https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0497-430X
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Perineal extramammary paget’s disease (EMPD) is characterized with high recurrence rate. Although numerous therapeutic measures for this disease have been reported so far, it is unknown whether there is significant difference in their recurrence-preventing efficiency. This study aims to compare the recurrence outcomes of reported perineal EMPD treatments.
Methods
We searched public databases of for published studies concerning perineal EMPD treatments. After screening by inclusion and exclusion criteria, we extracted the data relevant to recurrence rate, and conducted network meta-analysis (NMA) by using Bayesian random-effects approach.
Results
Our analysis included 29 previous studies (involving both male and female patients) and 11 treatment designs which are wide local excision (WLE), local excision (LE), Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), radiotherapy (RT), radical vulvectomy (RV), photodynamic therapy (PDT), lasers (LS), imiquimod, and WLE+RT, WLE+PDT, WLE+LS. Comparing with WLE, the MMS showed significant advantage in reducing recurrence [OR: 0.18 (0.03–0.87)], while none of the rest treatments has statistically significant results. After removing outlier studies, MMS still has the significant advantages [OR: 0.35 (0.11–0.82)], and LE turned to be the treatment with worst performance [OR: 13 (2.50–110)]. Covariance analysis of follow-up length, gender differences, and lesion locations indicated only short follow-up time could affect the recurrence statistics, which tend to conceal the real differences. Funnel plot demonstrated there is no significant small study effect.
Citation: Yuan X, Xue R, Cao X (2023) Network meta-analysis of treatments for perineal extramammary paget’s disease: Focusing on performance of recurrence prevention. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0294152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294152
Editor: Fulvio Borella, University of Turin, S. Anna Hospital, ITALY
Received: August 7, 2023; Accepted: October 25, 2023; Published: November 13, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Yuan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was supported by Scientific Research Project of Shanxi Provincial Health Commission (Grant No.:2022045), and the first author doctor XY received this award. The funders of this work had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Introduction
Extramammary Paget’s disease (EMPD) is a rare refractory cutaneous malignancy, it predominantly affects apocrine gland-bearing skin and occurs preferably in perineal organs such as scrotum, penis and vulva [1–3]. The clinicopathological manifestations of EMPD commonly presents as red scaly lesions accompanied by itchy and painful feelings [1, 4]. Although its progression is indolent and metastasis rarely occurs, EMPD is deemed as a challenging disease due to its stubbornly high recurrence rate [5–7]. Since its first report, the therapeutic approaches of EMPD have been under constant exploration and development. Currently, the documented treatments of EMPD are numerous, diversified, and reported by different studies with outcomes varying from one to each other [4, 8]. However, facing literature in such large quantities, clinicians are struggling to find out which therapy has relatively low recurrence rate and thus is superior to others. To gain better insight into the recurrence-preventing ability of current treatments for EMPD, we here performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) based on previous comparative studies. Through our analysis, we hope to provide reference for clinical decision making of EMPD management and future relevant studies.
Material and methods
Literature search
We searched databases of Pubmed, Embase and Google Scholar for studies published in English between January 1980 and July 2023, by using ‘the searching strings of “((Extramammary Paget’s disease) AND (treatments)) AND (recurrence)”. We also examined reference lists from all included studies, sourced studies from known reviews on the topic, and sought input from expert contacts. The study and protocol have been registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023415693).
Selection criteria
To be eligible for inclusion, 1) studies must be comparative research of at least two EMPD treatments, or observational studies that documented the information of at least two EMPD treatments; 2) the studies must include the basic demographic information (sample size, age, gender ratio, patient number in each treatment group, follow-up time), and details of recurrence (recurrent patients in each treatment group). 3) the studies should be reported original research, clearly described a clinical intervention, and were in the English language.
Exclusion criteria was set as: 1) studies reporting treatments of EMPD patients with metastasis or accompanied by other malignancy; 2) reviews or studies of case reports; 3) studies with eligible sample size fewer than 10 patients; 4) studies reporting EMPD in axilla and other non-perineum areas; 5) studies which have critical risk of bias assessed by ROBINS-I tool (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) [9].
Searching work was conducted by two reviewers (of XY and RX). They also appraised the risk of bias of the results of all studies that met inclusion criteria. Agreement by consensus was reached on the risk of bias for the results of each study. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer (XC).
Data extraction
The following data were extracted from the 29 articles: first author, country, publication year, sample size, mean age, gender ratio, location of lesion (genitals or perianal region), follow-up time, treatment, patients in each treatment group, recurrence in each treatment group.
Statistical analysis
Bayesian random-effects approach with Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation was carried out for the network meta-analysis. Currently, there are several platforms for conducting NMA, and we adopted R software (version 4.0.3) due to the abundance and flexibility of relevant R packages.
Here, in our Bayesian analysis, the package of gemtc [10] and dmetar [11] were used. Following the package instruction, we arranged the study data (including study labels, sample size, treatments, and recurrence in each treatment) into arm-based form. Applying these information, gemtc established the Bayesian hierarchy model (random-effects model) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation (simulating parameters were set as: Iterations = 100000, Thinning interval = 10, Number of chains = 4, Sample size per chain = 10000) to obtain the posterior distribution (prior parameters were set as N (0, 10, 000) and σ ∼ Unif(0, 5)) of the odds ratio for the treatments. Convergence of the MCMC was confirmed by using the gelman.plot and gelman.diag function from the coda package (see in S1 Fig). Network graph, direct/indirect evidence plot, and forest plot were generated by the gemtc package function of network, direct.evidence.plot (dmetar package) and forest, respectively. We ranked treatments by using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) score (which measure the extent of certainty that a treatment is better than another) [12]. Global inconsistency was assessed by comparing deviance information criteria (DIC) statistics between different models [13]. Considering the length of follow-up time may exert influence on recurrence outcome, and differences in gender and location of EMPD may yield different results, we also have conducted subgroup analysis based on follow-up time (≥ 60 months and ˂ 60 months), gender (male and female), and lesion locations (genitals and perianal regions). A comparison adjusted funnel plot was used to assess small study effects, where treatments were ordered by expected novelty. Studies with extreme effects on heterogeneity (outlier studies) were detected by using package NMAoutlier.
Summary measures used were odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI), p value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The detailed R code transcript used in this research has been provided in S1 File.
Results
Characters of included studies
In total, 1172 records were found in our initial searching, the title screening excluded 920 duplicated records, 222 articles were further screened out for unfitting inclusion criteria or with critical risk of bias (see in S1 Table), eventually there are 29 studies left for subsequent analysis (Fig 1A) [14–42]. Among the included studies, 8 therapeutic treatments for EMPD have been identified, which include wide local excision (WLE, with macroscopical surgical margin ≥ 2cm), local excision (LE, with surgical margin < 2cm), Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), radiotherapy (RT), radical vulvectomy (RV), photodynamic therapy (PDT), imiquimod, and lasers (LS). To be noticed, some of the studies have used combined treatments (which are WLE+RT, WLE+PDT, and WLE+LS) as therapeutic measures for EMPD, and they also have been included in our analysis. Therefore, there are 11 treatment designs in total, the relationship between included studies and treatment designs is demonstrated by network graph (Fig 1B).
a: Flow chart of the literature selecting process. b: The overall network of EMPD treatments documented by the included studies. Numbers indicate the number of comparative studies of corresponding treatments. Abbreviations: WLE = Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers.
The 29 articles come from 7 different countries (United States, United Kingdom, China, Japan, Korea, France, and Italy) with publication year spanning from 1990 to 2023. Among them, the smallest sample size includes 10 patients, while the largest has 278 cases. Mean age varies from 60 to 77 years old, and the median follow-up time is 56.7 months. Detailed information of included studies was presented in Table 1.
Recurrence-preventing ability of different EMPD treatments
During the assessment, the WLE treatment was set as the reference, because this surgery is widely recognized as the most traditional and commonly used treating method for EMPD. Comparing with WLE, only the MMS showed significant difference in reducing EMPD recurrence, with OR of 0.18 (CrI: 0.034 to 0.87), while none of the rest treatments has statistically significant results. The detailed outcome has been demonstrated by forest plot in Fig 2A. The SUCRA ranking results also showed that MMS serves to be the best treatment dealing with EMPD recurrence, while LE has the worst performance in this regard (Fig 2B).
a: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of included EMPD treatments (WLE was set as reference treatment). Treatments marked by asterisk show significant difference. b: SUCRA score rank of recurrence-prevention abilities of included EMPD treatments, higher scores indicate better performance on recurrence prevention. Abbreviations: WLE = Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers, CrI = Credible interval, SUCRA = Surface under the cumulative ranking.
Outlier studies detection and NMA results after removing them
In the practices of network meta-analysis, some studies might have markedly different characteristics from others, and may exceed the degree of statistical heterogeneity that can be adequately explained by the random-effects model, and these “extreme” studies are usually referred to as the outlier studies [43]. Incorporating outlier studies often causes substantial bias that sometimes can cover up the real difference. To detect the outliers, we used the tailored package of NMAoutlier [44]. By adopting forward search algorithm, we have identified 3 major variance-producing outliers, which were demonstrated by the plot for ratio of variance (Fig 3A).
a: The radio of variance contributed by individual studies. Red dots indicate the studies with higher radio than the average level. The unlisted studies were set as initial subset for forward search algorithm according to the instruction of NMAoutlier. b: The DIC scores before and after outlier removal. Abbreviations: DIC = Deviance information criteria.
After removing the 3 outlier studies, we conducted NMA once again (also setting WLE as reference) for the remained 23 studies. As expected, the DIC score of current Beyasian model is lower, indicating inconsistence of the model is less than the previous one (Fig 3B). The forest plot in this time demonstrated that MMS (OR: 0.35, CrI: 0.11 to 0.82) and LE (OR: 13.0, CrI: 2.5 to 110) have significant difference comparing with WLE treatment in preventing EMPD recurrence (Fig 4A). SUCRA ranking result also has changed, as WLE+RT climbed to the top and followed by WLE+PDT and MMS, while LE remained in the last place (Fig 4B).
a: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of included EMPD treatments (WLE was set as reference treatment). Treatments marked by asterisk show significant difference. b: SUCRA score rank of recurrence-prevention abilities of included EMPD treatments, higher scores indicate better performance on recurrence prevention. Abbreviations: WLE = Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers, CrI = Credible interval, SUCRA = Surface under the cumulative ranking.
Influence of follow-up length
The variation of covariance from different studies can add heterogeneity of NMA and may impact the magnitude of effect sizes. In our research, we must consider the influence of different follow-up length upon recurrence rates. To check whether such influence exists and causes bias, we divided the outliers-removed studies into two subgroups (follow-up time ≥ 60 months and ˂ 60 months) and used the network meta-regression to conduct subgroup analysis. Results showed that the OR and CI values of the group of longer follow-up time (≥ 60 months) are universally lower than another group (˂ 60 months), presenting a “left-shifting” phenomenon on forest plot (Fig 5). Besides, while LE result is significant in both groups, MMS only has significant result in group of follow-up time ≥ 60 months. Such outcome indicates that follow-up time can influence the effect sizes. If the follow-up length is short (˂ 60 months), it tends to inflate the OR values and cause bias which can cover up the real differences.
a: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of included EMPD treatments with follow-up time ˂ 60 months. b: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of included EMPD treatments with follow-up time ≥ 60 months. WLE was set as reference treatment, and treatments marked by asterisk show significant difference. Abbreviations: WLE = Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers, CrI = Credible interval.
Influence of lesion location and gender differences
Although the EMPD anatomical sites of our study have been confined to perineum, it still involves many different lesion areas such as penis, scrotum, vulva, crissum skin, etc. To investigate whether different lesion locations could lead to different recurrence outcomes, we categorized the frequently documented perineal EMPD lesion locations into genital region (including penis, scrotum and vulva) and perianal region, then conducted subgroup analysis. Similarly, to rule out the potential influence of gender differences, subgroup analysis of the data respectively from male and female patients has also been carried out (RV is not included in the gender subgroup analysis, because it is solely designed and performed for female patients). According to the forest plot (Figs 6 and 7), gender differences and lesion locations have no significant impact on the final result, as the ranges and values of OR and CI in each group showed little changes. All the plots come to the identical conclusion that MMS has the best, while LE owes the worst, recurrence data compared to WLE.
a: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of EMPD treatments for male patients. b: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of EMPD treatments for female patients. WLE was set as the reference treatment, RV was not included as it is solely applied for women. Treatments marked by asterisk show significant difference. Abbreviations: WLE = Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers, CrI = Credible interval.
a: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of EMPD treatments for genital lesions. b: Forest plot for recurrence odds ratio of EMPD treatments for perianal lesions. WLE was set as the reference treatment. Treatments marked by asterisk show significant difference. Abbreviations: WLE = Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers, CrI = Credible interval.
Examine the small study effects by conducting funnel plot.
Comparison-adjusted funnel plots have been widely proposed to evaluate the risk of small-study effects (equal to publication bias here) in network meta-analyses [12]. Our funnel plot is depicted by funnel function of meta package. As shown in Fig 8, the distribution of comparisons is symmetric and p value of Egger’s test is 0.8608, which indicates that the small-study effects are not significant in our research.
Abbreviations: WLE ‐ Wide local excision, LE = Local excision, MMS = Mohs micrographic surgery, RT = Radiotherapy, RV = Radical vulvectomy, PDT = Photodynamic therapy, LS = lasers, CrI = Credible interval.
Discussion
This study is focusing on recurrence outcomes of perineal EMPD treatments (for both male and female patients), our literature searching process has identified 11 treatment designs (WLE, LE, MMS, RT, RV, PDT, Imiquimod, LS, WLE+RT, WLE+PDT, and WLE+LS) of perineal EMPD from the 29 included studies. Among them, imiquimod is a topical cream which emerged as a promising therapy recently [3, 45], and the WLE is acknowledged as the most frequently used method for EMPD [1, 4]. Many scholars believe that the residual minimal lesions scattered around the gross tumour edge are the main cause of postoperational recurrence, so a wider resection margin (defined as > 2cm) is proposed by great majority of clinicians [4, 46]. Considering the universality of WLE in EMPD treatments, we set it as the reference in our NMA and hope to find a better alternative.
During the initial analysis of all the 26 included studies, MMS is shown in forest plot as the only treatment that has significant advantages in reducing EMPD recurrence, and it is also recommended by SUCRA rank as the best intervention in such regard. According to literature background, MMS is the surgical procedure which removes cutaneous tumour in a series of horizontal layers. It is performed by removing a thin margin of tissue circumferentially around and deep to the clinical margins of a skin tumor. The specimen is typically removed with a 45-degree bevel to facilitate tissue processing. It is then rapidly frozen and sectioned in a cryostat microtome, allowing for quick tissue processing (about 15 to 30 minutes). Sectioning the tissue in a horizontal direction allows virtually 100% of the tissue margin (peripheral and deep margins) to be examined under the microscope. The process is repeated until the tumor has negative histologic margins [47]. We believe such characters ensure the maximum removal of diseased tissues and thus give the MMS more advantages than WLE, which is relatively rougher in dealing with underlying lesions.
In the following analysis, 3 outlier studies have been detected and heterogeneity of the Beyasian model shows substantial reduction after removing them (DIC score reduced). A closer re-examination of these 3 studies has discovered confounding factors, which include blending unstated treatments into the control groups (Li, et al [24] Hata, et al [33]) and performing preoperative mapping biopsies to unknown number of patients (Hatta, et al [22]). Excluding these confounders is beneficial for bias control, and thus can bring us closer to the real facts.
NMA was conducted once again for the outlier-removed studies. As shown in forest plot, MMS still shows significant advantages in coping EMPD recurrence, while LE in this time, also has significant result which proves it can lead to higher recurrence rates than WLE. This outcome is within our expectation. The range of LE surgical margins is less than 2cm, such resection coverage gives convenience for wound repairing, but also inevitably omits many residual small lesions which are often present in macroscopically normal tissue and bring high risks of recurrence. As an early surgical method for EMPD, LE is rarely reported in recent studies, and clinicians rather adopt flap repairing to achieve the complete resection of EMPD [4, 48].
The SUCRA rank analysis of outlier-removed studies, however, shows inconsistent result with the forest plot, as WLE+RT and WLE+PDT have higher ranking places than MMS. Facing such conflicts, we think the SUCRA ranking result should be interpreted with caution because SUCRA is a mathematical process that calculates the likelihood of becoming the best treatment, it does not consider the magnitude of differences between interventions and its estimates of different treatments often overlap. Besides, only a few included studies focus on the treatments of WLE+PDT and WLE+RT, which associate with indirect comparisons plus low evidence certainty, and this also gives the SUCRA a flaw basis.
In the final parts, we checked the influence of follow-up length, gender difference, lesion locations and small study effect. Usually, different follow-up times tend to yield different recurrence rates, the subgroup analysis has showed that such case exits in our NMA. Comparing with subgroup of longer follow-up length (≥ 60 months), OR values in the shorter follow-up group (< 60 months) have been universally inflated, and the statistical result of MMS becomes no longer significant, which indicates that inadequate follow-up time may conceal the real differences. For the examination of small study effect, funnel plot with Egger’s test is adopted. Results demonstrated that no obvious small study effect was found.
There are some limitations in our NMA. First, we did not conduct subgroup analysis for different pathologic subtypes of EMPD. According to depth of tumour invasion, EMPD is commonly classified into two types which are intraepithelial (tumour cells are confined to the epithelium) and invasive (tumour cells penetrate the dermis) Paget’s diseases. Different extent of infiltration is probably associated with different risks of recurrence [49]. Unfortunately, we have no adequate data source to verify such hypothesis, due to most of the included studies have not documented detailed information of pathologic subtypes. Secondly, the evidence certainty and study samples of some treatments (such as RT, LS, and PDT) are generally insufficient, which affects the reliability of the corresponding results, we hope this situation could be improved with the increase of relevant studies in future. Finally, it is necessary noting that none of the included studies in our NMA is randomized controlled trial and confidence intervals of estimates are generally wide, these may also weaken the evidence basis and compromise the reliability.
In summary, based on included studies our NMA work reveals that, among the listed candidate treatments, MMS has the best performance on reducing perineal EMPD recurrence, while LE exhibits the worst capability in such regard. Recurrence-preventing abilities of other treatments such as RT, LS, WLE and PDT have no significant difference between each other. More relevant comparative studies with high evidence level and detailed pathologic information are required for verifying and furthering above conclusions.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Risk of bias appraisal of included studies by ROBINS-I tool.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294152.s002
(PDF)
S1 Fig. Convergence test of the MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) simulation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294152.s003
(PDF)
References
- 1. Simonds RM, Segal RJ, Sharma A. Extramammary Paget’s disease: a review of the literature. Int J Dermatol. 2019; 58(8):871–879. pmid:30569580
- 2. Fanning J, Lambert HC, Hale TM, Morris PC, Schuerch C. Paget’s disease of the vulva: prevalence of associated vulvar adenocarcinoma, invasive Paget’s disease, and recurrence after surgical excision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180(1 Pt 1):24–7. pmid:9914572
- 3. Borella F, Preti M, Vieira-Baptista P, Pérez-López FR, Bertero L, Gallio N, et al. Vulvar Paget’s disease: outcomes of 51 patients treated with imiquimod cream. Maturitas. 2022; 163:23–27. pmid:35661559
- 4. Ito T, Kaku-Ito Y, Furue M. The diagnosis and management of extramammary Paget’s disease. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018; 18(6):543–553. pmid:29575944
- 5. Scarbrough CA, Vrable A, Carr DR. Definition, Association with Malignancy, Biologic Behavior, and Treatment of Ectopic Extramammary Paget’s Disease: A Review of the Literature. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019; 12(8):40–44. pmid:31531170
- 6. Morris CR, Hurst EA. Extramammary Paget’s Disease: A Review of the Literature Part II: Treatment and Prognosis. Dermatol Surg. 2020; 46(3):305–311. pmid:31688232
- 7. Black D, Tornos C, Soslow RA, Awtrey CS, Barakat RR, Chi DS. The outcomes of patients with positive margins after excision for intraepithelial Paget’s disease of the vulva. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 104(3):547–50. pmid:17067662
- 8. Onaiwu CO, Salcedo MP, Pessini SA, Munsell MF, Euscher EE, Reed KE, et al. Paget’s disease of the vulva: A review of 89 cases. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2016; 19:46–49. pmid:28124023
- 9. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355:i4919. pmid:27733354
- 10. van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012; 3(4):285–99. pmid:26053422
- 11. Gonzalez-Diaz JM, Radua J, Sanchez-Dalmau B, Camos-Carreras A, Zamora DC, Bernardo M. Mapping Retinal Abnormalities in Psychosis: Meta-analytical Evidence for Focal Peripapillary and Macular Reductions. Schizophr Bull. 2022; 48(6):1194–1205. pmid:35810337
- 12. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(2):163–71. pmid:20688472
- 13. Shriner D, Yi N. Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) in Bayesian Multiple QTL Mapping. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009; 53(5):1850–1860. pmid:20161286
- 14. Long B, Schmitt AR, Weaver AL, McGree M, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Brewer J, et al. A matter of margins: Surgical and pathologic risk factors for recurrence in extramammary Paget’s disease. Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 147(2):358–363. pmid:28935274
- 15. Lee SJ, Choe YS, Jung HD, Ahn SK, Cha YC, Cho KH, et al. A multicenter study on extramammary Paget’s disease in Korea. Int J Dermatol. 2011; 50(5):508–15. pmid:21506963
- 16. Wang HW, Lv T, Zhang LL, et al. A prospective pilot study to evaluate combined topical photodynamic therapy and surgery for extramammary paget’s disease. Lasers Surg Med. 2013; 45(5):296–301. pmid:23740664
- 17. O’Connor WJ, Lim KK, Zalla MJ, Gagnot M, Otley CC, Nguyen TH, et al. Comparison of mohs micrographic surgery and wide excision for extramammary Paget’s disease. Dermatol Surg. 2003; 29(7):723–7. pmid:12828695
- 18. Lee KY, Roh MR, Chung WG, Chung KY. Comparison of Mohs micrographic surgery and wide excision for extramammary Paget’s Disease: Korean experience. Dermatol Surg. 2009; 35(1):34–40. pmid:19018812
- 19. Gao Y, Zhang XC, Wang WS, Yang Y, Wang HL, Lu YG, et al. Efficacy and safety of topical ALA-PDT in the treatment of EMPD. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2015; 12(1):92–7. pmid:25479094
- 20. Nitecki R, Davis M, Watkins JC, Wu YE, Vitonis AF, Muto MG, et al. Extramammary Paget Disease of the Vulva: A Case Series Examining Treatment, Recurrence, and Malignant Transformation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018; 28(3):632–638. pmid:29324542
- 21. Wong SY, Ko WL, Cheung TH. Extramammary Paget’s disease: Surgical control from the plastic surgery perspective. Surg Pract. 2016, 20(3):110–113.
- 22. Hatta N, Yamada M, Hirano T, Fujimoto A, Morita R. Extramammary Paget’s disease: treatment, prognostic factors and outcome in 76 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2008; 158(2):313–8. pmid:18028492
- 23. Marchesa P, Fazio VW, Oliart S, Goldblum JR, Lavery IC, Milsom JW. Long-term outcome of patients with perianal Paget’s disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997; 4(6):475–80. pmid:9309336
- 24. Li L, Wang C, Wei M, Huang Q, Wei L, Pan N, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery combined local flaps in treatment of EMPD: A retrospective case. Dermatol Ther. 2018; 31(5):e12663. pmid:30028568
- 25. Shaco-Levy R, Bean SM, Vollmer RT, Jewell E, Jones EL, Valdes CL, et al. Paget disease of the vulva: a study of 56 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010; 149(1):86–91. pmid:19969410
- 26. Sarmiento JM, Wolff BG, Burgart LJ, Frizelle FA, Ilstrup DM. Paget’s disease of the perianal region—an aggressive disease? Dis Colon Rectum. 1997; 40(10):1187–94. pmid:9336114
- 27. Tebes S, Cardosi R, Hoffman M. Paget’s disease of the vulva. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187(2):281–3; discussion 283–4. pmid:12193912
- 28. Curtin JP, Rubin SC, Jones WB, Hoskins WJ, Lewis JL Jr. Paget’s disease of the vulva. Gynecol Oncol. 1990; 39(3):374–7. pmid:2175288
- 29. Louis-Sylvestre C, Haddad B, Paniel BJ. Paget’s disease of the vulva: results of different conservative treatments. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 99(2):253–5. pmid:11788182
- 30. Hegarty PK, Suh J, Fisher MB, Taylor J, Nguyen TH, Ivan D, et al. Penoscrotal extramammary Paget’s disease: the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center contemporary experience. J Urol. 2011; 186(1):97–102. pmid:21571343
- 31. Isik O, Aytac E, Brainard J, Valente MA, Abbas MA, Gorgun E. Perianal Paget’s disease: three decades experience of a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31(1):29–34. pmid:26260479
- 32. Cai Y, Sheng W, Xiang L, Wu X, Yang H. Primary extramammary Paget’s disease of the vulva: the clinicopathological features and treatment outcomes in a series of 43 patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 129(2):412–6. pmid:23454498
- 33. Hata M, Koike I, Wada H, Miyagi E, Kasuya T, Kaizu H, et al. Radiation therapy for extramammary Paget’s disease: treatment outcomes and prognostic factors. Ann Oncol. 2014; 25(1):291–7. pmid:24299962
- 34. Itonaga T, Nakayama H, Okubo M, Mikami R, Nogi S, Tajima Y, et al. Radiotherapy in patients with extramammary Paget’s disease—our own experience and review of the literature. Oncol Res Treat. 2014; 37(1–2):18–22. pmid:24613904
- 35. Hata M, Omura M, Koike I, Wada H, Miyagi E, Tayama Y, et al. Role of radiotherapy as curative treatment of extramammary Paget’s disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 80(1):47–54. pmid:20951507
- 36. Kim SJ, Thompson AK, Zubair AS, Otley CC, Arpey CJ, Baum CL, et al. Surgical Treatment and Outcomes of Patients With Extramammary Paget Disease: A Cohort Study. Dermatol Surg. 2017; 43(5):708–714. pmid:28178005
- 37. Zollo JD, Zeitouni NC. The Roswell Park Cancer Institute experience with extramammary Paget’s disease. Br J Dermatol. 2000 Jan;142(1):59–65. pmid:10651695
- 38. De Magnis A, Checcucci V, Catalano C, Corazzesi A, Pieralli A, Taddei G, et al. Vulvar paget disease: a large single-centre experience on clinical presentation, surgical treatment, and long-term outcomes. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013; 17(2):104–10. pmid:23519285
- 39. Navarrete-Dechent C, Aleissa S, Cordova M, Hibler BP, Erlendsson AM, Polansky M, et al. Treatment of Extramammary Paget Disease and the Role of Reflectance Confocal Microscopy: A Prospective Study. Dermatol Surg. 2021; 47(4):473–479. pmid:33625139
- 40. Choi S, Oh Y, Roh MR, Chung KY, Oh BH. Initial topical monotherapy may increase the risk of recurrence in patients with extramammary Paget’s disease. J Dermatol. 2021; 48(5):585–591. pmid:33666282
- 41. Christodoulidou M, Alnajjar HM, Parnham A, Khetrapal P, Freeman A, Haider A, et al. Multidisciplinary Approach for the Management of Penoscrotal Extramammary Paget’s disease -An eUROGEN study. Urol Oncol. 2021; 39(8):501.e1-501.e10. pmid:34193377
- 42. Chung PH, Kampp JT, Voelzke BB. Patients’ Experiences With Extramammary Paget Disease: An Online Pilot Study Querying a Patient Support Group. Urology. 2018 Jan;111:214–219. pmid:28893632
- 43. Noma H, Gosho M, Ishii R, Oba K, Furukawa TA. Outlier detection and influence diagnostics in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2020; 11(6):891–902. pmid:32921002
- 44. Petropoulou M, Salanti G, Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Moustaki I, Mavridis D. A forward search algorithm for detecting extreme study effects in network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2021; 40(25):5642–5656. pmid:34291499
- 45. van der Linden M, van Hees CL, van Beurden M, Bulten J, van Dorst EB, Esajas MD, et al. The Paget Trial: topical 5% imiquimod cream for noninvasive vulvar Paget disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 227(2):250.e1-250.e8. pmid:35447145
- 46. Preti M, Joura E, Vieira-Baptista P, Van Beurden M, Bevilacqua F, Bleeker MCG, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD) and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) consensus statements on pre-invasive vulvar lesions. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022 Jul 4;32(7):830–845. pmid:35728950
- 47. Mansouri B, Bicknell LM, Hill D, Walker GD, Fiala K, Housewright C. Mohs Micrographic Surgery for the Management of Cutaneous Malignancies. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2017; 25(3):291–301. pmid:28676157
- 48. Zhang J, Zhang J, Zhang J, Xiao X, Su Z, Liu M, et al. Experiences with Surgical Reconstruction of Penoscrotal Extramammary Paget’s Disease: A review of 21 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020; 73(9):1700–1705. pmid:32563670
- 49. Preti M, Micheletti L, Borella F, Cosma S, Marrazzu A, Gallio N, et al. Vulvar Paget’s disease and stromal invasion: Clinico-pathological features and survival outcomes. Surg Oncol. 2021; 38:101581. pmid:33892433