Nevio Dubbini1, Antonella Puddu2, Grazia Salimbeni2, Stefano Malloggi2, Daniele Gandini3, Pietro Massei4, Giuseppe Ferraùto5, Tommaso Rubino6, Laura Ricci7, Giovanni Menchini6, Marco Celli8, Maurizia Ghilardi6, Roberto Gianfaldoni9, Serena Gianfaldoni9, Andrea Nannipieri10, Antonella Romanini11. 1. Miningful Studio s.r.l.s, 56127 Pisa, Italy. 2. Plastic Surgery Department, San Rossore Clinic, 56122 Pisa, Italy. 3. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Specialist, 56122 Pisa, Italy. 4. Private Plastic Surgeon, Check-Up Medical Center, 55100 Lucca, Italy. 5. Private Dermatologist, San Rossore Clinic, 56122 Pisa, Italy. 6. Private Dermatologist, 56127 Pisa, Italy. 7. Dermatology Department, Azienda USL Toscana Nord Ovest, 57025 Piombino, Italy. 8. Dermatology Department, Ospedale Unico Della Versilia, Lido di Camaiore, 55041 Lucca, Italy. 9. Dermatology Department, University "G. Marconi of Rome", 00193 Roma, Italy. 10. Dermatology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, 56126 Pisa, Italy. 11. Medical Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Elizabeth M Ward; Recinda L Sherman; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; David A Siegel; Eric J Feuer; Albert U Firth; Betsy A Kohler; Susan Scott; Jiemin Ma; Robert N Anderson; Vicki Benard; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506