Hypofractionated RT has favorable cosmesis for patients with skin BCCs/SCCs. We recommend clinicians consider these commonly-used regimens, which all have BED of ∼100Gy: 50Gy/15 fractions, 36.75Gy/7 fractions, or 35Gy/5 fractions, as they result in "good" cosmesis in 80% of patients.

BT has favorable cosmesis over EBRT for skin SCCs/BCCs at common fractionation regimens. Prospective studies comparing EBRT vs BT are warranted.

Background: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Results: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. Conclusions: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

BACKGROUND:The objective of this study was to compare the cosmesis and recurrence rates of conventional excision (CE), Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or brachytherapy (BT), for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. METHODS: Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) methods were used to identify studies on PubMed (from 1985 to 2018), including patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T1-T2N0 basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas and ≥10 months follow-up who received CE, MMS, EBRT, or BT. The primary endpoint was cosmesis, classified as "good," "fair," or "poor." The secondary endpoint was 1-year recurrence. Fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were performed to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes with respect to treatment modality. RESULTS: In total, 18,095 studies met initial search criteria. There were 24 CE, 13 MMS, 19 EBRT, and 7 BT studies included with a total of 21,371 patients. The summary effect size for "good" cosmesis was 81% (95% CI, 70.6%-89.6%), 74.6% (95% CI, 63%-84.6%), and 97.6% (95% CI, 91.3%-100%) for CE, EBRT, and BT, respectively. Good cosmesis was 96.0% in the only MMS study that reported cosmesis. BT had improved "good" cosmesis over EBRT (P = .0025) and was similar to CE and MMS. No significant differences were seen for "fair" or "poor" cosmesis. One-year recurrence rates were low throughout at 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.6%), 0.2% (95% CI, 0%-0.6%), 2% (95% CI, 1.3%-2.7%), and 0% (95% CI, 0%-0.5%) for CE, MMS, EBRT, and BT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For T1-T2N0 skin cancers, BT and MMS have improved cosmesis over EBRT and CE. It is unclear whether this is because of treatment superiority or selection and reporting bias. Local control is similar among all modalities at 1 year. Cancer 2019;125:3582-3594.

No abstract