Table 6.
Surgical Margins Pairwise Comparisonsa.
| Surgical Margin | Local Recurrence P Value | Distant Recurrence P Value |
|---|---|---|
| Wide versus | ||
| Marginal | .0001 | .0005 |
| Wide-contaminated | <.0001 | <.0001 |
| Intralesional | .0011 | .0187 |
| Not wide | <.0001 | <.0001 |
| Marginal versus | ||
| Wide-contaminated | .1286 | .3019 |
| Intralesional | .0477 | .2033 |
| Wide-contaminated versus | ||
| Intralesional | .6099 | .6177 |
| Wide/marginal versus | ||
| Contaminated/intralesional | <.0001 | <.0001 |
aPatients who were treated with a surgery with wide margins had very significantly lower rates of both local and distant recurrence compared with patients with any other surgical margin classification.