Evidence Hub

Risk of subsequent cutaneous malignancy in patients with prior keratinocyte carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Flohil SC, van der Leest RJ, Arends LR, de Vries E, Nijsten T

European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2013

Abstract

In this systematic review and meta-analysis the risk of a subsequent basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or melanoma in patients with a previous keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) was investigated. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched for studies published before 1st January 2012 that reported risks (i.e. proportions, cumulative risks or standardised incidence ratios [SIR]) of developing a subsequent BCC, SCC or melanoma in patients with prior KC. 45 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In BCC patients, the pooled proportion for a subsequent BCC, SCC or melanoma was respectively 29.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6-34.3%), 4.3% (1.7-10.1%) and 0.5% (0.4-0.8%). The pooled proportion of a subsequent SCC, BCC or melanoma in SCC patients was respectively 13.3% (95% CI 7.4-22.8%), 15.9% (5.6-37.6%) and 0.5% (0.3-0.6%). The pooled SIRs for a subsequent BCC, SCC or melanoma were respectively 17.4 (95% CI 0.0-37.4), 3.2 (0.0-6.5) and 2.4 (2.3-2.6) in BCC and 4.2 (95% CI 2.0-6.5), 15.0 (14.0-16.0) and 2.7 (2.3-3.2) in SCC patients. In the subgroup analyses, strongest differences in risks were found in the continent strata (risks Australia>North America>Europe).

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free