Video
Conclusion
Our patient presented with an extremely large and ulcerating lesion on the upper back that met the criteria for classification as a high-risk tumor. In light of the tumor location and size as well as the involvement of deep tissues and muscles, we elected to pursue SE for management. This modality proved to be extremely effective, and the patient continues to be free of residual or recurrent BCC more than 36 months after surgery. Two large systematic reviews lend support to this management approach and report excellent outcomes. In a review article by Rubin et al,5 SE was shown to provide cure rates greater than 99% for BCC lesions of any size on the neck, trunk, and extremities. Moreover, Thissen et al43 performed a systematic meta-analysis of 18 studies reporting recurrence rates of primary BCC after treatment with various modalities and concluded that when surgery is not contraindicated, SE is the treatment of choice for nodular and superficial BCC. Both groups agree in their recommendations that MMS should be used for BCCs in cosmetically compromised zones (eg, midface), sites where tissue sparing is essential, aggressive growth patterns (eg, perineural invasion, morpheaform histology), and when high risk of recurrence is unacceptable.5,43 In contrast, MMS is not recommended for tumors of large diameter or with indistinct borders due to decreased cure rates.13,25,27 Vismodegib is an interesting new option in development for management of metastatic and aggressive nonresectable BCCs. It was not an option in our patient. Although consideration for use of vismodegib as a neoadjuvant treatment to shrink the tumor prior to surgery is reasonable, the decision to proceed directly with SE proved to be the superior option for our patient.
