Table 3.
Details of patients with malignant tumors of the eyelid
| Feature | SGC (n = 285) | BCC (n = 128) | SCC(n = 99) | Miscellaneous(n = 24) | All cases(n = 536) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at presentation, years | 58 (60, 21–100) | 60 (61, 20–88) | 55 (55, 8–90) | 50 (49, 4–81) | 58 (60, 4–100) | 0.01**a |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 115 (40) | 52 (41) | 46 (46) | 16 (67) | 229 (43) | 0.47*** |
| Female | 170 (60) | 76 (59) | 53 (54) | 8 (33) | 307 (57) | 0.53*** |
| Tumor epicenter | ||||||
| Upper eyelid | 168 (59) | 22 (17) | 40 (40) | 11 (46) | 241 (45) | <0.001***<, b |
| Lower eyelid | 82 (29) | 75 (59) | 41 (41) | 9 (38) | 207 (39) | 0.003***c |
| Medial canthus | 9 (3) | 13 (10) | 5 (5) | 3 (13) | 30 (6) | 0.03***d |
| Lateral canthus | 7 (2) | 10 (8) | 5 (5) | 0 (0) | 22 (4) | 0.07*** |
| Diffuse | 19 (7) | 8 (6) | 8 (8) | 1 (4) | 36 (7) | 0.92*** |
| Tumor pattern (n = 519) | ||||||
| Nodular | 155 (56) | 52 (42) | 51 (52) | 13 (54) | 271 (51) | 0.52*** |
| Nodulo-ulcerative | 88 (31) | 63 (51) | 40 (40) | 5 (21) | 196 (37) | 0.07*** |
| Papillary | 7 (2) | 0 (0) | 3 (3) | 2 (8) | 12 (2) | 0.07*** |
| Cystic | 7 (2) | 5 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 12 (2) | 0.22*** |
| Fungating mass | 20 (7) | 3 (2) | 3 (3) | 2 (8) | 28 (5) | 0.17*** |
| Tumor diameter, mm | 18 (14, 1–100) | 15 (12, 2–50) | 18 (15, 2–60) | 19 (14, 1–55) | 17 (13, 1–100) | 0.46** |
| Tumor thickness, mm | 6 (4, 1–44) | 5 (4, 1–28) | 8 (4, 1–55) | 7 (4, 1–36) | 6 (4, 1–55) | 0.15** |
| Tumor extent at presentation | ||||||
| Orbit | 35 (12) | 8 (6) | 16 (16) | 7 (29) | 66 (12) | 0.03***e |
| Maxillary sinus | 4 (1) | 1 (<1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (<1) | 0.61*** |
| Frontal sinus | 2 (<1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (<1) | 0.63*** |
| Ethmoid sinus | 2 (<1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (<1) | 0.63*** |
| Intracranial extension | 3 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (<1) | 0.45*** |
| T classification based on8th edition AJCC staging | ||||||
| T1 | 104 (37) | 49 (38) | 26 (26) | 8 (33) | 187 (35) | 0.54*** |
| T2 | 92 (32) | 47 (37) | 37 (37) | 3 (13) | 179 (33) | 0.32*** |
| T3 | 30 (11) | 13 (10) | 7 (7) | 3 (13) | 53 (10) | 0.80*** |
| T4 | 59 (21) | 19 (15) | 29 (29) | 10 (42) | 117 (22) | 0.054*** |
| Primary treatment (n = 518) | 275 | 123 | 97 | 23 | ||
| Wide excision biopsy | 218 (79) | 116 (94) | 74 (76) | 16 (70) | 424 (82) | 0.62*** |
| Orbital exenteration | 38 (14) | 6 (5) | 18 (19) | 6 (26) | 68 (13) | 0.02***,f |
| Systemic chemotherapy | 17 (6) | 0 (0) | 4 (4) | 1 (4) | 22 (4) | 0.06*** |
| External beam radiotherapy | 2 (<1) | 1 (<1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 4 (<1) | 0.97*** |
| Clinical diagnosis correlating histopathological diagnosis | 258 (91) | 110 (86) | 46 (46) | 9 (38) | 423 (79) | 0.001***,g |
| Outcome (n = 518)* | ||||||
| Tumor recurrence | 60 (21) | 4 (3) | 8 (8) | 3 (13) | 75 (14) | 0.001***h |
| Locoregional lymph node metastasis | 45 (16) | 1 (<1) | 8 (8) | 6 (26) | 60 (12) | 0.001***i |
| Systemic metastasis | 35 (13) | 0 (0) | 4 (4) | 3 (13) | 42 (8) | 0.001***,j |
| Death due to the disease | 24 (9) | 0 (0) | 4 (4) | 0 (0) | 28 (5) | 0.004***,k |
| Globe salvage | 225 (82) | 116 (94) | 77 (79) | 16 (70) | 434 (84) | 0.72*** |
| Follow-up period, months | 15 (5, <1–185) | 29 (11, <1–273) | 22 (10, <1–149) | 12 (5, <1–83) | 19 (7, <1–273) | na |
Values aren (%) or mean (median, range), as appropriate. SGC, sebaceous gland carcinoma; BCC, basal cell carcinoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma;
18 patients were lost to follow-up after incision biopsy at presentation;
Kruskal-Wallis test;
χ2 test; na, not applicable.
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC and SCC were significantly different from each other (p = 0.003, Mann-Whitney test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SCC (p = 0.004,χ2 test) and SGC (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SGC (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SGC (p = 0.006,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from miscellaneous tumors (p = 0.003,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SCC (p = 0.004,χ2 test) and miscellaneous tumors (p = 0.003,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only SCC was significantly different from SGC (p = 0.001,χ2 test) and BCC (p = 0.005,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only SGC was significantly different from BCC (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test) and SCC (p = 0.012,χ2 test).<
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SGC (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test), SCC (p = 0.007,χ2 test), and miscellaneous tumors (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SGC (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test) and miscellaneous tumors (p &amp;amp;lt; 0.001,χ2 test).
Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed that only BCC was significantly different from SGC (p = 0.001,χ2 test).