Response to 'A call to standardize the BCC: SCC ratio': reply from authors
dc.contributor.author | Jiyad, Z. | |
dc.contributor.author | Marquart, L | |
dc.contributor.author | Green, Adèle C | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-07-19T10:28:53Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-19T10:28:53Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | en |
dc.identifier.citation | Jiyad 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.pmid | 33997954 | en |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/bjd.20490 | en |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10541/624134 | |
dc.description.abstract | We 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.iso | en | en |
dc.relation.url | https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20490 | en |
dc.title | Response to 'A call to standardize the BCC: SCC ratio': reply from authors | en |
dc.type | Other | en |
dc.contributor.department | Department of Dermatology, St George's Hospital, London, UK. | en |
dc.identifier.journal | British Journal of Dermatology | en |
dc.description.note | en] |