Wide Excision or Mohs Micrographic Surgery for the Treatment of Primary Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a spindle cell tumor with a high local recurrence rate. Wide excision (WE) has been the standard treatment, but ideal margin width is poorly defined and Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has emerged as an alternative procedure. This study examines the use of WE versus MMS for the treatment of primary DFSP at a single institution. METHODS: Retrospective review of 48 primary DFSP cases treated from 1971 to 2006. Patient demographics, tumor features, surgical modality (WE vs. MMS), final pathology, and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients underwent WE versus 20 patients for MMS. Median age was 40 years. Median WE margin width was 2 cm. For MMS, the median number of layers required to clear the tumor was 2. Median maximal defect size was 10 cm for WE versus 9.4 cm for MMS. Advanced closure techniques were required for 18% WE versus 65% MMS (P = 0.001). Median operative time was significantly lower for WE at 77 minutes versus 257 minutes for MMS (P < 0.001). Positive margins were present in 21.4% (6/28) WE versus 0% MMS (P = 0.01). At a median follow-up of 49.9 months for WE and 40.4 months for MMS, local recurrence rates were 3.6% (1/28) and 0%, respectively (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: From a surgical standpoint, WE was faster than MMS and resulted in a less complex defect/closure. Although positive margin resection was more common with WE, local control was ultimately similar for the 2 surgical modalities. The choice of WE versus MMS should be based on individualized patients/tumor characteristics and institutional expertise in these modalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".