The MelFo Study UK: Effects of a Reduced-Frequency, Stage-Adjusted Follow-Up Schedule for Cutaneous Melanoma 1B to 2C Patients After 3-Years.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
28
01
2020
pubmed:
6
7
2020
medline:
6
5
2021
entrez:
6
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evidence-based guidelines for follow-up treatment of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages 1B to 2C melanoma patients are lacking. The MELanoma FOllow-up study is an international phase 3 randomized trial, and the 3-year interim data were recently reported from the Netherlands. The study was undertaken concurrently with a British cohort for comparison and validation of the Dutch study. The study enrolled and stratified 207 patients by AJCC stage. The conventional schedule group (CSG; n = 103) cohort was reviewed as per UK guidelines. The experimental schedule group (ESG; n = 104) cohort was reviewed in a reduced-frequency nurse-led, consultant-supervised clinic. Quality of life (QoL) was measured at baseline (T1), a 1 year (T2), and at 3 years (T3) using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Cancer Worry Scale, the Impact-of-Event Scale, and the Mental and Physical Component scales (PCS/MCS) of the RAND-36. Of the 207 QoL questionnaires, 170 (82.1%) were completed at T3. Both cohorts expressed high satisfaction (> 93%) with their regimens. At T3, no significant group effect was found on any patient-reported outcome measures scores, indicating no QoL difference between the follow-up protocols. Recurrence had developed in 33 patients Conventional follow-up (CFU), 16 [15.5%]; Experimental follow-up (EFU), 17 [16.3%]. Self-examination was the method of detection for 12 ESG patients (70.6%) and 11 CSG patients (68.8%). The melanoma-specific survival was identical. The UK 3-year data were consistent with the previous Dutch report. The reduced follow-up strategy was shown to be safe, with significant resource usage benefits for national cancer services. Patient anxiety levels were not increased by a less-intensive follow-up regimen, and acceptance was high. The study data indicate that patient self-examination is very effective for recurrence detection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based guidelines for follow-up treatment of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages 1B to 2C melanoma patients are lacking. The MELanoma FOllow-up study is an international phase 3 randomized trial, and the 3-year interim data were recently reported from the Netherlands. The study was undertaken concurrently with a British cohort for comparison and validation of the Dutch study.
METHODS
METHODS
The study enrolled and stratified 207 patients by AJCC stage. The conventional schedule group (CSG; n = 103) cohort was reviewed as per UK guidelines. The experimental schedule group (ESG; n = 104) cohort was reviewed in a reduced-frequency nurse-led, consultant-supervised clinic. Quality of life (QoL) was measured at baseline (T1), a 1 year (T2), and at 3 years (T3) using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Cancer Worry Scale, the Impact-of-Event Scale, and the Mental and Physical Component scales (PCS/MCS) of the RAND-36.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 207 QoL questionnaires, 170 (82.1%) were completed at T3. Both cohorts expressed high satisfaction (> 93%) with their regimens. At T3, no significant group effect was found on any patient-reported outcome measures scores, indicating no QoL difference between the follow-up protocols. Recurrence had developed in 33 patients Conventional follow-up (CFU), 16 [15.5%]; Experimental follow-up (EFU), 17 [16.3%]. Self-examination was the method of detection for 12 ESG patients (70.6%) and 11 CSG patients (68.8%). The melanoma-specific survival was identical.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The UK 3-year data were consistent with the previous Dutch report. The reduced follow-up strategy was shown to be safe, with significant resource usage benefits for national cancer services. Patient anxiety levels were not increased by a less-intensive follow-up regimen, and acceptance was high. The study data indicate that patient self-examination is very effective for recurrence detection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32623608
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08758-2
pii: 10.1245/s10434-020-08758-2
pmc: PMC7497689
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4109-4119Références
Melanoma Skin Cancer Statistics. Cancer Research UK. Published 14 May 2019. Retrieved 30 December 2019 at https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/melanoma-skin-cancer .
Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:472–92.
Wong SL, Faries MB, Kennedy EB, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and management of regional lymph nodes in melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:399–413.
pubmed: 29232171
Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2211–22.
pubmed: 28591523
pmcid: 5548388
Peach H, Board R, Cook M, et al. Current role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of cutaneous melanoma: a UK consensus statement. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(1):36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.06.020 .
Watts CG, Dieng M, Morton RL, Mann GJ, Menzies SW, Cust AE. Clinical practice guidelines for identification, screening, and follow-up of individuals at high risk of primary cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:33–47.
pubmed: 25204572
Francken AB, Accortt NA, Shaw HM, et al. Follow-up schedules after treatment for malignant melanoma. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1401–7.
pubmed: 18844268
Shaitelman SF, Cromwell KD, Rasmussen JC, et al. Recent progress in the treatment and prevention of cancer-related lymphedema. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:55–81.
pubmed: 25410402
Read RL, Madronio CM, Cust AE, et al. Follow-up recommendations after diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma: a population-based study in New South Wales, Australia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:617–25.
pubmed: 29299710
Turner RM, Bell KJL, Morton RL, et al. Optimizing the frequency of follow-up visits for patients treated for localized primary cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4641–6.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2956
Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, Morton RL, Thompson JF, Menzies SW, Irwig L. Follow-up of early-stage melanoma: specialist clinician perspectives on the functions of follow-up and implications for extending follow-up intervals. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:463–8.
doi: 10.1002/jso.23278
Speijers MJ, Francken AB, Hoekstra-Weebers JE, Bastiaannet E, Kruijff S, Hoekstra HJ. Optimal follow-up for melanoma. Expert Rev Dermatol. 2010;5:461–78. https://doi.org/10.1586/edm.10.38 .
doi: 10.1586/edm.10.38
Livingstone E, Krajewski C, Eigentler TK, et al. Prospective evaluation of follow-up in melanoma patients in Germany: results of a multicentre and longitudinal study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:653–67.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.01.007
Francken AB, Bastiaannet E, Hoekstra HJ. Follow-up in patients with localised primary cutaneous melanoma. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:608–21.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70283-7
Francken AB, Shaw HM, Accortt NA, Soong S-J, Hoekstra HJ, Thompson JF. Detection of first relapse in cutaneous melanoma patients: implications for the formulation of evidence-based follow-up guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1924–33.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9347-2
Rueth NM, Cromwell KD, Cormier JN. Long-term follow-up for melanoma patients: is there any evidence of a benefit? Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2015;24:359–77.
doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2014.12.012
Lo SN, Scolyer RA, Thompson JF. Long-term survival of patients with thin (T1) cutaneous melanomas: a Breslow thickness cut point of 0.8 mm separates higher-risk and lower-risk tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:894–902.
Deckers EA, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM, Damude S, et al. The MELFO study: a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial on the effects of a reduced stage-adjusted follow-up schedule on cutaneous melanoma IB-IIC patients: results after 3 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:1407–17. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07825-7 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07825-7
pubmed: 31535302
Damude S, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM, Francken AB, ter Meulen S, Bastiaannet E, Hoekstra HJ. The MELFO study: prospective, randomized, clinical trial for the evaluation of a stage-adjusted reduced follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: results after 1 year. Ann Surg Oncol. 23:2762–71.
Melanoma: assessment and management/Guidance and guidelines/NICE. Retrieved 22 November 2018 at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng14 .
Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for adults: instruments (adult form) and scoring guide. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden; 2013.
Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Cancer worry measures. PsycTESTS Dataset. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1037/t29446-000 .
doi: 10.1037/t29446-000
Custers JAE, Gielissen MFM, Janssen SHV, de Wilt JHW, Prins JB. Fear of cancer recurrence in colorectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:555–62.
pubmed: 26108170
Custers JAE, van den Berg SW, van Laarhoven HWM, Bleiker EMA, Gielissen MFM, Prins JB. The cancer worry scale. Cancer Nurs. 2014;37:E44–E50. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0b013e3182813a17 .
doi: 10.1097/ncc.0b013e3182813a17
pubmed: 23448956
Yanez B, Garcia SF, Victorson D, Salsman JM. Distress among young adult cancer survivors: a cohort study. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:2403–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1793-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1793-8
pubmed: 23568764
Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–18.
pubmed: 472086
Hays RD, Morales LS. The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med. 2001;33:350–7.
pubmed: 11491194
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge, 2013:20–6.
Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, Morton R, Irwig L. Psychosocial aspects of post-treatment follow-up for stage I/II melanoma: a systematic review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2013;22:721–36.
pubmed: 22431448
Shirai K, Wong SL. Melanoma surveillance strategies: different approaches to a shared goal. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:583–4.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6321-5
Francken AB, Shaw HM, Thompson JF. Detection of second primary cutaneous melanomas. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:587–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.06.004
Körner A, Coroiu A, Martins C, Wang B. Predictors of skin self-examination before and after a melanoma diagnosis: the role of medical advice and patient’s level of education. Int Arch Med. 2013;6:8.
doi: 10.1186/1755-7682-6-8
Damude S, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM, van Leeuwen BL, Hoekstra HJ. Melanoma patients’ disease-specific knowledge, information preference, and appreciation of educational YouTube videos for self-inspection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1528–35.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.06.008
Robert C, Ribas A, Schachter J, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1239–51.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30388-2
Ascierto PA, Long GV, Robert C, et al. Survival outcomes in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab therapy: three-year follow-up of a randomized phase 3 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:187–94.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4514
Robert C, Grob JJ, Stroyakovskiy D, et al. Five-year outcomes with dabrafenib plus trametinib in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:626–36.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904059