T Datzmann1,2,3,4,5, O Schoffer5, F Meier1,2,3,4,6, A Seidler7, J Schmitt1,2,3,4,5. 1. National Center for Tumor Diseases, Dresden, Germany. 2. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 4. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany. 5. TU Dresden, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Dresden, Germany. 6. TU Dresden, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Department of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center at the University Cancer Centre, Dresden, Germany. 7. TU Dresden, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Institute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The German programme for skin cancer screening was established in 2008 with the aim of reducing skin cancer mortality. However, the effectiveness and risk-benefit ratio of the programme remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the mortality rates of patients with melanoma who participate in a screening programme to those who do not. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, based on pseudonymized health insurance data of 1 431 327 individuals from Saxony, Germany, was conducted for the period 2010-2016. Patients with prevalent and incident melanoma were defined based on diagnosis, medical procedures and prescriptions. Patients who underwent screening and had a first diagnosis of melanoma within 2 years of screening were assigned to the intervention group. Relative survival and Cox regression were used to assess potential differences in mortality. RESULTS: We identified 4552 individuals with prevalent and 2475 individuals with incident melanoma. The percentage of screening participants (n = 1801) who had locoregional (4·2% vs. 13·5%) and/or distant metastases (4·3% vs. 8·0%), or who were treated with systemic anticancer therapies (11·6% vs. 21·8%) was lower vs. nonparticipants (n = 674). Screening participants had significantly better survival rates. The unadjusted Cox model gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·30-0·46]. After adjusting for named confounders, the effect remained (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·48-0·80). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who participated in the screening programme had lower mortality than those who had not undergone screening. However, these findings may result from a healthy screen bias and/or overdiagnosis associated with screening, and not from the screening itself.
BACKGROUND: The German programme for skin cancer screening was established in 2008 with the aim of reducing skin cancer mortality. However, the effectiveness and risk-benefit ratio of the programme remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the mortality rates of patients with melanoma who participate in a screening programme to those who do not. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, based on pseudonymized health insurance data of 1 431 327 individuals from Saxony, Germany, was conducted for the period 2010-2016. Patients with prevalent and incident melanoma were defined based on diagnosis, medical procedures and prescriptions. Patients who underwent screening and had a first diagnosis of melanoma within 2 years of screening were assigned to the intervention group. Relative survival and Cox regression were used to assess potential differences in mortality. RESULTS: We identified 4552 individuals with prevalent and 2475 individuals with incident melanoma. The percentage of screening participants (n = 1801) who had locoregional (4·2% vs. 13·5%) and/or distant metastases (4·3% vs. 8·0%), or who were treated with systemic anticancer therapies (11·6% vs. 21·8%) was lower vs. nonparticipants (n = 674). Screening participants had significantly better survival rates. The unadjusted Cox model gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·30-0·46]. After adjusting for named confounders, the effect remained (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·48-0·80). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who participated in the screening programme had lower mortality than those who had not undergone screening. However, these findings may result from a healthy screen bias and/or overdiagnosis associated with screening, and not from the screening itself.
Authors: Christian Speckemeier; Kathrin Pahmeier; Pietro Trocchi; Katrin Schuldt; Hildegard Lax; Michael Nonnemacher; Patrik Dröge; Andreas Stang; Jürgen Wasem; Silke Neusser Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 2.908