13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk factors for local atypical fibroxanthoma recurrence and progression to pleomorphic dermal sarcoma: A meta‐analysis of individualized participant data

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Risk factors for local atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) recurrence and progression to pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS) have not previously been identified.

          Objective

          To identify risk factors and provide follow‐up suggestions for local AFX recurrence and progression to PDS.

          Methods and Materials

          A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed. The risks of local AFX recurrence and progression to PDS were presented as Kaplan–Meier plots and risk factors were presented as hazard ratios (HRs) calculated with univariate and multivariate Cox regression.

          Results

          Five hundred and ninety‐eight patients with AFX from 14 studies were included. Age >74 years and male sex significantly increased the risk of local recurrence (HR: 7.31 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78–30.0], p < 0.01 and HR: 2.89 [95% CI: 1.04–8.01], p < 0.05, respectively). There was no difference when comparing wide local excision and Mohs' micrographic surgery ( p = 0.89). The risks of local AFX recurrence and progression to PDS after 2 years were <1%.

          Conclusion

          A more intensive follow‐up regimen could be considered in patients >74 years old and males due to the higher risk of local AFX recurrence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

              Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Mathias.oerholt.nielsen@regionh.dk
                Journal
                J Surg Oncol
                J Surg Oncol
                10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9098
                JSO
                Journal of Surgical Oncology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0022-4790
                1096-9098
                19 April 2022
                01 September 2022
                : 126
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/jso.v126.3 )
                : 555-562
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark
                [ 2 ] Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery University Hospitals Sussex: St Richard's Hospital Chichester West Sussex UK
                [ 3 ] Department of Dermatology and Division of Dermatologic Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Mathias Ørholt, MD, Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

                Email: Mathias.oerholt.nielsen@ 123456regionh.dk

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8815-8392
                Article
                JSO26898
                10.1002/jso.26898
                9544245
                35441377
                099821fe-caa1-4bb7-b1e7-43ab19d0c41c
                © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 14 March 2022
                : 08 January 2022
                : 07 April 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 8, Words: 4374
                Categories
                Cutaneous, Melanoma, Sarcoma
                Cutaneous, Melanoma, Sarcoma
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                September 1, 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                atypical fibroxanthoma,mohs,oncology,skin cancer
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                atypical fibroxanthoma, mohs, oncology, skin cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article