Lentigo maligna (melanoma): A systematic review and meta-analysis on surgical techniques and presurgical mapping by reflectance confocal microscopy.

Because of an increased risk of local recurrence following surgical treatment of lentigo maligna (melanoma) (LM/LMM), the optimal surgical technique is still a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different surgical techniques and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) on local recurrence and survival outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed databases through 20 May 2022. Randomized and observational studies with ≥10 lesions were eligible for inclusion. Bias assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument. Meta-analysis was performed for local recurrence, as there were insufficient events for the other clinical outcomes. We included 41 studies with 5059 LM and 1271 LMM. Surgical techniques included wide local excision (WLE) (n = 1355), staged excision (n = 2442) and Mohs' micrographic surgery (MMS) (n = 2909). Six studies included RCM. The guideline-recommended margin was insufficient in 21.6%-44.6% of LM/LMM. Local recurrence rate was lowest for patients treated by MMS combined with immunohistochemistry (<1%; 95% CI, 0.3%-1.9%), and highest for WLE (13%; 95% CI, 7.2%-21.6%). The mean follow-up varied from 27 to 63 months depending on surgical technique with moderate to high heterogeneity for MMS and WLE. Handheld-RCM decreased both the rate of positive histological margins (p < 0.0001) and necessary surgical stages (p < 0.0001). The majority of regional (17/25) and distant (34/43) recurrences occurred in patients treated by WLE. Melanoma-associated mortality was low (1.5%; 32/2107), and more patients died due to unrelated causes (6.7%; 107/1608). This systematic review shows a clear reduction in local recurrences using microscopically controlled surgical techniques over WLE. The use of HH-RCM showed a trend in the reduction in incomplete resections and local recurrences even when used with WLE. Due to selection bias, heterogeneity, low prevalence of stage III/IV disease and limited survival data, it was not possible to determine the effect of the different surgical techniques on survival outcomes.

A systematic review of outcome reporting in laser treatments for dermatological diseases.

The standardization of outcome reporting is crucial for interpretation and comparison of studies related to laser treatment of skin disorders. In collaboration with the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN), a procedure has been proposed to find consensus on the most important generic outcome domains (what to measure) for implementation in the international Laser TrEAtment in Dermatology (LEAD) registry. As the first step in the development of a generic outcome set for the LEAD registry, we undertook a systematic review to identify outcomes, outcome measurement instruments, methods and definitions reported in recently published literature of laser treatments for skin disorders. A systematic search was conducted and generated a total of 707 papers. We assessed 150 studies including all types of studies involving laser treatments for the skin. Two researchers independently extracted the type, definition and frequency of all outcomes and used outcome measurement instruments. We identified 105 verbatim outcomes that were categorized into eight domains recommended by the COMET framework: appearance, long-term effects, physician and patient-reported physical signs, satisfaction, health-related quality of life, psychological functioning and adverse events. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting (e.g. categories and outcome measurement instruments) was high, and definitions were insufficiently reported. There was a clear under representation of life impact domains, including satisfaction (23%) quality of life (3%) and psychological functioning (1%). Outcome reporting concerning laser treatments for the skin is heterogeneous. Standardized outcomes are needed for improving evidence synthesis. Results of this review will be used in the next step to reach consensus between stakeholders on the outcome domains to be implemented in the LEAD registry.