Photo Credit: Zelenenka
A recent study found that the accuracy of high-frequency ultrasound was similar to that of pathology for diagnosing basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas.
Findings published in Skin Research & Technology revealed that high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS) can be a highly effective, non-invasive tool for accurately confirming the diagnosis of both basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
Corresponding author Arghavan Azizpour, MD, MPH, and colleagues examined and diagnosed localized manifestations of BCC and SCC using HFUS and compared the results with pathology samples in patients referred to Razi Hospital in Tehran, Iran.
The study enrolled 40 patients; 20 with SCC (80% men, 20% women), and 20 with BCC (65% men, 35% women). The median ages were 59.15 ±11.9 years for patients with SCC and 63.4 ±8.9 years for BCC.
“Exclusion criteria comprised metastatic and recurrent cases, patients who underwent treatment or surgery, and tumors located in anatomically challenging areas,” the authors wrote. “HFUS with a 20 MHz probe and Doppler ultrasound were employed to examine the skin. Tumors were subsequently excised, fixed in formalin, and sent for pathological assessment. Ultrasound findings were compared with pathology results.”
Results revealed that the cheeks were the most common site for pathology sampling for patients with BCC, accounting for 20% (n=5) cases, while the lips were the most common site for SCC, accounting for 35% (n=7).
The researchers observed an elevated degree of correlation between the two methods, with tumor size and depth showing correlations of 0.981 and 0.912 between HFUS and pathology, respectively. The findings concurred with previous studies.
“In patients with BCC, there was complete agreement between sonographic loco‐regional extension and pathology findings. However, some discordance (30%) was observed in SCC cases,” the authors wrote.
“The study demonstrated a strong correlation between ultrasound and pathology in accurately detecting the depth and extent of the tumor. However, due to the inclusion of only patients with positive pathology, it is not appropriate to evaluate the diagnostic test values and compare them with pathology results.”
The authors recommended additional studies with more patients to confirm their findings.
