4.3 Article

Update of the European guidelines for basal cell carcinoma management Developed by the Guideline Subcommittee of the European Dermatology Forum

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 312-329

Publisher

JOHN LIBBEY EUROTEXT LTD
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2014.2271

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Roche
  2. BMS
  3. Galderma
  4. Leo
  5. Meda
  6. Almirall
  7. Novartis
  8. Pfizer
  9. Spirig
  10. Janssen-Cilag
  11. Uriage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background European guidelines for the management of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) prepared by the former BCC subcommittee of the Guidelines Committee of the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) were published in 2006. Objectives To present updated guidelines that include consensual expert definitions on various BCC types, prognosis and risk factors for BCC as well as review recommendations for diagnosis and treatment reflecting current published evidence. Methods These guidelines (Si type) were prepared by the new BCC subgroup of the European Dermatology Forum (EDF)'s Guidelines Committee through extensive literature review (up to 2012) and expert experience; they were extensively discussed within the EDF subcommittee and approved by peer reviewers of the EDF. Results BCC is a common tumour with an incidence rising worldwide. Three major clinical types of BCC are recognized: nodular, superficial and morpheaform. Four histological subtypes are defined: superficial, nodular, infiltrative and morpheaform. On the basis of the risk of relapse, three prognosis groups have been identified: high, intermediate and low risk. According to these classifications and evidence-based evaluation of the therapeutic strategies available, a decision tree is proposed for the management of BCCs. Conclusions, The guidelines offer a useful tool that will help dermatologists to select the most appropriate treatment for individual patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available