PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 10, 2025Life2 citationsOpen Access

Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Risk Factors: Are Current Criteria Still Valid? A Retrospective, Monocenter Analysis

View Full Paper
MKMaike KaufholdSASepideh AsadiYGYalda Ghoreishi

Key Points

  • Tumors on non-UV-exposed areas were found to be thicker and more frequently metastatic, suggesting delayed detection.
  • Immunosuppression significantly increased metastasis rates, correlating with worse overall survival (36.1% vs. 97.8%).
  • A total of 124 patients with cSCC thicker than 3 mm were analyzed to establish prognostic relationships among various risk factors.
  • Findings call for heightened clinical vigilance and further studies to evaluate the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in treatment protocols.

Abstract

Introduction: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common skin cancer entity in Germany, following basal cell carcinoma. Its incidence has increased fourfold over the past three decades. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential for achieving favorable outcomes. Our study aims to identify prognostic factors based on real-world data to improve follow-up protocols and raise clinical vigilance. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, monocenter analysis with a total of 124 patients with at least one cSCC thicker than 3 mm, treated at the Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, between 2010 and 2020. Tumor-specific criteria were correlated with patient-specific data, such as gender, age, immunosuppression, UV exposure and mortality. Results: A higher incidence of cSCC was found on UV-exposed skin (91.1%); however, tumors on non-UV-exposed skin were on average thicker (6.55 mm vs. 9.25 mm, p = 0.011) and associated with higher metastasis rates (10.6% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.001). Immunosuppression was strongly associated with a younger age at diagnosis (74 years vs. 81 years), a higher metastasis rate (29% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.021) and a worse 5Y-OS-rate (36.1% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.04). SLNB was performed in eight patients, with one positive SLN identified (12.5%). Local recurrence was observed in 18.1% (n = 21) of patients who did not experience SLNB, whereas no local recurrences (0%) were reported in patients with SLNB (p = 0.349). Discussion: Tumors on non-UV-exposed areas were thicker and more often metastatic, suggesting delayed detection or more aggressive tumor subtypes. Immunosuppression was associated with worse outcomes, underscoring the need for intensified follow-up. SLNB was rarely performed, and larger studies are needed to assess its role.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kaufhold et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68c1c62f54b1d3bfb60f1eb2https://doi.org/10.3390/life15081257
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper