Melanoma Prevention: Comparison of Different Screening Methods for the Selection of a High Risk Population.
melanoma
screening
secondary prevention
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 02 2021
17 02 2021
Historique:
received:
18
12
2020
revised:
06
02
2021
accepted:
08
02
2021
entrez:
6
3
2021
pubmed:
7
3
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Guidelines recommend limiting melanoma screening in a population with known risk factors, but none indicates methods for efficient recruitment. The purpose of this study is to compare three different methods of recruiting subjects to be screened for melanoma to detect which, if any, is the most efficient. From 2010 to 2019, subjects were recruited as follows: (1) regular skin examinations (RS), mainly conducted through the Associazione Contro il Melanoma network; (2) occasional melanoma screening (OS), during annual public campaigns; (3) and selective screening (SS), where people were invited to undergo a skin check after filling in a risk evaluation questionnaire, in cases where the assigned outcome was intermediate/high risk. Melanoma risk factors were compared across different screening methods. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were used for multivariable analysis. A total of 2238 subjects (62.7% women) were recruited, median age 44 years (2-85), and 1094 (48.9 %) records were collected through RS, 826 (36.9 %) through OS, and 318 (14.2 %) through SS. A total of 131 suspicious non-melanoma skin cancers were clinically diagnosed, 20 pathologically confirmed, and 2 melanomas detected. SS performed significantly better at selecting subjects with a family history of melanoma and I-II phototypes compared to OS. Prior evaluation of melanoma known risk factors allowed for effective selection of a population to screen at higher risk of developing a melanoma.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend limiting melanoma screening in a population with known risk factors, but none indicates methods for efficient recruitment. The purpose of this study is to compare three different methods of recruiting subjects to be screened for melanoma to detect which, if any, is the most efficient.
METHODS
From 2010 to 2019, subjects were recruited as follows: (1) regular skin examinations (RS), mainly conducted through the Associazione Contro il Melanoma network; (2) occasional melanoma screening (OS), during annual public campaigns; (3) and selective screening (SS), where people were invited to undergo a skin check after filling in a risk evaluation questionnaire, in cases where the assigned outcome was intermediate/high risk. Melanoma risk factors were compared across different screening methods. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were used for multivariable analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 2238 subjects (62.7% women) were recruited, median age 44 years (2-85), and 1094 (48.9 %) records were collected through RS, 826 (36.9 %) through OS, and 318 (14.2 %) through SS. A total of 131 suspicious non-melanoma skin cancers were clinically diagnosed, 20 pathologically confirmed, and 2 melanomas detected. SS performed significantly better at selecting subjects with a family history of melanoma and I-II phototypes compared to OS.
CONCLUSIONS
Prior evaluation of melanoma known risk factors allowed for effective selection of a population to screen at higher risk of developing a melanoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33671417
pii: ijerph18041953
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041953
pmc: PMC7922493
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Dec 1;111(12):1279-1297
pubmed: 31145458
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 03;6:CD012352
pubmed: 31157404
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 04;(6):CD001877
pubmed: 23737396
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 May;58(5):741-9
pubmed: 18068264
Mol Cancer. 2018 Jan 17;17(1):8
pubmed: 29343260
Br J Dermatol. 1996 Jul;135(1):42-5
pubmed: 8776357
BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 29;5(7):e007471
pubmed: 26224016
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2019 Jan 28;3:3
pubmed: 30701196
Ann Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;30(12):1884-1901
pubmed: 31566661
Nature. 2014 Nov 20;515(7527):S117
pubmed: 25407708
Curr Oncol Rep. 2012 Oct;14(5):458-67
pubmed: 22907282
Melanoma Res. 2000 Apr;10(2):181-7
pubmed: 10803719
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2011 Dec;107(3):362-6
pubmed: 21958910
Cancer. 2008 Apr 15;112(8):1795-804
pubmed: 18306371
Br J Cancer. 2007 Jun 4;96(11):1772-7
pubmed: 17533392
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Nov 12;108(1):
pubmed: 26563358
Br J Dermatol. 2002 Jun;146(6):1042-6
pubmed: 12072074
Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):597-601
pubmed: 16106265
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2013 Sep;6(9):18-26
pubmed: 24062870
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 May 5;102(9):605-13
pubmed: 20413742
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007 Jan;21(1):56-62
pubmed: 17207168
J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Apr;135(4):1190-1193
pubmed: 25330295
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Aug 05;12(8):9102-18
pubmed: 26251915
Arch Dermatol. 2006 Apr;142(4):433-8
pubmed: 16618861
Int J Cancer. 2011 May 15;128(10):2425-35
pubmed: 20669232
Environ Health. 2012 Jun 28;11 Suppl 1:S12
pubmed: 22759494
Cancer. 2009 Mar 15;115(6):1318-27
pubmed: 19189368
BMJ. 2012 Jul 24;345:e4757
pubmed: 22833605
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 01;(9):CD009259
pubmed: 24085634
Am J Prev Med. 2015 Feb;48(2):183-187
pubmed: 25442229