BC03 Assessment of atrophic and hypertrophic photoageing in patients with basal cell carcinoma
Aine Kelly,Libin Mathew,Catherine Stefanato,Faisal Ali,Jean Ayer,Emma Craythorne
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae090.143
IF: 11.113
2024-06-28
British Journal of Dermatology
Abstract:Abstract Two contrasting forms of clinically evident photoageing have been described – hypertrophic and atrophic. Recent studies postulate that hypertrophic photoageing, described as a leathery appearance with coarse wrinkles, may be protective and mitigate skin cancer. Conversely, atrophic skin ageing is described as translucent skin with telangiectasia and skin thinning and is thought to be associated with actinic damage and an increased incidence of skin cancer. Full-face photographs of 102 patients who underwent Mohs surgery for basal cell carcinomas of the cheek during 2018–2023 were selected, and their hypertrophic and atrophic photodamage scored by two dermatologists and a nonmedic independently (score of 0–8, in increasing severity). All histopathology from 102 patients was reviewed. Two of the 102 patients were omitted due to poor-quality slides. Solar elastosis was scored based on the percentage of dermis affected (grade 1 < 50%, grade 2 50–90%, grade 3 100%). Epidermal thickness was measured from an inter-rete ridge region halfway along each specimen. In total, 53% of patients were female and 47% were male; 49% had Fitzpatrick skin type I, 49% type II, and 2% type III. Overall, 89% of patients did not smoke, 9% currently smoked and 2% formerly smoked. Only 3% of patients were immunosuppressed. Five patients (5%) had an atrophic score of 2, 29% of 4, 49% of 6, and 17% of 8. Overall, 22% of patients had a hypertrophic score of 0, 58% of 2, 18% of 4, and 1% of 6. Eighty-eight patients (88%) had a solar elastosis score of 3. Of the patients with severe solar elastosis 70% had an atrophic photoageing score graded as severe (6 or 8). There was no association between sex and atrophic photoageing score. There was an association between solar elastosis grade and atrophic photoageing score. The mean epidermal thickness was lower in patients with a higher atrophic photoageing score (sum of squares 43.6, P = 0.002). The mean epidermal thickness was lower in patients with higher hypertrophic photoageing scores; however, this result was not statistically significant. There was a discrepancy between atrophic scoring and a concordance for hypertrophic scoring between the dermatologist and nonmedical personnel. Epidermal thickness was reduced regardless of sex in both atrophic and hypertrophic photodamaged skin. Most patients in our study had significant solar elastosis in their dermis, although this appeared to be more severe in those with higher atrophic photoageing scores. We postulate that photoageing changes are complex but can be depicted clinically. It is unclear whether dividing patients into atrophic and hypertrophic categories can distinguish histological changes and overall skin cancer risk.
dermatology