Thomas L.H. Hocker, MD

Cutaneous angiosarcoma (cAS) is a rare malignancy arising from vascular or lymphatic tissue. It classically presents during the sixth or seventh decades of life as a raised purple papule or plaque on the head and neck areas.¹ Primary cAS frequently mimics benign conditions, leading to delays in care. Such delays coupled with the aggressive nature of angiosarcomas leads to a poor prognosis. Five-year survival rates range from 11% to 50%, and more than half of patients die within 1 year of diagnosis.^2-7

Currently, there is no consensus on the most effective treatments, as the rare nature of cAS has made the development of controlled clinical trials difficult. Wide local excision (WLE) is most frequently employed; however, the tumor’s infiltrative growth makes complete resection and negative surgical margins difficult to achieve.⁸ Recently, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been postulated as a treatment option. The tissue-sparing nature and intraoperative margin control of MMS may provide tumor eradication and cosmesis benefits reported with other cutaneous malignancies.⁹

Nearly all localized cASs are treated with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment modalities; however, it is unclear which of these modalities provide a survival benefit. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare treatment modalities for localized cAS of the head and neck regions and to compare treatments based on tumor stage.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published studies indexed by MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and PubMed from January 1, 1977, to May 8, 2020, reporting on cAS and treatment modalities used. The search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.⁵ Data extracted included patient demographics, tumor characteristics (including T1 [≤5 cm] and T2 [>5 cm and ≤10 cm] based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer soft tissue sarcoma staging criteria), treatments used, follow-up time, overall survival (OS) rates, and complications.^10,11

Studies were required to (1) include participants with head and neck cAS; (2) report original patient data following cAS treatment with surgical (WLE or MMS) and/or nonsurgical modalities (chemotherapy [CT], radiotherapy [RT], immunotherapy [IT]); (3) report outcome data related to OS rates following treatment; and (4) have articles published in English. Given the rare nature of cAS, there was no limitation on the number of participants needed.

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of studies.¹² Higher scores indicate low risk of bias, while lower scores represent high risk of bias.

Continuous data were reported with means and SDs, while categorical variables were reported as percentages. Overall survival means and SDs were compared between treatment modalities using an independent sample t test with P<.05 considered statistically significant. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not reported.

RESULTS

Literature Search and Risk of Bias Assessment

There were 283 manuscripts identified, 56 articles read in full, and 40 articles included in the review (Figure). Among the 16 studies not meeting inclusion criteria, 7 did not provide enough data to isolate head and neck cAS cases,^1,13-18 6 did not report outcomes related to the current review,^19-24 and 3 did not provide enough data to isolate different treatment outcomes.^25-27 Among the included studies, 32 reported use of WLE: WLE alone (n=21)^2,7,11,28-45; WLE with RT (n=24)^{2,3,11,28-31,33-36,38-41,43-51}; WLE with CT (n=7)^{2,31,35,39,41,48,52}; WLE with RT and CT (n=11)^{2,29,31,33-35,39,40,48,52,53}; WLE with RT and IT (n=3)^35,54,55; and WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=1).⁵³ Nine studies reported MMS: MMS alone (n=5)^39,56-59; MMS with RT (n=3)^32,50,60,61; and MMS with RT and CT (n=1).⁵¹

Risk of bias assessment identified low risk in 3 articles. High risk was identified in 5 case reports,^57-61 and 1 study did not describe patient selection.⁴³ Clayton et al⁵⁶ showed intermediate risk, given the study controlled for 1 factor.

Patient Demographics

A total of 1295 patients were included. The pooled mean age of the patients was 67.5 years (range, 3–88 years), and 64.7% were male. There were 79 cases identified as T1 and 105 as T2. A total of 825 cases were treated using WLE with or without adjuvant therapy, while a total of 9 cases were treated using MMS with and without adjuvant therapies (Table). There were 461 cases treated without surgical excision: RT alone (n=261), CT alone (n=38), IT alone (n=35), RT with CT (n=81), RT with IT (n=34), and RT with CT and IT (n=12)(Table). The median follow-up period across all studies was 23.5 months (range, 1–228 months).

Comparison Between Surgical and Nonsurgical Modalities

Wide Local Excision—Wide local excision (n=825; 63.7%) alone or in combination with other therapies was the most frequently used treatment modality. The mean (SD) OS was longest for WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=3; 39.3 [24.1]), followed by WLE with RT (n=447; 35.9 [34.3] months), WLE with CT (n=13; 32.4 [30.2] months), WLE alone (n=324; 29.6 [34.1] months), WLE with RT and IT (n=11; 23.5 [4.9] months), and WLE with RT and CT (n=27; 20.7 [13.1] months).

Nonsurgical Modalities—Nonsurgical methods were used less frequently than surgical methods (n=461; 35.6%). The mean (SD) OS time in descending order was as follows: RT with CT and IT (n=12; 34.9 [1.2] months), RT with CT (n=81; 30.4 [37.8] months), IT alone (n=35; 25.7 [no SD reported] months), RT with IT (n=34; 20.5 [8.6] months), CT alone (n=38; 20.1 [15.9] months), and RT alone (n=261; 12.8 [8.3] months).

When comparing mean (SD) OS outcomes between surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities, only the addition of WLE to RT significantly increased OS when compared with RT alone (WLE, 35.9 [34.3] months; RT alone, 12.8 [8.3] months; P=.001). When WLE was added to CT or both RT and CT, there was no significant difference with OS when compared with CT alone (WLE with CT, 32.4 [30.2] months; CT alone, 20.1 [15.9] months; P=.065); or both RT and CT in combination (WLE with RT and CT, 20.7 [13.1] months; RT and CT, 30.4 [37.8] months; P=.204).

Comparison Between T1 and T2 cAS

T1 Angiosarcoma—There were 79 patients identified as having T1 tumors across 16 studies.^{2,31,32,34,39-41,46,48-50,53,58-60,62} The mean (SD) OS was longest for WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=2; 56.0 [6.0] months), followed by WLE with CT (n=4; 54.5 [41.0] months); WLE with RT (n=30; 39.7 [41.2] months); WLE alone (n=22; 37.2 [37.3] months); WLE with both RT and CT (n=7; 25.5 [18.7] months); RT with IT (n=2; 20.0 [11.0] months); RT with CT (n=6; 15.7 [6.8] months); and RT alone (n=1; 13 [no SD]) months)(eTable).

T2 Angiosarcoma—There were 105 patients with T2 tumors in 15 studies.^{2,31,32,34,39-41,46,48-50,52,53,57,62} The mean (SD) OS for each treatment modality in descending order was as follows: RT with CT and IT (n=1; 36 [no SD reported] months); RT with CT (n=23; 34.3 [46.3] months); WLE with RT (n=21; 26.3 [23.8] months); WLE with CT (n=8; 21.5 [16.6] months); WLE alone (n=16; 19.8 [15.6] months); WLE with RT and CT (n=14; 19.2 [10.5] months); RT alone (n=17; 10.1 [5.5] months); CT alone (n=2; 6.7 [3.7] months); and WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=1; 6.0 [no SD] months)(eTable).

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—The use of MMS was only identified in case reports or small observational studies for a total of 9 patients. Five cASs were treated with MMS alone for a mean (SD) OS of 37 (21.5) months, with 4 reporting cAS staging: 2 were T1^58,59 (mean [SD] OS, 37.0 [17.0] months) and 2 were T2 tumors^39,57 (mean [SD] OS, 44.5 [26.5] months). Mohs micrographic surgery with RT was used for 3 tumors (mean [SD] OS, 34.0 [26.9] months); 2 were T1^50,60 (mean [SD] OS, 42.0 [30.0] months) and 1 unreported staging (eTable).⁵⁶ Mohs micrographic surgery with both RT and CT was used in 1 patient (unreported staging; OS, 82 months).⁵¹

Complications

Complications were rare and mainly associated with CT and RT. Four studies reported radiation dermatitis with RT.^53,55,62,63 Two studies reported peripheral neuropathy and myelotoxicity with CT.^35,51 Only 1 study reported poor wound healing due to surgical complications.²⁹

COMMENT

Cutaneous angiosarcomas are rare and have limited treatment guidelines. Surgical excision does appear to be an effective adjunct to nonsurgical treatments, particularly WLE combined with RT, CT, and IT. Although MMS ultimately may be useful for cAS, the limited number and substantial heterogeneity of reported cases precludes definitive conclusions at this time.

Achieving margin control during WLE is associated with higher OS when treating angiosarcoma,^36,46 which is particularly true for T1 tumors where margin control is imperative, and many cases are treated with a combination of WLE and RT. Overall survival times are lower for T2 tumors, as these tumors are larger and most likely have spread; therefore, more aggressive combination treatments were more prevalent. In these cases, complete margin control may be difficult to achieve and may not be as critical to the outcome if another form of adjuvant therapy can be administered promptly.^24,64

When surgery is contraindicated, RT with or without CT was the most commonly reported treatment modality. However, these treatments were notably less effective than when used in combination with surgical resection. The use of RT alone has a recurrence rate reported up to 100% in certain studies, suggesting the need to utilize RT in combination with other modalities.^23,39 It is important to note that RT often is used as monotherapy in palliative treatment, which may indirectly skew survival rates.²

Limitations of the study include a lack of randomized controlled trials. Most reports were retrospective reviews or case series, and tumor staging was sparsely reported. Finally, although MMS may provide utility in the treatment of cAS, the sample size of 9 precluded definitive conclusions from being formed about its efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is rare and has limited data comparing different treatment modalities. The paucity of data currently limits definitive recommendations; however, both surgical and nonsurgical modalities have demonstrated potential efficacy in the treatment of cAS and may benefit from additional research. Clinicians should consider a multidisciplinary approach for patients with a diagnosis of cAS to tailor treatments on a case-by-case basis.

Cutaneous angiosarcoma (cAS) is a rare malignancy arising from vascular or lymphatic tissue. It classically presents during the sixth or seventh decades of life as a raised purple papule or plaque on the head and neck areas.¹ Primary cAS frequently mimics benign conditions, leading to delays in care. Such delays coupled with the aggressive nature of angiosarcomas leads to a poor prognosis. Five-year survival rates range from 11% to 50%, and more than half of patients die within 1 year of diagnosis.^2-7

Currently, there is no consensus on the most effective treatments, as the rare nature of cAS has made the development of controlled clinical trials difficult. Wide local excision (WLE) is most frequently employed; however, the tumor’s infiltrative growth makes complete resection and negative surgical margins difficult to achieve.⁸ Recently, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been postulated as a treatment option. The tissue-sparing nature and intraoperative margin control of MMS may provide tumor eradication and cosmesis benefits reported with other cutaneous malignancies.⁹

Nearly all localized cASs are treated with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment modalities; however, it is unclear which of these modalities provide a survival benefit. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare treatment modalities for localized cAS of the head and neck regions and to compare treatments based on tumor stage.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published studies indexed by MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and PubMed from January 1, 1977, to May 8, 2020, reporting on cAS and treatment modalities used. The search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.⁵ Data extracted included patient demographics, tumor characteristics (including T1 [≤5 cm] and T2 [>5 cm and ≤10 cm] based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer soft tissue sarcoma staging criteria), treatments used, follow-up time, overall survival (OS) rates, and complications.^10,11

Studies were required to (1) include participants with head and neck cAS; (2) report original patient data following cAS treatment with surgical (WLE or MMS) and/or nonsurgical modalities (chemotherapy [CT], radiotherapy [RT], immunotherapy [IT]); (3) report outcome data related to OS rates following treatment; and (4) have articles published in English. Given the rare nature of cAS, there was no limitation on the number of participants needed.

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of studies.¹² Higher scores indicate low risk of bias, while lower scores represent high risk of bias.

Continuous data were reported with means and SDs, while categorical variables were reported as percentages. Overall survival means and SDs were compared between treatment modalities using an independent sample t test with P<.05 considered statistically significant. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not reported.

RESULTS

Literature Search and Risk of Bias Assessment

There were 283 manuscripts identified, 56 articles read in full, and 40 articles included in the review (Figure). Among the 16 studies not meeting inclusion criteria, 7 did not provide enough data to isolate head and neck cAS cases,^1,13-18 6 did not report outcomes related to the current review,^19-24 and 3 did not provide enough data to isolate different treatment outcomes.^25-27 Among the included studies, 32 reported use of WLE: WLE alone (n=21)^2,7,11,28-45; WLE with RT (n=24)^{2,3,11,28-31,33-36,38-41,43-51}; WLE with CT (n=7)^{2,31,35,39,41,48,52}; WLE with RT and CT (n=11)^{2,29,31,33-35,39,40,48,52,53}; WLE with RT and IT (n=3)^35,54,55; and WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=1).⁵³ Nine studies reported MMS: MMS alone (n=5)^39,56-59; MMS with RT (n=3)^32,50,60,61; and MMS with RT and CT (n=1).⁵¹

Risk of bias assessment identified low risk in 3 articles. High risk was identified in 5 case reports,^57-61 and 1 study did not describe patient selection.⁴³ Clayton et al⁵⁶ showed intermediate risk, given the study controlled for 1 factor.

Patient Demographics

A total of 1295 patients were included. The pooled mean age of the patients was 67.5 years (range, 3–88 years), and 64.7% were male. There were 79 cases identified as T1 and 105 as T2. A total of 825 cases were treated using WLE with or without adjuvant therapy, while a total of 9 cases were treated using MMS with and without adjuvant therapies (Table). There were 461 cases treated without surgical excision: RT alone (n=261), CT alone (n=38), IT alone (n=35), RT with CT (n=81), RT with IT (n=34), and RT with CT and IT (n=12)(Table). The median follow-up period across all studies was 23.5 months (range, 1–228 months).

Comparison Between Surgical and Nonsurgical Modalities

Wide Local Excision—Wide local excision (n=825; 63.7%) alone or in combination with other therapies was the most frequently used treatment modality. The mean (SD) OS was longest for WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=3; 39.3 [24.1]), followed by WLE with RT (n=447; 35.9 [34.3] months), WLE with CT (n=13; 32.4 [30.2] months), WLE alone (n=324; 29.6 [34.1] months), WLE with RT and IT (n=11; 23.5 [4.9] months), and WLE with RT and CT (n=27; 20.7 [13.1] months).

Nonsurgical Modalities—Nonsurgical methods were used less frequently than surgical methods (n=461; 35.6%). The mean (SD) OS time in descending order was as follows: RT with CT and IT (n=12; 34.9 [1.2] months), RT with CT (n=81; 30.4 [37.8] months), IT alone (n=35; 25.7 [no SD reported] months), RT with IT (n=34; 20.5 [8.6] months), CT alone (n=38; 20.1 [15.9] months), and RT alone (n=261; 12.8 [8.3] months).

When comparing mean (SD) OS outcomes between surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities, only the addition of WLE to RT significantly increased OS when compared with RT alone (WLE, 35.9 [34.3] months; RT alone, 12.8 [8.3] months; P=.001). When WLE was added to CT or both RT and CT, there was no significant difference with OS when compared with CT alone (WLE with CT, 32.4 [30.2] months; CT alone, 20.1 [15.9] months; P=.065); or both RT and CT in combination (WLE with RT and CT, 20.7 [13.1] months; RT and CT, 30.4 [37.8] months; P=.204).

Comparison Between T1 and T2 cAS

T1 Angiosarcoma—There were 79 patients identified as having T1 tumors across 16 studies.^{2,31,32,34,39-41,46,48-50,53,58-60,62} The mean (SD) OS was longest for WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=2; 56.0 [6.0] months), followed by WLE with CT (n=4; 54.5 [41.0] months); WLE with RT (n=30; 39.7 [41.2] months); WLE alone (n=22; 37.2 [37.3] months); WLE with both RT and CT (n=7; 25.5 [18.7] months); RT with IT (n=2; 20.0 [11.0] months); RT with CT (n=6; 15.7 [6.8] months); and RT alone (n=1; 13 [no SD]) months)(eTable).

T2 Angiosarcoma—There were 105 patients with T2 tumors in 15 studies.^{2,31,32,34,39-41,46,48-50,52,53,57,62} The mean (SD) OS for each treatment modality in descending order was as follows: RT with CT and IT (n=1; 36 [no SD reported] months); RT with CT (n=23; 34.3 [46.3] months); WLE with RT (n=21; 26.3 [23.8] months); WLE with CT (n=8; 21.5 [16.6] months); WLE alone (n=16; 19.8 [15.6] months); WLE with RT and CT (n=14; 19.2 [10.5] months); RT alone (n=17; 10.1 [5.5] months); CT alone (n=2; 6.7 [3.7] months); and WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=1; 6.0 [no SD] months)(eTable).

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—The use of MMS was only identified in case reports or small observational studies for a total of 9 patients. Five cASs were treated with MMS alone for a mean (SD) OS of 37 (21.5) months, with 4 reporting cAS staging: 2 were T1^58,59 (mean [SD] OS, 37.0 [17.0] months) and 2 were T2 tumors^39,57 (mean [SD] OS, 44.5 [26.5] months). Mohs micrographic surgery with RT was used for 3 tumors (mean [SD] OS, 34.0 [26.9] months); 2 were T1^50,60 (mean [SD] OS, 42.0 [30.0] months) and 1 unreported staging (eTable).⁵⁶ Mohs micrographic surgery with both RT and CT was used in 1 patient (unreported staging; OS, 82 months).⁵¹

Complications

Complications were rare and mainly associated with CT and RT. Four studies reported radiation dermatitis with RT.^53,55,62,63 Two studies reported peripheral neuropathy and myelotoxicity with CT.^35,51 Only 1 study reported poor wound healing due to surgical complications.²⁹

COMMENT

Cutaneous angiosarcomas are rare and have limited treatment guidelines. Surgical excision does appear to be an effective adjunct to nonsurgical treatments, particularly WLE combined with RT, CT, and IT. Although MMS ultimately may be useful for cAS, the limited number and substantial heterogeneity of reported cases precludes definitive conclusions at this time.

Achieving margin control during WLE is associated with higher OS when treating angiosarcoma,^36,46 which is particularly true for T1 tumors where margin control is imperative, and many cases are treated with a combination of WLE and RT. Overall survival times are lower for T2 tumors, as these tumors are larger and most likely have spread; therefore, more aggressive combination treatments were more prevalent. In these cases, complete margin control may be difficult to achieve and may not be as critical to the outcome if another form of adjuvant therapy can be administered promptly.^24,64

When surgery is contraindicated, RT with or without CT was the most commonly reported treatment modality. However, these treatments were notably less effective than when used in combination with surgical resection. The use of RT alone has a recurrence rate reported up to 100% in certain studies, suggesting the need to utilize RT in combination with other modalities.^23,39 It is important to note that RT often is used as monotherapy in palliative treatment, which may indirectly skew survival rates.²

Limitations of the study include a lack of randomized controlled trials. Most reports were retrospective reviews or case series, and tumor staging was sparsely reported. Finally, although MMS may provide utility in the treatment of cAS, the sample size of 9 precluded definitive conclusions from being formed about its efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is rare and has limited data comparing different treatment modalities. The paucity of data currently limits definitive recommendations; however, both surgical and nonsurgical modalities have demonstrated potential efficacy in the treatment of cAS and may benefit from additional research. Clinicians should consider a multidisciplinary approach for patients with a diagnosis of cAS to tailor treatments on a case-by-case basis.

Cutaneous angiosarcoma (cAS) is a rare malignancy arising from vascular or lymphatic tissue. It classically presents during the sixth or seventh decades of life as a raised purple papule or plaque on the head and neck areas.¹ Primary cAS frequently mimics benign conditions, leading to delays in care. Such delays coupled with the aggressive nature of angiosarcomas leads to a poor prognosis. Five-year survival rates range from 11% to 50%, and more than half of patients die within 1 year of diagnosis.^2-7

Currently, there is no consensus on the most effective treatments, as the rare nature of cAS has made the development of controlled clinical trials difficult. Wide local excision (WLE) is most frequently employed; however, the tumor’s infiltrative growth makes complete resection and negative surgical margins difficult to achieve.⁸ Recently, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been postulated as a treatment option. The tissue-sparing nature and intraoperative margin control of MMS may provide tumor eradication and cosmesis benefits reported with other cutaneous malignancies.⁹

Nearly all localized cASs are treated with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment modalities; however, it is unclear which of these modalities provide a survival benefit. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare treatment modalities for localized cAS of the head and neck regions and to compare treatments based on tumor stage.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published studies indexed by MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and PubMed from January 1, 1977, to May 8, 2020, reporting on cAS and treatment modalities used. The search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.⁵ Data extracted included patient demographics, tumor characteristics (including T1 [≤5 cm] and T2 [>5 cm and ≤10 cm] based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer soft tissue sarcoma staging criteria), treatments used, follow-up time, overall survival (OS) rates, and complications.^10,11

Studies were required to (1) include participants with head and neck cAS; (2) report original patient data following cAS treatment with surgical (WLE or MMS) and/or nonsurgical modalities (chemotherapy [CT], radiotherapy [RT], immunotherapy [IT]); (3) report outcome data related to OS rates following treatment; and (4) have articles published in English. Given the rare nature of cAS, there was no limitation on the number of participants needed.

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of studies.¹² Higher scores indicate low risk of bias, while lower scores represent high risk of bias.

Continuous data were reported with means and SDs, while categorical variables were reported as percentages. Overall survival means and SDs were compared between treatment modalities using an independent sample t test with P<.05 considered statistically significant. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not reported.

RESULTS

Literature Search and Risk of Bias Assessment

There were 283 manuscripts identified, 56 articles read in full, and 40 articles included in the review (Figure). Among the 16 studies not meeting inclusion criteria, 7 did not provide enough data to isolate head and neck cAS cases,^1,13-18 6 did not report outcomes related to the current review,^19-24 and 3 did not provide enough data to isolate different treatment outcomes.^25-27 Among the included studies, 32 reported use of WLE: WLE alone (n=21)^2,7,11,28-45; WLE with RT (n=24)^{2,3,11,28-31,33-36,38-41,43-51}; WLE with CT (n=7)^{2,31,35,39,41,48,52}; WLE with RT and CT (n=11)^{2,29,31,33-35,39,40,48,52,53}; WLE with RT and IT (n=3)^35,54,55; and WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=1).⁵³ Nine studies reported MMS: MMS alone (n=5)^39,56-59; MMS with RT (n=3)^32,50,60,61; and MMS with RT and CT (n=1).⁵¹

Risk of bias assessment identified low risk in 3 articles. High risk was identified in 5 case reports,^57-61 and 1 study did not describe patient selection.⁴³ Clayton et al⁵⁶ showed intermediate risk, given the study controlled for 1 factor.

Patient Demographics

A total of 1295 patients were included. The pooled mean age of the patients was 67.5 years (range, 3–88 years), and 64.7% were male. There were 79 cases identified as T1 and 105 as T2. A total of 825 cases were treated using WLE with or without adjuvant therapy, while a total of 9 cases were treated using MMS with and without adjuvant therapies (Table). There were 461 cases treated without surgical excision: RT alone (n=261), CT alone (n=38), IT alone (n=35), RT with CT (n=81), RT with IT (n=34), and RT with CT and IT (n=12)(Table). The median follow-up period across all studies was 23.5 months (range, 1–228 months).

Comparison Between Surgical and Nonsurgical Modalities

Wide Local Excision—Wide local excision (n=825; 63.7%) alone or in combination with other therapies was the most frequently used treatment modality. The mean (SD) OS was longest for WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=3; 39.3 [24.1]), followed by WLE with RT (n=447; 35.9 [34.3] months), WLE with CT (n=13; 32.4 [30.2] months), WLE alone (n=324; 29.6 [34.1] months), WLE with RT and IT (n=11; 23.5 [4.9] months), and WLE with RT and CT (n=27; 20.7 [13.1] months).

Nonsurgical Modalities—Nonsurgical methods were used less frequently than surgical methods (n=461; 35.6%). The mean (SD) OS time in descending order was as follows: RT with CT and IT (n=12; 34.9 [1.2] months), RT with CT (n=81; 30.4 [37.8] months), IT alone (n=35; 25.7 [no SD reported] months), RT with IT (n=34; 20.5 [8.6] months), CT alone (n=38; 20.1 [15.9] months), and RT alone (n=261; 12.8 [8.3] months).

When comparing mean (SD) OS outcomes between surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities, only the addition of WLE to RT significantly increased OS when compared with RT alone (WLE, 35.9 [34.3] months; RT alone, 12.8 [8.3] months; P=.001). When WLE was added to CT or both RT and CT, there was no significant difference with OS when compared with CT alone (WLE with CT, 32.4 [30.2] months; CT alone, 20.1 [15.9] months; P=.065); or both RT and CT in combination (WLE with RT and CT, 20.7 [13.1] months; RT and CT, 30.4 [37.8] months; P=.204).

Comparison Between T1 and T2 cAS

T1 Angiosarcoma—There were 79 patients identified as having T1 tumors across 16 studies.^{2,31,32,34,39-41,46,48-50,53,58-60,62} The mean (SD) OS was longest for WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=2; 56.0 [6.0] months), followed by WLE with CT (n=4; 54.5 [41.0] months); WLE with RT (n=30; 39.7 [41.2] months); WLE alone (n=22; 37.2 [37.3] months); WLE with both RT and CT (n=7; 25.5 [18.7] months); RT with IT (n=2; 20.0 [11.0] months); RT with CT (n=6; 15.7 [6.8] months); and RT alone (n=1; 13 [no SD]) months)(eTable).

T2 Angiosarcoma—There were 105 patients with T2 tumors in 15 studies.^{2,31,32,34,39-41,46,48-50,52,53,57,62} The mean (SD) OS for each treatment modality in descending order was as follows: RT with CT and IT (n=1; 36 [no SD reported] months); RT with CT (n=23; 34.3 [46.3] months); WLE with RT (n=21; 26.3 [23.8] months); WLE with CT (n=8; 21.5 [16.6] months); WLE alone (n=16; 19.8 [15.6] months); WLE with RT and CT (n=14; 19.2 [10.5] months); RT alone (n=17; 10.1 [5.5] months); CT alone (n=2; 6.7 [3.7] months); and WLE with RT, CT, and IT (n=1; 6.0 [no SD] months)(eTable).

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—The use of MMS was only identified in case reports or small observational studies for a total of 9 patients. Five cASs were treated with MMS alone for a mean (SD) OS of 37 (21.5) months, with 4 reporting cAS staging: 2 were T1^58,59 (mean [SD] OS, 37.0 [17.0] months) and 2 were T2 tumors^39,57 (mean [SD] OS, 44.5 [26.5] months). Mohs micrographic surgery with RT was used for 3 tumors (mean [SD] OS, 34.0 [26.9] months); 2 were T1^50,60 (mean [SD] OS, 42.0 [30.0] months) and 1 unreported staging (eTable).⁵⁶ Mohs micrographic surgery with both RT and CT was used in 1 patient (unreported staging; OS, 82 months).⁵¹

Complications

Complications were rare and mainly associated with CT and RT. Four studies reported radiation dermatitis with RT.^53,55,62,63 Two studies reported peripheral neuropathy and myelotoxicity with CT.^35,51 Only 1 study reported poor wound healing due to surgical complications.²⁹

COMMENT

Cutaneous angiosarcomas are rare and have limited treatment guidelines. Surgical excision does appear to be an effective adjunct to nonsurgical treatments, particularly WLE combined with RT, CT, and IT. Although MMS ultimately may be useful for cAS, the limited number and substantial heterogeneity of reported cases precludes definitive conclusions at this time.

Achieving margin control during WLE is associated with higher OS when treating angiosarcoma,^36,46 which is particularly true for T1 tumors where margin control is imperative, and many cases are treated with a combination of WLE and RT. Overall survival times are lower for T2 tumors, as these tumors are larger and most likely have spread; therefore, more aggressive combination treatments were more prevalent. In these cases, complete margin control may be difficult to achieve and may not be as critical to the outcome if another form of adjuvant therapy can be administered promptly.^24,64

When surgery is contraindicated, RT with or without CT was the most commonly reported treatment modality. However, these treatments were notably less effective than when used in combination with surgical resection. The use of RT alone has a recurrence rate reported up to 100% in certain studies, suggesting the need to utilize RT in combination with other modalities.^23,39 It is important to note that RT often is used as monotherapy in palliative treatment, which may indirectly skew survival rates.²

Limitations of the study include a lack of randomized controlled trials. Most reports were retrospective reviews or case series, and tumor staging was sparsely reported. Finally, although MMS may provide utility in the treatment of cAS, the sample size of 9 precluded definitive conclusions from being formed about its efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is rare and has limited data comparing different treatment modalities. The paucity of data currently limits definitive recommendations; however, both surgical and nonsurgical modalities have demonstrated potential efficacy in the treatment of cAS and may benefit from additional research. Clinicians should consider a multidisciplinary approach for patients with a diagnosis of cAS to tailor treatments on a case-by-case basis.

Limited data exist comparing staples and sutures for scalp closures during Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). As a result, the closure method for these scalp wounds is based on surgeon preference without established consensus. The purpose of this study was to survey practicing Mohs surgeons on their scalp wound closure preferences as well as the clinical and economic variables that impact their decisions. Understanding practice habits can guide future trial design, with a goal of creating established criterion for MMS scalp wound closures.

Methods

An anonymous survey was distributed from April 2019 to June 2019 to fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons using an electronic mailing list from the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS). The 10-question survey was approved by the University of Kansas institutional review board and the executive committee of the ACMS. Surgeons were asked about their preferred method for scalp wound closure as well as clinical and economic variables that impacted those preferences. Respondents indicated their frequency of using deep sutures, epidermal sutures, and wound undermining on a sliding scale of 0% to 100%. Comparisons were made between practice habits, preferences, and surgeon demographics using t tests. Statistical significance was determined as P<.05.

Results

Sixty-eight ACMS fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons completed the survey. The average age of respondents was 45 years; 69.1% (n=47) of respondents were male, and 76.5% (n=52) practiced in a private setting (Table 1). Regardless of epidermal closure type, deep suture placement was used in an average (standard deviation [SD]) of 88.8% (19.5%) of cases overall, which did not statistically differ between years of Mohs experience or practice setting (Table 2). Wound undermining was performed in an average (SD) of 83.0% (24.3%) of cases overall and was more prevalent in private vs academic settings (87.6% [17.8%] vs 65.7% [35.0%]; P<.01). Epidermal sutures were used in an average (SD) of 27.1% (33.5%) of scalp wound cases overall. Surgeons with less experience (≤5 years) used them more frequently (average [SD], 42.7% [36.2%] of cases) than surgeons with more experience (≥16 years; average [SD], 18.8% [32.6%] of cases; P=.037). There was no significant difference between epidermal suture placement rates and practice setting (average [SD], 18.1% [28.1%] of cases for academic providers vs 30.0% [34.8%] of cases with private providers; P=.210).

Clinical and economic factors that were most important during wound closure were ranked (beginning with most important) as the following: risk of complications, cosmetic outcome, hair preservation, patient comfort during closure, healing time, and closure cost. In all demographic cases, risk of complications was ranked 1 or 2 (1=most important; 6=least important) overall; cost was the least important factor overall (Table 2).

Surgeons perceived staples to be superior for speed of closure and for closing wounds in high-tension areas, whereas sutures were perceived as superior when considering cost of closure and ease of removal (Table 3). Successful healing rate, healing time, hair preservation, overall cosmetic outcome, and lower risk of complications were viewed as equivalent when comparing staples and sutures.

Comment

Epidermal closure with sutures was reportedly used in an average of only 27.1% of scalp wound cases, with clinical factors such as cosmetic outcome, risk of complications, and closure time seen as either equivalent or inferior to staples. Our data suggest that surgeon closure perceptions generally are in agreement with established head and neck literature within different medical specialties that favor staple closures, particularly in high-tension areas.¹ Interestingly, the most common reasons given for not using staples included patient discomfort, cost, and worse cosmetic outcomes, which are unsubstantiated with head and neck comparative studies.^2-4

Although cost was the least important variable for determining closure type in our surveyed cohort, it is likely that the overall cost of closure is frequently underestimated. A higher material cost is noted with staples; however, the largest determinant of overall cost remains the surgeon’s time, which is reduced by factors of 10 or more when closing with staples.^2,3 This difference—coupled with the unchanged cosmetic outcome and complication rates—makes staples more advantageous for high-tension scalp wounds.⁴ Moreover, the stapling technique is more reproducible than suturing, which requires more surgical skill and experience.

Limitations of this study include a lack of directly comparable data for staple and suture scalp wound closures. In addition, the small cohort of respondents in this preliminary study can serve to guide future studies.

Conclusion

Scalp wounds during MMS were most frequently closed using staples vs sutures, with the perception that these methods are equivalent in complication risk, cosmetic outcome, and overall patient satisfaction. These results agree with comparative literature for head and neck surgery and assist with establishing an epidemiologic baseline for future studies comparing their use during MMS.

Limited data exist comparing staples and sutures for scalp closures during Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). As a result, the closure method for these scalp wounds is based on surgeon preference without established consensus. The purpose of this study was to survey practicing Mohs surgeons on their scalp wound closure preferences as well as the clinical and economic variables that impact their decisions. Understanding practice habits can guide future trial design, with a goal of creating established criterion for MMS scalp wound closures.

Methods

An anonymous survey was distributed from April 2019 to June 2019 to fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons using an electronic mailing list from the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS). The 10-question survey was approved by the University of Kansas institutional review board and the executive committee of the ACMS. Surgeons were asked about their preferred method for scalp wound closure as well as clinical and economic variables that impacted those preferences. Respondents indicated their frequency of using deep sutures, epidermal sutures, and wound undermining on a sliding scale of 0% to 100%. Comparisons were made between practice habits, preferences, and surgeon demographics using t tests. Statistical significance was determined as P<.05.

Results

Sixty-eight ACMS fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons completed the survey. The average age of respondents was 45 years; 69.1% (n=47) of respondents were male, and 76.5% (n=52) practiced in a private setting (Table 1). Regardless of epidermal closure type, deep suture placement was used in an average (standard deviation [SD]) of 88.8% (19.5%) of cases overall, which did not statistically differ between years of Mohs experience or practice setting (Table 2). Wound undermining was performed in an average (SD) of 83.0% (24.3%) of cases overall and was more prevalent in private vs academic settings (87.6% [17.8%] vs 65.7% [35.0%]; P<.01). Epidermal sutures were used in an average (SD) of 27.1% (33.5%) of scalp wound cases overall. Surgeons with less experience (≤5 years) used them more frequently (average [SD], 42.7% [36.2%] of cases) than surgeons with more experience (≥16 years; average [SD], 18.8% [32.6%] of cases; P=.037). There was no significant difference between epidermal suture placement rates and practice setting (average [SD], 18.1% [28.1%] of cases for academic providers vs 30.0% [34.8%] of cases with private providers; P=.210).

Clinical and economic factors that were most important during wound closure were ranked (beginning with most important) as the following: risk of complications, cosmetic outcome, hair preservation, patient comfort during closure, healing time, and closure cost. In all demographic cases, risk of complications was ranked 1 or 2 (1=most important; 6=least important) overall; cost was the least important factor overall (Table 2).

Surgeons perceived staples to be superior for speed of closure and for closing wounds in high-tension areas, whereas sutures were perceived as superior when considering cost of closure and ease of removal (Table 3). Successful healing rate, healing time, hair preservation, overall cosmetic outcome, and lower risk of complications were viewed as equivalent when comparing staples and sutures.

Comment

Epidermal closure with sutures was reportedly used in an average of only 27.1% of scalp wound cases, with clinical factors such as cosmetic outcome, risk of complications, and closure time seen as either equivalent or inferior to staples. Our data suggest that surgeon closure perceptions generally are in agreement with established head and neck literature within different medical specialties that favor staple closures, particularly in high-tension areas.¹ Interestingly, the most common reasons given for not using staples included patient discomfort, cost, and worse cosmetic outcomes, which are unsubstantiated with head and neck comparative studies.^2-4

Although cost was the least important variable for determining closure type in our surveyed cohort, it is likely that the overall cost of closure is frequently underestimated. A higher material cost is noted with staples; however, the largest determinant of overall cost remains the surgeon’s time, which is reduced by factors of 10 or more when closing with staples.^2,3 This difference—coupled with the unchanged cosmetic outcome and complication rates—makes staples more advantageous for high-tension scalp wounds.⁴ Moreover, the stapling technique is more reproducible than suturing, which requires more surgical skill and experience.

Limitations of this study include a lack of directly comparable data for staple and suture scalp wound closures. In addition, the small cohort of respondents in this preliminary study can serve to guide future studies.

Conclusion

Scalp wounds during MMS were most frequently closed using staples vs sutures, with the perception that these methods are equivalent in complication risk, cosmetic outcome, and overall patient satisfaction. These results agree with comparative literature for head and neck surgery and assist with establishing an epidemiologic baseline for future studies comparing their use during MMS.

Limited data exist comparing staples and sutures for scalp closures during Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). As a result, the closure method for these scalp wounds is based on surgeon preference without established consensus. The purpose of this study was to survey practicing Mohs surgeons on their scalp wound closure preferences as well as the clinical and economic variables that impact their decisions. Understanding practice habits can guide future trial design, with a goal of creating established criterion for MMS scalp wound closures.

Methods

An anonymous survey was distributed from April 2019 to June 2019 to fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons using an electronic mailing list from the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS). The 10-question survey was approved by the University of Kansas institutional review board and the executive committee of the ACMS. Surgeons were asked about their preferred method for scalp wound closure as well as clinical and economic variables that impacted those preferences. Respondents indicated their frequency of using deep sutures, epidermal sutures, and wound undermining on a sliding scale of 0% to 100%. Comparisons were made between practice habits, preferences, and surgeon demographics using t tests. Statistical significance was determined as P<.05.

Results

Sixty-eight ACMS fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons completed the survey. The average age of respondents was 45 years; 69.1% (n=47) of respondents were male, and 76.5% (n=52) practiced in a private setting (Table 1). Regardless of epidermal closure type, deep suture placement was used in an average (standard deviation [SD]) of 88.8% (19.5%) of cases overall, which did not statistically differ between years of Mohs experience or practice setting (Table 2). Wound undermining was performed in an average (SD) of 83.0% (24.3%) of cases overall and was more prevalent in private vs academic settings (87.6% [17.8%] vs 65.7% [35.0%]; P<.01). Epidermal sutures were used in an average (SD) of 27.1% (33.5%) of scalp wound cases overall. Surgeons with less experience (≤5 years) used them more frequently (average [SD], 42.7% [36.2%] of cases) than surgeons with more experience (≥16 years; average [SD], 18.8% [32.6%] of cases; P=.037). There was no significant difference between epidermal suture placement rates and practice setting (average [SD], 18.1% [28.1%] of cases for academic providers vs 30.0% [34.8%] of cases with private providers; P=.210).

Clinical and economic factors that were most important during wound closure were ranked (beginning with most important) as the following: risk of complications, cosmetic outcome, hair preservation, patient comfort during closure, healing time, and closure cost. In all demographic cases, risk of complications was ranked 1 or 2 (1=most important; 6=least important) overall; cost was the least important factor overall (Table 2).

Surgeons perceived staples to be superior for speed of closure and for closing wounds in high-tension areas, whereas sutures were perceived as superior when considering cost of closure and ease of removal (Table 3). Successful healing rate, healing time, hair preservation, overall cosmetic outcome, and lower risk of complications were viewed as equivalent when comparing staples and sutures.

Comment

Epidermal closure with sutures was reportedly used in an average of only 27.1% of scalp wound cases, with clinical factors such as cosmetic outcome, risk of complications, and closure time seen as either equivalent or inferior to staples. Our data suggest that surgeon closure perceptions generally are in agreement with established head and neck literature within different medical specialties that favor staple closures, particularly in high-tension areas.¹ Interestingly, the most common reasons given for not using staples included patient discomfort, cost, and worse cosmetic outcomes, which are unsubstantiated with head and neck comparative studies.^2-4

Although cost was the least important variable for determining closure type in our surveyed cohort, it is likely that the overall cost of closure is frequently underestimated. A higher material cost is noted with staples; however, the largest determinant of overall cost remains the surgeon’s time, which is reduced by factors of 10 or more when closing with staples.^2,3 This difference—coupled with the unchanged cosmetic outcome and complication rates—makes staples more advantageous for high-tension scalp wounds.⁴ Moreover, the stapling technique is more reproducible than suturing, which requires more surgical skill and experience.

Limitations of this study include a lack of directly comparable data for staple and suture scalp wound closures. In addition, the small cohort of respondents in this preliminary study can serve to guide future studies.

Conclusion

Scalp wounds during MMS were most frequently closed using staples vs sutures, with the perception that these methods are equivalent in complication risk, cosmetic outcome, and overall patient satisfaction. These results agree with comparative literature for head and neck surgery and assist with establishing an epidemiologic baseline for future studies comparing their use during MMS.