4.6 Article

Management of Invasive Squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Conjunctiva

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.11.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: Ocular surface squamous neoplasia includes a spectrum of diseases from dysplasia to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the conjunctiva. Whether the degree of invasion influences outcomes is debated. We evaluated the outcomes and management of conjunctival carcinomas defined as <= 0.2 mm invasion of the chorion (microinvasive; miSCC) or over (SCC). DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Clinical, tumor, and therapeutic characteristics and outcomes were collected for consecutive patients with histology-proven invasive conjunctival miSCC/SCC treated between 2002 and 2017. RESULTS: Patients were 70% men, >= 70 years old (56%), with carcinomas of the bulbar conjunctiva (83.0%). Limbal, corneal, and/or scleral involvement were present in 70.4%, 42.6%, and 27.8%, respectively. Patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and no-touch surgery rates were similar between the 39 SCC and 15 miSCC. However, mitomycin was performed in 93.3% and 20.5% of miSCC and SCC, respectively (P < .001). Proton therapy was performed in 0% and 92.0% of miSCC and SCC, respectively (P < .001). SCC received mitomycin in case of tumoral resection margins, respectively (P = .018). The 24-month incidence of local relapse was 14.8%, including 20% and 12% for miSCC and SCC, respectively (P = .079). Irradiation was the only prognostic factor associated with a lower risk for local relapse (hazard ratio [0.25]; P = .045). There were 2 cancer-related deaths (2%). Mild/moderate anterior segment complications occurred in one third of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: miSCC had slightly worse relapse rates compared with SCC. Postoperative proton therapy, performed in SCC only, was associated with a lower risk for relapse. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据