Back to Authors

Granger, Emily E.

Mayo Clinic

Newton Wellesley Hospital

Citations 1

Excision With Total Margin Control Versus Vertical Section Margin Assessment for NCCN Very High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Wang, David M., Ran, Nina A., Granger, Emily E., Koyfman, Shlomo, Vidimos, Allison, Wysong, Ashley, Carr, David R., Shahwan, Kathryn T., Hirotsu, Kelsey E., Carucci, John A., Carter, Joi B., Cañueto, Javier, Girardi, Fabio M., Mangold, Aaron R., Srivastava, Divya, Nijhawan, Rajiv I., Brodland, David G., Zitelli, John A., Willenbrink, Tyler J., Ruiz, Emily S., Mangold, Aaron R. , Hirotsu, Kelsey E. , Mangold, A R , Wang, David M., Ran, Nina A., Granger, Emily E., Koyfman, Shlomo, Vidimos, Allison, Wysong, Ashley, Carr, David R., Shahwan, Kathryn T., Carucci, John A., Carter, Joi B., Cañueto, Javier, Girardi, Fabio M., Srivastava, Divya, Nijhawan, Rajiv I., Brodland, David G., Zitelli, John A., Willenbrink, Tyler J., Ruiz, Emily S.

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | December 17, 2025 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 531-537

10.6004/jnccn.2025.7072 Get It

Background: Among the 1.5 million cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) diagnosed annually in the United States, a subset of aggressive tumors recur or metastasize. Treatment options include total margin-controlled surgery, such as Mohs micrographic surgery or other forms of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (MMS/PDEMA), and standard excision with postoperative vertical section margin assessment (SEVMA). NCCN Guidelines recommend MMS/PDEMA for the management of cSCC classified as very high risk based on NCCN risk stratification criteria. This study aims to validate the recommendation of MMS/PDEMA as the preferred surgical approach for NCCN very high-risk cSCCs, using data from a multicenter, multinational cohort. Methods: A multicenter cohort study was conducted across 12 sites, including 10 in the United States, 1 in Spain, and 1 in Brazil, comprising 2,752 primary NCCN very high-risk cSCCs treated with MMS/PDEMA or SEVMA. Propensity score–weighted analysis was used to balance baseline characteristics. Outcomes included local recurrence (LR), nodal metastasis (NM), distant metastasis (DM), and disease-specific death (DSD). Results: After balancing baseline characteristics, SEVMA was associated with a 2-fold higher rate of poor outcomes, including recurrence, metastasis, and DSD, compared with MMS/PDEMA. The 3-year cumulative incidence of poor outcomes was higher for SEVMA: LR (12.5% vs 5.9%), NM (11.6% vs 6.0%), DM (4.3% vs 1.9%), and DSD (6.2% vs 3.3%). Conclusions: This study supports the NCCN recommendation of MMS/PDEMA for NCCN very high-risk cSCC, showing reduced recurrence, metastasis, and cSCC-specific mortality compared with SEVMA.