Intraepithelial growth pattern for eyelid sebaceous carcinoma: a cohort of 214 patients from a single institution

AimsTo determine the distribution of three different intraepithelial growth patterns (pagetoid, bowenoid and papillary) in eyelid sebaceous carcinoma (SC) and correlate them with the clinical characteristics and prognosis.MethodsA retrospective cohort study. The medical charts and pathological sections were retrospectively reviewed. All eligible patients were followed up for recurrence, metastasis and tumour-related mortality. The clinical significance of each intraepithelial growth pattern was determined by Cox regression.ResultsOf the 214 patients, 67 (31%) presented with intraepithelial invasion, among them, 34 (16%) were pagetoid, 27 (13%) were bowenoid and 6 (2.8%) were papillary. Patients of pagetoid intraepithelial spread showed significantly longer diagnostic delay (p=0.001) and more initial misdiagnoses of blepharitis (p=0.035). After a median follow-up period of 34.0 months, 67 (46%) patients in the non-intraepithelial group, 17 (50%) in the pagetoid group, 8 (30%) in the bowenoid group and 2 (33%) in the papillary group recurred. And 30 (20%) patients in the non-intraepithelial group, 9 (27%) in the pagetoid group and 4 (15%) in the bowenoid group developed metastasis. Moreover, 15 (10%) patients in the non-intraepithelial group, 6 (18%) in the pagetoid group and 1 (3.7%) in the bowenoid group died of SC. Cox regression indicated that pagetoid intraepithelial growth pattern was remarkably associated with increased chances of tumour-related mortality (HR=2.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.64, p=0.026).ConclusionsIntraepithelial tumour invasion was presented in nearly one third of patients with eyelid SC. Pagetoid intraepithelial neoplasia, the predominant growth pattern, significantly increased the risk of tumour-related mortality. Meticulous histopathological intraepithelial examination is recommended for every patient of eyelid SC. Special attention should be paid to those with pagetoid invasion, who may require more intensive managements.

Periocular intraepithelial sebaceous neoplasia: critical appraisal of nomenclature and prognostic importance

Intraepithelial sebaceous neoplasia in the forms (or subclassification) of pagetoid spread and carcinoma in situ is a common feature of periocular sebaceous carcinoma and is associated with less favourable outcomes. Seminal studies of periocular sebaceous carcinoma in the 1980s indicated that the two patterns of intraepithelial spread had differing influences on prognosis with pagetoid invasion being worse. Later studies reported conflicting results, but careful inspection of those studies revealed considerable variation in what was meant by pagetoid invasion. Different interpretations of pagetoid spread continue, leading to ambiguous results in clinical studies and miscommunication with potential unintended decisions affecting clinical management. This paper reviews the background leading to the frequent interchangeable use of pagetoid spread with in situ sebaceous carcinoma and how this problem confounds interpretation of clinical studies. The author recommends that for effective communication, all morphological patterns of in situ spread of sebaceous carcinoma fall under the term intraepithelial sebaceous neoplasia, which can be accompanied by subclassification whenever desired.