Wei-Yin Lim1,2, Rachael L Morton3, Robin M Turner4, Marisa C Jenkins2, Pascale Guitera5,6,7, Les Irwig2, Angela C Webster2, Mbathio Dieng2,3, Robyn P M Saw5,8,9, Donald Low10, Cynthia Low10, Katy J L Bell2,11. 1. Clinical Research Centre Perak, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia. 2. School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Discipline of Dermatology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. The Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Discipline of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 9. Division of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. 10. Cancer Voices NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 11. Centre for Evidence Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
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).
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).
Authors: Caroline G Watts; Anne E Cust; Scott W Menzies; Elliot Coates; Graham J Mann; Rachael L Morton Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Adam D Lipworth; Jong Min Park; Brie L Trefrey; Krista M Rubin; Alan C Geller; Arthur J Sober; Hensin Tsao Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Anne Brecht Francken; Helen M Shaw; Neil A Accortt; Seng-Jaw Soong; Harald J Hoekstra; John F Thompson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Anne E Cust; Mark A Jenkins; Chris Goumas; Bruce K Armstrong; Helen Schmid; Joanne F Aitken; Graham G Giles; Richard F Kefford; John L Hopper; Graham J Mann Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Kimberly Moore Dalal; Qin Zhou; Katherine S Panageas; Mary S Brady; David P Jaques; Daniel G Coit Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Samantha Damude; Josette E H M Hoekstra-Weebers; Anne Brecht Francken; Sylvia Ter Meulen; Esther Bastiaannet; Harald J Hoekstra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Deonna M Ackermann; Mbathio Dieng; Ellie Medcalf; Marisa C Jenkins; Cathelijne H van Kemenade; Monika Janda; Robin M Turner; Anne E Cust; Rachael L Morton; Les Irwig; Pascale Guitera; H Peter Soyer; Victoria Mar; Jolyn K Hersch; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Robyn P M Saw; Richard A Scolyer; Dorothy Drabarek; David Espinoza; Anthony Azzi; Alister M Lilleyman; Amelia K Smit; Peter Murchie; John F Thompson; Katy J L Bell Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Wei-Yin Lim; Robin M Turner; Rachael L Morton; Marisa C Jenkins; Les Irwig; Angela C Webster; Mbathio Dieng; Robyn P M Saw; Pascale Guitera; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Katy J L Bell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Deonna M Ackermann; Amelia K Smit; Monika Janda; Cathelijne H van Kemenade; Mbathio Dieng; Rachael L Morton; Robin M Turner; Anne E Cust; Les Irwig; Jolyn K Hersch; Pascale Guitera; H Peter Soyer; Victoria Mar; Robyn P M Saw; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Dorothy Drabarek; David Espinoza; Jon Emery; Peter Murchie; John F Thompson; Richard A Scolyer; Anthony Azzi; Alister Lilleyman; Katy J L Bell Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.279