Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026
Establishment of a Clinic-based Biorepository
Published on: May 29, 2017
Mohs versus surgical excision in nonmelanoma skin cancers: does location matter?
Clifford T Pereira1, Erwin A Kruger, Gregory Sayer
1From the *Division of Plastic Surgery, UCLA; †Division of Plastic Surgery, West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Hospital; and ‡Division of Dermatology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Introduction:
Every year, nearly 1.2 million people are affected by nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) in the United States. Most published data focus on comparing the efficacy of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) versus traditional surgical excision (TSE) for NMSCs in H-zone lesions of the face. There is paucity of data regarding the 2 treatments in other areas such as the non-H-zone areas of the face, the trunk, and extremities. Our study focused on the efficacy of the 2 treatments in areas of the body where the skin was not of premium.
Method:
A retrospective chart review was performed of patients with NMSCs treated with TSE at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Hospital between 2000 and 2008. Patients with at least a 3-year follow-up were selected for the study. Institutional review board approval was obtained before commencement of the study. Age, sex, and race-matched patients were selected in the MMS group. Data collected included demographic data, tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, reconstructions, recurrence rates, complications, and follow-up course. Data were analyzed using SigmaStat 3.5.
Results:
A total of 588 patients were treated for NMSCs at our institute between 2000 and 2008, of which 289 patients had non-H-zone, extremity, and trunk lesions. The follow-up period for these patients was at least 3 years. Average age of this group was 67.1 (11.4) with 89.9% being males. Age, sex, and race-matched group of 200 patients treated with MMS for NMSCs were randomly chosen from the same time range. Average size of lesions was 17.4 (16.9) mm in the TSE group and 1.1 (0.4) mm in the MMS group (P < 0.05). Primary reconstruction was performed in non-premium areas (ie, non-H-zone areas of the face, the trunk, and extremities) in 98.7% patients in the TSE group and 61.5% patients in the MMS group (P < 0.05). Secondary reconstructive rate was 1.3% in TSE compared to 37.5% in MMS. Overall recurrence rate was 4.8% (compared to 3% with MMS). Of the 29 patients who had recurrences within the TSE group, 27 were H-zone lesions and 2 were non-H-zone lesions.
Discussion:
One of the primary goals of NMSC management is to treat the lesion with adequate oncologic margins, while preserving maximal function and cosmesis. Our data look at the non-premium areas to quantify the clinical efficacy of TSE versus MMS. The size of lesions treated by TSE was significantly larger than those treated by MMS in all areas of the body. The primary closure rates were significantly higher and secondary procedure rates significantly lower in the TSE group compared to the MMS group, in non-premium areas. Our data suggest that patients with NMSCs may be more effectively treated with TSE than MMS in non-premium areas of the body. Additional studies are ongoing, including economic modeling and cost analysis.
Insights
Traditional surgical excision (TSE) is more effective than Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) in non-premium body areas. TSE offers higher primary closure and lower secondary procedure rates for these NMSCs.
Area of Science:
- Dermatology
- Surgical Oncology
Background:
- Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) affect nearly 1.2 million people annually in the U.S.
- Most research compares Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and traditional surgical excision (TSE) for facial H-zone lesions.
- Limited data exist on NMSC treatment efficacy in non-H-zone facial areas, trunk, and extremities.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical efficacy of TSE versus MMS for NMSCs in non-premium body areas.
- To evaluate recurrence rates, complication rates, and reconstructive needs for NMSCs in these specific locations.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective chart review of NMSC patients treated with TSE (2000-2008).
- Inclusion criteria: minimum 3-year follow-up.
- Age, sex, and race-matched comparison group treated with MMS.
Main Results:
- TSE treated significantly larger lesions (17.4 mm) compared to MMS (1.1 mm) in non-premium areas.
- Higher primary reconstruction rates (98.7%) with TSE versus MMS (61.5%).
- Lower secondary reconstruction rates (1.3%) with TSE versus MMS (37.5%).
- Overall recurrence rate for TSE was 4.8%, with only 2 non-H-zone recurrences.
Conclusions:
- TSE demonstrates high efficacy for NMSCs in non-premium body areas.
- TSE is associated with higher primary closure and lower secondary procedure rates compared to MMS in these regions.
- Findings suggest TSE may be a more effective treatment option than MMS for NMSCs in non-premium body areas.
