| Literature DB >> 24612627 |
Rhona Auckland, Patrick Wassell, Susan Hall1, Marianne C Nicolson, Peter Murchie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma incidence is growing and more people require follow-up to detect recurrent melanoma quickly. Those detecting their own recurrent melanoma appear to have the best prognosis, so total skin self examination (TSSE) is advocated, but practice is suboptimal. A digital intervention to support TSSE has potential but it is not clear which patient groups could benefit most. The aim of this study was to explore cutaneous melanoma recurrence patterns between 1991 and 2012 in Northeast Scotland. The objectives were to: determine how recurrent melanomas were detected during the period; explore factors potentially predictive of mode of recurrence detection; identify groups least likely to detect their own recurrent melanoma and with most potential to benefit from digital TSSE support.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24612627 PMCID: PMC3984711 DOI: 10.1186/1471-5945-14-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Dermatol ISSN: 1471-5945
Melanoma recurrence data sheet
| Surname: | DOB: | |
| Forename(s): | Gender: | |
| CHI: | | |
| Occupation: | Ethnicity: | |
| Date of primary melanoma diagnosis: | | |
| Melanoma type: | | |
| Stage of melanoma: | | |
| Tumour thickness (mm): | Breslow depth; | |
| Clark level; | ||
| Prognostic features: | Ulceration; | |
| Lymph node involvement; | ||
| Tumour vascularity; | ||
| lymphovascular invasion; | ||
| Mitotic rate; | ||
| Regression; | ||
| Microsatellites; | ||
| Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes; | ||
| Lactate dehydrogenase serum level; | ||
| Tumour anatomical location: | | |
| Method/Details of treatment: | | |
| Details on how the melanoma was picked up: | | |
| Date of excision biopsies: | Primary biopsy; | |
| Secondary biopsy; | ||
| Punch/Shave biopsy; | ||
| Details of prescribed follow-up program: | | |
| Date of recurrence diagnosis: | | |
| Nature of recurrence: local, regional, distant) | | |
| Melanoma type: | | |
| Melanoma stage: | | |
| Tumour thickness: | Breslow depth; | |
| Clark level; | ||
| Prognostic features: | | |
| Tumour anatomical location: | | |
| How was the recurrence detected: | | Please Tick |
| | Self – detected | |
| GP | | |
| Dermatologist | | |
| Follow-up appointment | | |
| | Other | |
| If other, please state: | ||
| If self- detected, which of the following apply: | | Please Tick: |
| Recurrence found via; | Routine self-examination | |
| | Accidental find | |
| | Aid of partner/Acquaintance | |
| | Experience of related symptoms (e.g. nausea, fatigue, weight loss, pain, shortness of breath etc.) | |
| Route from self-detection to official diagnosis: (e.g. Patient – GP – Hospital) | | |
| Dates of above referrals: (e.g. GP referral, treatment dates etc.) | ||
Clinicopathological Characteristics; descriptive statistics in relation to frequency within sample of 94 patients
| | |
| | |
| Female | 37 (39.4%) |
| Male | 57 (60.6%) |
| | |
| 1(most deprived) | 5 (5.3%) |
| 2 | 9 (9.6%) |
| 3 | 22 (23.4%) |
| 4 | 27 (28.7%) |
| 5(least deprived) | 31 (33.0%) |
| | |
| Urban | 43 (45.6%) |
| Rural | 51 (54.4%) |
| | |
| Local | 21 (22.3%) |
| Regional | 48 (51.1%) |
| Distant | 25 (26.6%) |
| | |
| | |
| <=50 years | 19 (20.2%) |
| 51-70 years | 41 (43.6%) |
| 71+ years | 33 (35.1%) |
| Unknown | 1 (1.1%) |
| | |
| Superficial spreading | 27 (28.7%) |
| Nodular malignant | 30 (31.9%) |
| Lentigo maligna | 5 (5.3%) |
| Acral lentiginous | 5 (5.3%) |
| Other | 27 (28.7%) |
| | |
| Lower limbs | 35 (37.2%) |
| Trunk | 20 (21.3%) |
| Upper limbs | 9 (9.6%) |
| Head and neck | 22 (23.4%) |
| Mucus membranes | 4 (4.3%) |
| Eye | 4 (4.3%) |
| | |
| <0.75 mm | 1 (1.1%) |
| 0.76-4.00 mm | 18 (19.1%) |
| >4.00 mm | 36 (38.3%) |
| Unknown | 27 (28.7%) |
| | 12 (12.8%) |
| | |
| | |
| <=50 years | 14 (14.9%) |
| 51-70 years | 40 (42.6%) |
| 71+ years | 40 (42.6%) |
| | |
| 0-12 months | 27 (28.7%) |
| 13-24 months | 28 (29.8%) |
| 25-36 | 11 (11.7%) |
| 37-48 | 5 (5.3%) |
| 49-60 | 7 (7.4%) |
| 5+ years | 15 (16.0%) |
| Unknown | 1 (1.1%) |
| | |
| Self-detected and reported during interval | 45 (48.9%) |
| New finding at follow-up clinical | 30 (31.9%) |
| Emergency admission with symptoms in interval | 11 (11.7%) |
| Other | 5 (5.3%) |
Figure 1Study flow.
Cross tab data analysis; determining the significance of categorised variables on likelihood to present at follow-up or in interval
| | | .413 | |
| Female | 8 (21.6%) | 29 (78.4%) | |
| Male | 15 (26.3%)′ | 42 (73.7%) | |
| | | .341 | |
| 1(most deprived) | 3 (60.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | |
| 2 | 3 (33.3%) | 6 (66.7%) | |
| 3 | 6 (27.3%) | 16 (72.7%) | |
| 4 | 7 (25.9%) | 20 (74.15) | |
| 5(least deprived) | 4 (12.9%) | 27 (87.1%) | |
| | | .571 | |
| Urban | 14 (32.6%) | 29 (67.4%) | |
| Rural | 9 (17.6%) | 42 (82.4%) | |
| | | .964 | |
| Superficial spreading | 7 (25.9%) | 20 (74.1%) | |
| Nodular malignant | 8 (26.7%) | 22 (73.3%) | |
| Lentigo maligna | 1 (20.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | |
| Acral lentiginous | 1 (20.0% | 4 (80.0%) | |
| Other | 6 (22.2%) | 21 (77.8%) | |
| | | .252 | |
| 4 mm or less | 11 (20.0%) | 44 (80.0%) | |
| >4 mm | 12 (30.8%) | 27 (69.2%) | |
| | | .142 | |
| Up to 65 years | 12 (25.0%) | 36 (75%) | |
| 65 years and above | 18 (39.1%) | 28 (60.9%) | |
| | | .008 | |
| 12 months or less | 14 (51.9%) | 13 (48.1%) | |
| Beyond 12 months | 16 (23.9%) | 51 (76.2%) |
Binary logistic regression; odds ratio of having recurrence detected at routine follow-up versus interval, based on key variables and individual factors
| Gender | 1.295 | .486 | 3.449 |
| Age | 1.351 | .518 | 3.523 |
| Melanoma type | | | |
| .842 | .274 | 2.586 | |
| .632 | .088 | 4.532 | |
| 1.684 | .162 | 17.516 | |
| .842 | .267 | 2.660 | |
| Breslow thickness | 1.667 | .694 | 4.004 |
| Rurality | 1.286 | .539 | 3.067 |
| Deprivation | 1.750 | .548 | 5.591 |
| Age | 1.714 | .666 | 4.415 |
| Breslow thickness | 1.443 | .573 | 3.635 |
| Rurality | 1.377 | .527 | 3.596 |
| Deprivation | 1.626 | .454 | 5.816 |
Adjusted Binary Logistic Regression; adjusted for variables we deemed could influence our values.