The role of dermoscopy in optimizing surgical margins for keratinocyte cancers: updated evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Keratinocyte cancer (KC) is the most common malignancy worldwide. Surgical excision is the primary treatment, with clear margin delineation critical for oncological and cosmetic outcomes. Dermoscopy, well established for diagnosis, has recently been included in updated British guidelines as an alternative method for surgical margin planning and may offer improved border visualization. OBJECTIVES: To update the existing evidence on dermoscopy-guided excision of KC, focusing on margin control and recurrence risk and incorporating newly published studies and re-evaluating its use considering evolving guideline recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched to October 2024. Eligible studies compared dermoscopy-guided with conventional surgical excision of histologically confirmed KC. The primary outcome was the incomplete excision rate. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and meta-analysis was conducted using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: Ten studies (1151 patients; 1186 lesions) were included; 4 contributed to meta-analysis. Most focused on basal cell carcinoma; squamous cell carcinoma data were limited. Dermoscopy was associated with improved surgical precision and reduced incomplete excision (pooled odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence intervals 0.27-0.34, P < 0.001; I² = 0%, P > 0.99), although all studies were observational and at moderate to serious risk of bias. Narrower margins were often achieved without compromising recurrence outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Dermoscopy may enhance preoperative planning in KC excision, but evidence remains limited by methodological constraints. These findings support further high-quality trials to confirm clinical utility and define its role in future surgical guidelines.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.