Patient-reported outcomes of electrodessication and curettage for treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer

Abstract

We have shown that electrodessication and curettage (ED&C) cures most (>95%) basal cell and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (nonmelanoma skin cancers, NMSCs) for which it is used,(1) but skin-related quality of life after ED&C does not improve as much as after excision or Mohs surgery.(2) Our goal was to determine other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after treatment of NMSC with ED&C. We studied all patients with primary NMSCs treated with ED&C, excision, or Mohs surgery in 1999–2000 at a university hospital or its affiliated Veterans Affairs clinic, and who responded to a survey before treatment. The final sample consisted of 149 patients treated with ED&C and 568 treated with excision or Mohs surgery. Three months after treatment, we used an adapted version of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18) to measure satisfaction with care, including its technical quality, interpersonal manner, communication, financial aspects, time with clinician, and accessibility.(4) Responses vary from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. One year after treatment, we used global items to measure patients’ description of cosmetic appearance, bother from appearance, bother from scar, judgment of treatment worth, and overall satisfaction with treatment. The response rate for PROs varied from 65% to 92%. We used the chi-squared test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine if treatment independently predicted PROs better or worse than the median; these models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, gender, number of tumors at enrollment), tumor characteristics (histological type, diameter, invasiveness, location on the head and neck), practice site, and clinician training level. Tumors treated with ED&C were less likely than those treated with excision or Mohs surgery to be located on the head and neck, to be invasive, to have histological risk factors for recurrence, and to have been treated by an attending physician (Table 1). Table 1 Characteristics of study sample of patients with nonmelanoma skin cancera Three months after treatment, both groups were similarly satisfied with all domains of care except that patients treated with ED&C were somewhat less satisfied with the time spent with the clinician and the accessibility and convenience of their care. A year after treatment, patients treated with ED&C described worse cosmetic appearance and were more bothered by the appearance (Table 2). In adjusted analyses, patients treated with ED&C remained twice as likely to report more frequent bother from appearance (p=.002), but did not differ in any other PRO. Table 2 Patient reported outcomes that differed in treatment groups after treatment of non-melanoma skin cancera,b Patients treated with ED&C for NMSC were as satisfied as those treated with excision or Mohs surgery with much of their care, but they were more frequently bothered by the appearance even in adjusted analyses that controlled for patient and tumor characteristics and training level of clinician. Interviews would be required to understand patients’ responses fully, but the results support the clinical impressions of many dermatologists: although overall outcomes are good, patients treated with ED&C may be more bothered by the treatment site. The findings highlight the importance of PROs after NMSC, and the need for thoughtful decision making for this most common cancer.