Talk:Basal-cell carcinoma

Medicine: Dermatology / Pathology High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.
	This article is supported by the Pathology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Basal-cell carcinoma.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Chernandez1978 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Distributor for Curaderm BCC; Diff of User talk:Diannaa)

Additions

I got the number of 800,000 cases in the US per year from the Skin Cancer Foundation website, http://www.skincancer.org/basal/index.php Carax 02:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new information about imiquimod (Aldara). Philiphughesmd 02:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about the new treatment using petty spurge,somebody please extend it.Fufu Fang 19:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add an external link to a derm site with some excellent images of BCC. Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC) Just wanted to run this by the discussion group first. Burrills99 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

The edit linked in this section heading is non-neutral, and reversion was appropriate pending discussion (and determination of consensus) here. I would favor better citation of the data in the article and claims in general. --Scray (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NCCN guideline (http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nmsc.pdf) summarizes the discussion here well. Page 6 define peripheral margin control pathology methods, and page 7 issue the guideline for low risk and high risk basal cell cancer. Most other clinical guidelines quoted follow similar recommendation, with slight variation on the size of the tumor considered (i.e. greater than 6 mm vs. greater than 2 cm). Leaving the discussion of peripheral control method from this discussion simply because Mohs surgery is one of the method is not acceptable. --Northerncedar (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cooper's argument that frozen section has no use in treatment due to "inability to distinguish between melanoma and basal cell cancer", as posted on talk page to an admin has no relevance here. Once the tumor is diagnosed as either melanoma or basal cell cancer - frozen section is simply used to determine margin, and not for definitive diagnosis.--Northerncedar (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cooper's assertion that dermatoscopy is worthless for deep margin is correct. As a clinical tool, it only aids the surgeon in determining the accurate clinical margin, to which he will add the correct surgical margin. Not using a tool is simply like saying you don't need to wear glasses if you are doing surgery.--Northerncedar (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cooper's lack of insight into pathology and histology sectioning is reflected in his argument that ALL sections are examined by a pathologist, therefore all margins are examined. This is the basis for his lack of understanding of the content of his deletion. We REALLY need the insight of a pathologist or dermatopathologist here - as I can not walk Dr. Cooper through our pathology lab so he can see how wax embedded sections are processed and read. --Northerncedar (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In supporting his last edit here, Dr. Cooper stated that "frozen section is rarely used in the excision of basal cell cancer". This is simply false from both the stand point that Mohs frozen section is used routinely in the US, and frozen section using other methods of margin control are being done routinely by plastic surgeons in association with a pathologist at surgical centers throughout the world (http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar08may-4.pdf). A conscientious plastic surgeon will either have Mohs surgery done first prior to his reconstruction, or to do it in a surgical center where frozen section is available for margin determination on facial cases, or recurrent cases.--Northerncedar (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When making a decision on this case, one should relook at Dr.Cooper's previous deletions and edits (and compare it to the version immediately before it), to see his style of confrontation and refusal to engage in discussion on the talk pages (since April 2008).--Northerncedar (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images here are from the referenced page of peripheral margin control method mentioned by the NCCN which includes Mohs surgery.--Northerncedar These methods are called ccpdma - complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment by the NCCN. The diagrams show several CCPDMA methods, one of which is Mohs sectioning. Bread loafing, and modified bread loafing are also illustrated. Most CCPDMA are done with frozen section, as the surgical margins are narrower and more likely to result in positive margins. "Slow MOHs" is a misused term by some surgeons applying standard breadloafing with fixed tissue methods to make it sounds like they are using a CCPDMA technique. While some real Mohs surgeon use fixed histology and delayed reading for melanomas - many such "slow mohs" are not true CCPDMA methods(talk) 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Following recent edit warring, I have now protected the page for a week. I would recommend to the editors in question that they try to find common ground, and seek informal mediation if needed. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected

I request that the gallery section be removed, as the gallery violates WP:IG. It does not appear to be part of the current edit war. Yellowweasel (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I removed it. It also violates WP:EWGROSS. Shii (tock) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Hello to all! I am proposing a merge from the following articles into this article:

This is for the following reasons:

These articles are very short in length (1-2 sentences) and have not been edited significantly in 3-4 years.
This knowledge shouldn't be obscured from readers of this article by virtue of being isolated in an obscure article of 1-2 lines.
These topics may receive more attention by being mentioned in the main article.
The articles, if needs be, could be re-expanded at a later date.

Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trichoblastic carcinoma

The pathophysiology section mentions "trichoblastic carcinoma" as synonymous to basal-cell carcinoma. A quick google search however shows that the term "trichoblastic carcinoma" is used for a rare malignant transformation of trichoblastoma. "Trichoblastic carcinoma is underdiagnosed as it is a rather recent entity which is still not recognized as such by all pathologists. The differential diagnosis with basal cell carcinoma is often difficult to make and the optimal treatment has not yet been established." I have edited this in the article. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678003 http://www.dermnetnz.org/lesions/trichoblastic-carcinoma.html Perencake (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Basal-cell carcinoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that Basal-cell carcinoma be renamed and moved to Basal cell carcinoma.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

Basal-cell carcinoma → Basal cell carcinoma – The title is better without a dash. Temp87 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually bother with page moves over punctuation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how about this time? --Temp87 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- how do you see it differently?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is used more often in PubMed? or in Google search results? I think you will find that using the dash is quite uncommon. --Temp87 (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why I asked an editor to stop systematically moving these pages to their grammatically-correct-but-less-popular names back in 2011. But I'm not sure what the benefit is of moving it back (which has some costs in terms of double-redirects, etc.). You said that the grammatically wrong name is "better". I'm not sure what "better" means to you.
      (BTW, please don't use :* to indent under *; you're supposed to keep the first characters the same to prevent WP:LISTGAPs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support gosh these dash-related moves are very frustrating. In my experience "Basal cell carcinoma" without the dash is much more common and I feel we should just be using the common name most readers are familiar with. Same will go for "Squamous cell carcinoma" if there is a dash there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the title is already without a dash, and the hyphen is useful to tie the compound modifier together. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Making the title look better" is not an acceptable reason to move a page -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mohs surgery

Per the ref "Although several treatment modalities exist (Table 1), Mohs micrographic surgery allows complete histologic margin evaluation to ensure full removal of cancerous tissue while limiting the resection of uninvolved tissue. Mohs surgery is the treatment choice of any BCC with high-risk characteristics as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (see Box 2)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trichoblastic carcinoma

Trichoblastic carcinoma redirects here. It is currently mentioned only under #Physiopathology here. Per the sourcing, it also (presumably[?]) needs to be listed under #Differential diagnoses. 86.186.94.168 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's ulcer

This appears in a table of subtypes of BCC, and until my recent edit Rodent ulcer was shown in that same table entry as a synonym. I've found good enough sources to believe that Rodent ulcer is a synonym for BCC in general, and have edited accordingly.

But what about Jacob's? The two sources are print medical books to which I don't have access. Googling suggests it's either an older synonym for BCC, or is specifically a cancer around the eye. Could someone with medical sources and expertise please have a look?

I'm not a regular medical editor, just looked into BCC when a family member got the diagnosis, came across Rodent ulcer as a synonym and was surprised to see it not in lead but as a subtype, then started to look at Jacob's. A classic Wiki-editing rabbit-hole to fall into! PamD 11:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]