4.7 Article

The incidence and clinical analysis of non-melanoma skin cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83502-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical University of Lodz [503/5-064-01/503-1]
  2. National Centre of Science [2017/27/B/NZ5/02011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-melanoma skin cancers, particularly basal cell carcinoma, are the most common malignancies in Caucasian populations. This study in Poland analyzed the incidence of primary BCCs and SCCs over a 20-year period, finding that BCC accounted for the majority of cases and SCC patients were typically older. Different subtypes of BCC and SCC showed varied prevalence on different anatomical sites.
Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are the most common malignancies diagnosed in Caucasian populations. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most frequent skin cancer, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Unfortunately, most European cancer registries do not record individual types of NMSC. To evaluate the incidence of primary BCCs and SCCs regarding age, sex, tumour site and tumour subtype to determine trends in epidemiology of both cancers. Retrospective analysis of BCCs and SCCs diagnosed and treated across seven sites in Poland from 1999 to 2019. We recorded 13,913 NMSCs occurring in 10,083 patients. BCC represented 85.2% of all cases. SCC patients were older than BCC patients (77.1 +/- 11.3 years vs. 70.1 +/- 12.3 years, p<0.01). The nodular subtype was the most common subtype of BCC, followed by the superficial and infiltrative subtypes. The superficial BCC subtype was more common on photoprotected areas (p<0.01), whereas the nodular BCC subtype occurred on the face (p<0.01). The high-risk SCC subtypes were more common on face compared to low-risk SCC subtypes (p<0.01). BCC and SCC are common malignancies developing at various ages and anatomical sites. These data underline the need for better registration policies regarding NMSC in order to improve prevention and treatment strategies for these tumours.

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

4.7
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