How Often Do Patients with Localized Melanoma Attend Follow-Up at a Specialist Center?

Association between dermatology follow-up and melanoma survival: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that patients with melanoma undergo dermatologic examination at least annually. Adherence to follow-up and its impact on survival are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the level of adherence to annual dermatologic follow-up in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, identify predictors for better adherence, and evaluate whether adherence was associated with melanoma-related mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective inception cohort analysis of adults with primary invasive melanoma in Ontario, Canada from 2010 to 2013 with follow-up until December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Adherence to dermatologic follow-up was variable with only 28.0% of patients seeing a dermatologist at least annually (median follow-up 5.0 years). Younger age, female sex, higher income, greater access to dermatology care, stage 2/3 melanoma, prior keratinocyte carcinoma, fewer comorbidities, and any outpatient visit in the 12 months prior to melanoma diagnosis were predictors for adherence. Greater adherence to annual dermatology visits was associated with reduced melanoma-specific mortality compared with lower levels of adherence (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78).

LIMITATIONS

Observational study design and inability to identify skin examinations performed by non-dermatologists.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to annual dermatology visits after melanoma diagnosis was low. Greater adherence may promote better patient survival but warrants confirmation in further research including randomized trials.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow up? Statistical analysis plan for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial of patient-led surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance in people treated for localised cutaneous melanoma (stage 0, I, II). The primary trial aim is to determine if patient led-surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance increases the proportion of participants who are diagnosed with a new primary or recurrent melanoma at a fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visit. The secondary outcomes include time to diagnosis of any skin cancer, psychosocial outcomes, acceptability, and resource use.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to outline and publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan before the database lock and the start of analysis.

METHODS/DESIGN

The statistical analysis plan describes the overall analysis principles, including how participants will be included in each analysis, the presentation of the results, adjustments for covariates, the primary and secondary outcomes, and their respective analyses. In addition, we present the planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. A separate analysis plan will be published for health economic outcomes.

RESULTS

The MEL-SELF statistical analysis plan has been designed to minimize bias in estimating effects of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes. By pre-specifying analyses, we ensure the study's integrity and believability while enabling the reproducibility of the final analysis.

CONCLUSION

This detailed statistical analysis plan will help to ensure transparency of reporting of results from the MEL-SELF trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864. Registered 18 February 2021, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621000176864.aspx.

Assessing the Potential for Patient-led Surveillance After Treatment of Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Patient-led surveillance is a promising new model of follow-up care following excision of localized melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient-led surveillance in patients with prior localized primary cutaneous melanoma is as safe, feasible, and acceptable as clinician-led surveillance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a pilot for a randomized clinical trial at 2 specialist-led clinics in metropolitan Sydney, Australia, and a primary care skin cancer clinic managed by general practitioners in metropolitan Newcastle, Australia. The participants were 100 patients who had been treated for localized melanoma, owned a smartphone, had a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and had been routinely attending scheduled follow-up visits. The study was conducted from November 1, 2018, to January 17, 2020, with analysis performed from September 1, 2020, to November 15, 2020.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized (1:1) to 6 months of patient-led surveillance (the intervention comprised usual care plus reminders to perform SSE, patient-performed dermoscopy, teledermatologist assessment, and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits) or clinician-led surveillance (the control was usual care).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible and contacted patients who were randomized. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (eg, SSE knowledge, attitudes, and practices, psychological outcomes, other health care use) and clinical outcomes (eg, clinic visits, skin surgeries, subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma).

RESULTS

Of 326 patients who were eligible and contacted, 100 (31%) patients (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [12.0] years; 53 [53%] men) were randomized to patient-led (n = 49) or clinician-led (n = 51) surveillance. Data were available on patient-reported outcomes for 66 participants and on clinical outcomes for 100 participants. Compared with clinician-led surveillance, patient-led surveillance was associated with increased SSE frequency (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 14.0) and thoroughness (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.7), had no detectable adverse effect on psychological outcomes (fear of cancer recurrence subscale score; mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.5), and increased clinic visits (risk ratio [RR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), skin lesion excisions (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0), and subsequent melanoma diagnoses and subsequent melanoma diagnoses (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, -2% to 23%). New primary melanomas and 1 local recurrence were diagnosed in 8 (16%) of the participants in the intervention group, including 5 (10%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits; and in 3 (6%) of the participants in the control group, with none (0%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, 2% to 19%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This pilot of a randomized clinical trial found that patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma appears to be safe, feasible, and acceptable. Experiences from this pilot study have prompted improvements to the trial processes for the larger trial of the same intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001716459.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow-up? A protocol for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma.

METHODS

Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised).

DISCUSSION

The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.

GPs' involvement in diagnosing, treating, and referring patients with suspected or confirmed primary cutaneous melanoma: a qualitative study

Background

In Australia, melanoma is managed in primary and secondary care settings. An individual concerned about a suspicious lesion typically presents first to their GP.

Aim

To identify factors influencing GPs’ decisions to diagnose, treat, or refer patients with suspected melanoma.

Design & setting

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 23 GPs working in general practice or skin cancer clinics in Australia.

Method

The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, de-identified, and professionally transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

Considerable variation existed in GPs’ self-reported confidence and involvement in melanoma management. Multiple factors were identified as influencing GPs’ decisions to diagnose, treat, or refer patients with suspected or confirmed melanoma. Health system level factors included the overlapping roles of GPs and specialists, and access to and/or availability of specialists. Practice level factors included opportunities for formal and informal training, and having a GP with a special interest in skin cancer within their practice. GP and patient level factors included the GP’s clinical interests, the clinical features (for example, site and size) and histopathology of the suspected melanoma, eligibility for possible sentinel lymph node biopsy, and patient preferences. For some GPs, concerns over misdiagnosis and the option of referring patients at any stage in the melanoma management continuum appeared to affect their interest and confidence in melanoma management.

Conclusion

GP involvement in melanoma patient care can extend well beyond cancer screening, prevention and supportive care roles to include provision of definitive melanoma patient management. GPs with an interest in being involved in melanoma management should be encouraged and supported to develop the skills needed to manage these patients, and to refer when appropriate.

Patient Preferences for Follow-up After Recent Excision of a Localized Melanoma

Importance

The standard model of follow-up posttreatment of localized melanoma relies on clinician detection of recurrent or new melanoma, through routinely scheduled clinics (clinician-led surveillance). An alternative model is to increase reliance on patient detection of melanoma, with fewer scheduled visits and increased support for patients' skin self-examination (SSE) (eg, using smartphone apps to instruct, prompt and record SSE, and facilitate teledermatology; patient-led surveillance).

Objective

To determine the proportion of adults treated for localized melanoma who prefer the standard scheduled visit frequency (as per Australian guideline recommendations) or fewer scheduled visits (adapted from the Melanoma Follow-up [MELFO] study of reduced follow-up).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study used a telephone interview for surveillance following excision of localized melanoma at an Australian specialist center. We invited a random sample of 400 patients who had completed treatment for localized melanoma in 2014 to participate. They were asked about their preferences for scheduled follow-up, and experience of follow-up in the past 12 months. Those with a recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed by the time of interview (0.8-1.7 years since first diagnosis) were asked about how it was first detected and treated. SSE practices were also assessed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion preferring standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits, median delay between detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma, and SSE practices.

Results

Of the 262 people who agreed to be interviewed, the mean (SD) age was 64.3 (14.3) years, and 93 (36%) were women. Among the 230 people who did not have a recurrent or new primary melanoma, 149 vs 81 preferred the standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits option (70% vs 30% after adjusting for sampling frame). Factors independently associated with preferring fewer visits were a higher disease stage, melanoma on a limb, living with others, not having private health insurance, and seeing a specialist for another chronic condition. The median delay between first detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma was 7 and 3 weeks, respectively. Only 8% missed a scheduled visit, while 40% did not perform SSE or did so at greater than 3-month intervals.

Conclusions and Relevance

Some patients with melanoma may prefer fewer scheduled visits, if they are supported to do SSE and there is rapid clinical review of anything causing concern (patient-led surveillance).

Use of shared care and routine tests in follow-up after treatment for localised cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients may decide to undertake shared care with a general practitioner (GP) during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma. Routine imaging tests for surveillance may be commonly used despite no evidence of clinical utility. This study describes the frequency of shared care and routine tests during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma.

METHODS

We randomly sampled 351 people with localised melanoma [American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) substages 0 - II] who had not had recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed from a total of 902 people diagnosed and treated for localised melanoma at a specialist centre in 2014. We interviewed participants by telephone about their experience of follow-up in the past year, and documented the proportion of patients who were undertaking shared care follow-up with a GP. We also recorded the frequency and type of investigations during follow-up. We calculated weighted estimates that are representative of the full inception cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 351 people who were invited to participate, 230 (66%) people consented to the telephone interview. The majority undertook shared care follow-up with a GP (61%). People who choose to have shared care follow-up with a GP are more likely to be male (p = 0.006), have lower AJCC stage (p for trend = 0.02), reside in more remote areas (p for trend< 0.001), and are less likely to have completed secondary school (p < 0.001). Few people saw a non-doctor health practitioner as part of their follow-up (9%). Many people report undergoing tests for melanoma, much of which may be routine tests for surveillance (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of people treated for a first primary localised melanoma at a specialist centre, without recurrent or new melanoma, choose to undertake shared care follow-up with a GP. Many appear to have routine diagnostic imaging as part of their melanoma surveillance.

Doctors' recognition and management of melanoma patients' risk: An Australian population-based study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that health professionals identify and manage individuals at high risk of developing melanoma, but there is limited population-based evidence demonstrating real-world practices.

OBJECTIVE

A population-based, observational study was conducted in the state of New South Wales, Australia to determine doctors' knowledge of melanoma patients' risk and to identify factors associated with better identification and clinical management.

METHODS

Data were analysed for 1889 patients with invasive, localised melanoma in the Melanoma Patterns of Care study. This study collected data on all melanoma diagnoses notified to the state's cancer registry during a 12-month period from 2006 to 2007, as well as questionnaire data from the doctors involved in their care.

RESULTS

Three-quarters (74%) of patients had doctors who were aware of their risk factor status with respect to personal and family history of melanoma and the presence of many moles. Doctors working in general practice, skin cancer clinics and dermatology settings had better knowledge of patients' risk factors than plastic surgeons. Doctors were 15% more likely to know the family history of younger melanoma patients (<40years) than of those ≥80 years (95% confidence interval 4-26%). Early detection-related follow-up advice was more likely to be given to younger patients, by doctors aware of their patients' risk status, by doctors practising in plastic surgery, dermatology and skin cancer clinic settings, and by female doctors.

CONCLUSION

Both patient-related and doctor-related factors were associated with doctors' recognition and management of melanoma patients' risk and could be the focus of strategies for improving care.