Indian Journal of Dermatology
  Publication of IADVL, WB
  Official organ of AADV
Indexed with Science Citation Index (E) , Web of Science and PubMed
 
Users online: 4021  
Home About  Editorial Board  Current Issue Archives Online Early Coming Soon Guidelines Subscriptions  e-Alerts    Login  
    Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this page Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 147-154

Conventional versus giant basal cell carcinoma, a review of 57 Cases: Histologic differences contributing to excessive growth


1 Department of Dermatology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA
2 Department of Pathology and Dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA
3 Arkansas Dermatopathology PLLC, Little Rock, AR, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sara C Shalin
Department of Pathology, University of Arkansas For Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham, Slot 517, Little Rock, AR 72205
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_165_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: Giant basal cell carcinoma (GBCC) is defined as a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) exceeding 5 cm in size. While these tumors impart significant morbidity due to local tissue destruction and have a higher rate of metastatic disease than their conventional (smaller) counterparts, reasons for their large size remain unclear. While theories relating to neglect or faster growth rate are often invoked; to date, there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of the histologic features of these large tumors that may contribute to their size. Methods: Histologic features of GBCCs (n = 29) were evaluated and compared to those of conventional BCC (n = 28). Available clinical demographic data were also reviewed. Results: GBCCs, in addition to overall larger size, more often were thicker, displayed ulceration, and showed a more infiltrative growth pattern than their conventional counterparts. These rare tumors also displayed an insignificant increased propensity for a brisk host immune response, and the infiltrate significantly more often included clusters of plasma cells. Conclusions: Most histologic features seen in GBCCs likely reflect their large size. Histologic features alone are unlikely to explain the size of these rare tumors. The possibility of an altered host immune response contributing to the growth of these tumors requires further investigation.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2431    
    Printed46    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded64    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal