However, peripheral margins did exceed 5mm in more than 30% of lesions of scalp, temple and forehead, and for these sites where even with loupe magnification the tumour edge could be difficult to define, either frozen section control or Mohs' technique, might with benefit be more often used in order to minimise normal tissue sacrifice.

Keywords: Conventional surgery, Basal cell carcinoma, Excision, Histological margins

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1748-6815(06)00444-X

doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.06.009

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Volume 60, Issue 1 , Pages 41-47, January 2007