English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Society for Publication of Acta Dermato-Venereologica The optimal surgical margin width for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is currently unclear, and the guidelines are inconsistent (1–3). In 2007, recommendations on excision margins were introduced in the Dutch BCC guideline. Surgical margins of 3 mm in small (≤ 10 mm) primary BCC and 5 mm in large (> 10 mm), high-risk (aggressive histological subtype) or recurrent BCC were advised (4). In 2015 the guideline was updated, with the margin for low-risk BCC being adjusted to 3–4 mm, the size-threshold for high-risk BCC increased to 20 mm, and H-zone location was incorporated as a high-risk BCC (2). The aim of this study is to assess the risk of incomplete excision in case of adherence and non-adherence to the recommended surgical margins according to the 2007 and 2015 Dutch BCC guidelines.

Are the Recommended Excision Margins for Basal Cell Carcinoma Too Defensive? A Retrospective Chart Study and Evaluation of the Dutch Guideline