Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJiyad, Z.
dc.contributor.authorMarquart, L
dc.contributor.authorGreen, Adèle C
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-19T10:28:53Z
dc.date.available2021-07-19T10:28:53Z
dc.date.issued2021en
dc.identifier.citationJiyad Z, Marquart L, Green AC. Response to ‘A call to standardize the BCC: SCC ratio’: reply from authors. British Journal of Dermatology. 2021 May 16.en
dc.identifier.pmid33997954en
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bjd.20490en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/624134
dc.description.abstractWe thank Ma et al. for suggesting the inclusion of in-situ squamous cell carcinoma (SCC-IS) to the commonly used ratio, basal cell carcinoma (BCC):SCC. Indeed, we concur with the authors that superficial BCC is usually managed similarly to SCC-IS. However, equating superficial BCC with a precursor lesion (SCC-IS) on the basis of similar management approaches, would be a confusing strategy. The strength of the BCC:SCC ratio lies in its ability to facilitate easy comparison of incidence rates between what is generally considered a relatively innocuous keratinocyte tumour (BCC),1 with that of one that carries significant metastatic potential (invasive SCC).2.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20490en
dc.titleResponse to 'A call to standardize the BCC: SCC ratio': reply from authorsen
dc.typeOtheren
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Dermatology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of Dermatologyen
dc.description.noteen]


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record