4.6 Article

Frequency of non-histologically diagnosed basal cell carcinomas in daily Dutch practice

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04407.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Netherlands organisation for health research and development, ZonMw [152001013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Population-based basal cell carcinoma (BCC) incidences are based on cancer registry data; however, these only include histologically diagnosed tumours. Objectives First, to investigate the number of subsequent non-histologically diagnosed BCC(s) in patients with a first histologically diagnosed BCC in 2004. Secondly, to observe differences in tumour characteristics between subsequent histologically and subsequent non-histologically diagnosed BCC(s). Methods All patients, from four hospitals located in the serving area of the Eindhoven Cancer Registry, with a first histologically diagnosed BCC in 2004 (n=1290) were selected. A linkage was made with PALGA, the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology, to obtain pathology reports of subsequent histologically diagnosed BCC(s) up to 1 November 2010. Patient records were extracted from the participating dermatology departments and reviewed up to 1 November 2010 to identify non-histologically diagnosed BCC(s). Results Overall, 33.2% of the 1089 followed up patients developed subsequent histologically and/or non-histologically diagnosed BCCs. In total, 1974 BCCs were observed of which 1833 were histologically and 141 were non-histologically diagnosed BCCs. The distribution of tumour site and subtype differed significantly between subsequent histologically and subsequent non-histologically diagnosed BCCs. Conclusions The total burden of BCC is underestimated by the absence of data on the occurrence of non-histologically diagnosed BCCs in daily dermatological practice. It is pivotal for Dutch healthcare policy makers to acknowledge this to make accurate BCC-related cost estimates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available