COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of posterior lamellar resection versus lumpectomy for initial management of localized tarsal conjunctival sebaceous carcinoma in 54 cases.

Purpose: Comparison of outcomes of localized eyelid sebaceous carcinoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition categories T1, T2, T3) following initial management with posterior lamellar resection (PLR) versus (vs) lumpectomy (nonposterior lamellar resection, non-PLR).

Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative, interventional case series. Of 54 patients, 26 were managed by PLR and 28 by nonPLR. The main outcome measures were vision loss, orbital exenteration, lymph node metastasis, and remote metastasis were the main outcome measures.

Results: A comparison of PLR vs nonPLR revealed no difference in mean age at presentation (70 vs 72 years), race (Caucasian 100% vs nonCaucasian 93%), gender (female 54% vs male 71%), entering mean visual acuity (20/30 vs 20/50), or corneal involvement (23% vs 11%). There was significant difference in clinical features with PLR demonstrating greater mean basal diameter (21 mm vs 12 mm, P = 0.004), and positive margins were seen more frequently in PLR (69% vs 46%). There was significantly less number of surgical procedures in PLR to achieve complete tumor control (1.7 vs 2.5, P = 0.001). Outcomes at mean 55 months follow-up revealed significantly better control with PLR (vs nonPLR) with fewer orbital exenterations (15% vs 43%, P = 0.038), fewer lymph node, and systemic metastases (0% vs 39%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in final mean visual acuity (20/60 vs 20/200).

Conclusion: For eyelid sebaceous carcinoma, the initial management is critical to the patient's outcome. PLR demonstrates superior outcomes with regard to preservation of visual acuity and avoidance of exenterations, lymph node metastases, and systemic metastases compared to patients managed with other techniques.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app