D Jäckel1,2, N I Schlothauer3, H Zeeb4, G Wagner5, M M Sachse5. 1. Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Deutschland. jaeckel@uni-bremen.de. 2. Klinik für Dermatologie, Allergologie und Phlebologie, Klinikum Bremerhaven, Bremerhaven, Deutschland. jaeckel@uni-bremen.de. 3. ehemals Versorgungsmanagement/Medizin, AOK Bremen/Bremerhaven, Bremen, Deutschland. 4. Abt. Prävention und Evaluation, Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie - BIPS, Bremen, Deutschland. 5. Klinik für Dermatologie, Allergologie und Phlebologie, Klinikum Bremerhaven, Bremerhaven, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organ transplant recipients have an up to 250-times higher risk to develop skin cancer. This article evaluated the utilisation of skin cancer screening and the treatment costs for skin cancer in organ transplant recipients. Patients of the health insurance AOK Bremen/Bremerhaven had been identified and the need for skin cancer prevention trainings was derived. METHODS: The number of organ transplant recipients (ICD code Z94.0-4) with and without any history of skin cancer (ICD code C43/C44), the utilisation of dermatologic health care services, and the costs for treatments with the diagnosis Z94.0-4 with and without C43/C44 were evaluated. The analyses were carried out for the period from 2009-2014 by using the accounting systems of the AOK. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, 231 organ transplant recipients had been recorded. By mid-2014, 20% of these insured persons developed skin cancer and the mean incidence was 2.76% per year. On average, 43% of these patients were seen by a dermatologist at least once a year, whereby only 15% of the organ transplant recipients participated in the annual skin cancer screening. In 29% of the patients without any history of skin cancer, a skin examination was never performed by a dermatologist or a general practitioner. In all, 17 inpatient cases of organ transplant recipients with the primary diagnosis C43/C44 were analyzed. This resulted in total costs of 54,707 € (on average about 3200 € per case). CONCLUSIONS: The increased incidence of skin cancer and the associated treatment costs indicate the need for skin cancer prevention training.
BACKGROUND: Organ transplant recipients have an up to 250-times higher risk to develop skin cancer. This article evaluated the utilisation of skin cancer screening and the treatment costs for skin cancer in organ transplant recipients. Patients of the health insurance AOK Bremen/Bremerhaven had been identified and the need for skin cancer prevention trainings was derived. METHODS: The number of organ transplant recipients (ICD code Z94.0-4) with and without any history of skin cancer (ICD code C43/C44), the utilisation of dermatologic health care services, and the costs for treatments with the diagnosis Z94.0-4 with and without C43/C44 were evaluated. The analyses were carried out for the period from 2009-2014 by using the accounting systems of the AOK. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, 231 organ transplant recipients had been recorded. By mid-2014, 20% of these insured persons developed skin cancer and the mean incidence was 2.76% per year. On average, 43% of these patients were seen by a dermatologist at least once a year, whereby only 15% of the organ transplant recipients participated in the annual skin cancer screening. In 29% of the patients without any history of skin cancer, a skin examination was never performed by a dermatologist or a general practitioner. In all, 17 inpatient cases of organ transplant recipients with the primary diagnosis C43/C44 were analyzed. This resulted in total costs of 54,707 € (on average about 3200 € per case). CONCLUSIONS: The increased incidence of skin cancer and the associated treatment costs indicate the need for skin cancer prevention training.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health care utilization; High-risk group; Immunosuppression; Medical history taking; Skin cancer prevention training
Authors: Giorgia L Garrett; Paul D Blanc; John Boscardin; Amanda Abramson Lloyd; Rehana L Ahmed; Tiffany Anthony; Kristin Bibee; Andrew Breithaupt; Jennifer Cannon; Amy Chen; Joyce Y Cheng; Zelma Chiesa-Fuxench; Oscar R Colegio; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Christina A Del Guzzo; Max Disse; Margaret Dowd; Robert Eilers; Arisa Elena Ortiz; Caroline Morris; Spring K Golden; Michael S Graves; John R Griffin; R Samuel Hopkins; Conway C Huang; Gordon Hyeonjin Bae; Anokhi Jambusaria; Thomas A Jennings; Shang I Brian Jiang; Pritesh S Karia; Shilpi Khetarpal; Changhyun Kim; Goran Klintmalm; Kathryn Konicke; Shlomo A Koyfman; Charlene Lam; Peter Lee; Justin J Leitenberger; Tiffany Loh; Stefan Lowenstein; Reshmi Madankumar; Jacqueline F Moreau; Rajiv I Nijhawan; Shari Ochoa; Edit B Olasz; Elaine Otchere; Clark Otley; Jeremy Oulton; Parth H Patel; Vishal Anil Patel; Arpan V Prabhu; Melissa Pugliano-Mauro; Chrysalyne D Schmults; Sarah Schram; Allen F Shih; Thuzar Shin; Seaver Soon; Teresa Soriano; Divya Srivastava; Jennifer A Stein; Kara Sternhell-Blackwell; Stan Taylor; Allison Vidimos; Peggy Wu; Nicholas Zajdel; Daniel Zelac; Sarah T Arron Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Z Anastasiadou; I Schäfer; J Siebert; W Günther; M Reusch; M Augustin Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: C Ulrich; J S Jürgensen; A Degen; M Hackethal; M Ulrich; M J Patel; J Eberle; D Terhorst; W Sterry; E Stockfleth Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 9.302