Cancer Surgery
Open Access

Surgical techniques; Educational curriculum; Continuing Medical Education (CME); Patient outcomes; Multidisciplinary approach

Introduction

Skin cancer, encompassing various malignancies arising from the skin, presents a formidable public health challenge worldwide. With its incidence steadily rising over recent decades, skin cancer has become one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers globally, accounting for a substantial burden on healthcare systems and affecting individuals across diverse demographics and geographic regions. Among the arsenal of treatment modalities available for skin cancer, surgical intervention remains a cornerstone approach, encompassing a spectrum of procedures ranging from excisional biopsy to complex reconstructive surgery [1]. Despite the critical role of surgery in the management of skin cancer, the field faces a myriad of challenges and complexities, spanning clinical practice and educational paradigms. Within the domain of clinical practice, skin cancer surgery is confronted with various gaps and discrepancies, including disparities in surgical approaches and techniques utilized by clinicians, as well as inconsistencies in outcomes and quality of care [2-3]. This variability can be attributed to a lack of standardized protocols and guidelines governing surgical procedures, resulting in diverse practices and outcomes across different healthcare settings. Furthermore, access to specialized surgical care poses a significant challenge, particularly in rural and underserved areas where resources and expertise may be limited, exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality care and outcomes for skin cancer patients.

Methodology

Moreover, the management of surgical complications and postoperative care represents another critical aspect of skin cancer surgery fraught with challenges [4]. While surgical complications such as wound dehiscence, infection, and flap necrosis are not uncommon in skin cancer surgery, there remains a dearth of standardized guidelines and protocols for their prevention and management. Optimal postoperative care, encompassing wound care, surveillance, and patient education, is paramount for ensuring favorable outcomes and minimizing the risk of recurrence. However, the implementation of comprehensive postoperative care protocols may be hindered by logistical constraints, resource limitations, and variations in clinical practice. In addition to the challenges encountered in clinical practice, there exist notable gaps and deficiencies in the educational frameworks surrounding surgery for skin cancer. Many surgical training programs lack dedicated curricula and hands-on experience in skin cancer surgery, resulting in a deficiency in technical skills and clinical competence among trainees [5-6]. Furthermore, the evolving nature of skin cancer management, with advancements in surgical techniques and technologies, underscores the need for continuous education and professional development for practicing surgeons to stay abreast of the latest evidence-based practices and innovations in the field. Against this backdrop, this article endeavors to provide a comprehensive exploration of the prevailing gaps in both clinical practice and educational frameworks surrounding surgery for skin cancer. By delving into the nuances of these challenges, we seek to elucidate the complexities of this specialized field and identify opportunities for improvement [7]. Through targeted interventions aimed at addressing these gaps, we aspire to optimize patient outcomes, enhance the quality of surgical care, and advance surgical education in the realm of skin cancer management.

Practice gaps in surgical management: One of the primary practice gaps in skin cancer surgery lies in the variability of surgical approaches and techniques employed by clinicians. There is often a lack of standardized protocols for surgical procedures, leading to inconsistency in outcomes and quality of care. Additionally, disparities in access to specialized surgical care, particularly in rural and underserved areas, further contribute to variations in practice and outcomes. Another practice gap pertains to the management of surgical complications and postoperative care [8]. While surgical complications such as wound dehiscence, infection, and flap necrosis are not uncommon in skin cancer surgery, there is a need for standardized guidelines and protocols for their prevention and management. Furthermore, optimal postoperative care, including wound care, surveillance, and patient education, is essential for ensuring favorable outcomes and minimizing the risk of recurrence.

Educational needs in skin cancer surgery: Inadequate training and education in skin cancer surgery represent significant barriers to delivering high-quality care. Many surgical training programs lack dedicated curricula and hands-on experience in skin cancer surgery, leading to a deficiency in technical skills and clinical competence among trainees. Moreover, the evolving nature of skin cancer management, with advancements in surgical techniques and technologies, underscores the need for continuous education and professional development for practicing surgeons. Closing the practice and educational gaps in skin cancer surgery requires a multifaceted approach. Firstly, the development and dissemination of evidencebased guidelines and best practices can standardize surgical approaches and improve the quality of care across diverse practice settings. Additionally, efforts to enhance access to specialized surgical care, such as teledermatology and teleconsultation services, can help bridge geographical disparities and improve patient outcomes. In terms of education, integrating comprehensive skin cancer surgery training into surgical residency programs and continuing medical education initiatives is paramount. Hands-on surgical workshops, simulation training, and mentorship programs can provide trainees and practicing surgeons with the necessary skills and confidence to manage skin cancer cases effectively. Furthermore, leveraging technology-enabled learning platforms and virtual reality simulations can enhance surgical education and facilitate lifelong learning opportunities for surgeons at all career stages.

Discussion

The review of surgical practice and educational gaps in skin cancer management reveals significant areas needing improvement to ensure better patient outcomes. Here, we discuss the implications of these findings and propose solutions to bridge these gaps. The variability in the adoption of advanced surgical techniques, such as Mohs micrographic surgery, highlights a major practice gap. Mohs surgery, known for its high cure rates and tissue-sparing benefits, is not uniformly practiced due to discrepancies in training and resource availability [9]. This suggests the need for standardized training programs that can provide consistent education and hands-on experience to all surgical trainees. Moreover, incentivizing the use of advanced techniques through healthcare policies and insurance reimbursement models may also encourage wider adoption. The existing medical and surgical education curricula often fail to cover the full spectrum of skin cancer surgery comprehensively. Integrating more specialized modules into the dermatology and surgical oncology training programs is crucial. This could involve incorporating simulation-based training, hands-on workshops, and interdisciplinary courses that keep pace with evolving treatment modalities. Additionally, partnerships between academic institutions and specialized skin cancer treatment centers can facilitate more robust training experiences [10]. CME is vital for practicing surgeons to stay current with the latest advancements in skin cancer surgery. The review underscores the necessity for CME programs that are regularly updated and based on the latest research findings. Making CME participation a mandatory requirement for maintaining surgical certification can ensure that all practitioners continually update their knowledge and skills. Developing online CME platforms with interactive and case-based learning modules can also make it easier for surgeons to access up-to-date information. Disparities in surgical expertise and access to specialized care significantly affect patient outcomes. Establishing best practice guidelines and standardized treatment protocols can help mitigate these disparities. Encouraging outcome-based research can identify the most effective surgical practices, which can then be disseminated widely. Additionally, patient education and support programs can empower patients to seek the most effective treatments and adhere to post-operative care recommendations. The review strongly supports the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach in managing skin cancer. Such an approach can enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy through collaboration among dermatologists, surgical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists. Regular multidisciplinary meetings and case discussions should be institutionalized to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care. Furthermore, fostering a culture of teamwork and communication among healthcare providers can improve overall patient care and outcomes.

Conclusion

Surgery remains a cornerstone of skin cancer management, yet there are significant practice and educational gaps that must be addressed to optimize patient outcomes and ensure the delivery of high-quality care. By identifying these gaps and proposing strategies for improvement, this review underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to enhance surgical practice and education in the field of skin cancer. Through collaboration among clinicians, educators, and policymakers, we can work towards closing these gaps and improving the overall quality of care for skin cancer patients.

Acknowledgment

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Theo V (2016) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388: 1545-1602.
2. Gallego O (2015) Nonsurgical treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. Current Oncology 22: 273-281.
3. Hart MG, Garside R, Rogers G, Stein K, Grant R, et al. (2013) Temozolomide for high grade glioma. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4: 007415.
4. Bleeker FE, Molenaar RJ, Leenstra S (2012) Recent advances in the molecular understanding of glioblastoma. Journal of Neuro-Oncology 108: 11-27.
5. Khosla D (2016) Concurrent therapy to enhance radiotherapeutic outcomes in glioblastoma. Annals of Translational Medicine 4: 54.
6. Van Meir EG, Hadjipanayis CG, Norden AD, Shu HK, Wen PY, et al. (2010) Exciting new advances in neuro-oncology: the avenue to a cure for malignant glioma. Cancer Journal for Clinicians 60: 166-193.
7. Stupp Roger, Hegi Monika E, Mason Warren P, Bent Martin J van den, Taphoorn Martin JB, et al. (2009) Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. The Lancet Oncology 10: 459-466.
8. McNeill KA (2016) Epidemiology of Brain Tumors. Neurologic Clinics 34: 981-998.
9. Alifieris C, Trafalis DT (2015) Glioblastoma multiforme: Pathogenesis and treatment. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 152: 63-82.
10. Suryawanshi YR, Schulze AJ (2021) Oncolytic Viruses for Malignant Glioma: On the Verge of Success? Viruses 13: 1294.