P Little1, M Keefe, J White. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate self screening by patients of high mole counts, assess the within family association of sun protection behaviour and mole counts, and estimate prevalence of risk factors for melanoma. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Systematic sample of families from a single affluent general practice population in Wessex. DESIGN: Subjects completed a questionnaire about risk factors for melanoma and counted their moles. Subsequently a mole count was done by a general practitioner trained at dermatology clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validation of self counts by observer's count. Within family association of sun protection behaviour and mole counts; self reported risk factors. RESULTS: 199/237 subjects (84%) returned the questionnaire; 212/237 (89%) were examined. High counts by patients on the front of the trunk (> 7 moles of > or = 2 mm) were reasonably sensitive (79%), predictive (75%), and specific (97%) of the observer's mole counts (kappa = 0.74), unlike arm or total body counts. Sun protection behaviour correlated between individuals and other family members (Spearman's coefficient r = 0.50, P < 0.01). In the past three months 15/114 adults (13.2%, 95% confidence interval 7.0% to 19.4%) reported any change in a mole and 6/114 (5.3%, 2.0% to 11.1%) "major" changes; 6/109 adults (5.5%, 2.1% to 11.6%) had both high mole counts and freckling. CONCLUSIONS: Asking patients to count trunk moles could be a feasible way of identifying patients at high risk of melanoma. Concentrating on reported major changes in moles should avoid considerable workload in general practice. The generalisability of these findings and the adverse effects, net benefit in earlier diagnosis and prevention, and workload implications of such self screening need further research.
OBJECTIVE: To validate self screening by patients of high mole counts, assess the within family association of sun protection behaviour and mole counts, and estimate prevalence of risk factors for melanoma. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Systematic sample of families from a single affluent general practice population in Wessex. DESIGN: Subjects completed a questionnaire about risk factors for melanoma and counted their moles. Subsequently a mole count was done by a general practitioner trained at dermatology clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validation of self counts by observer's count. Within family association of sun protection behaviour and mole counts; self reported risk factors. RESULTS: 199/237 subjects (84%) returned the questionnaire; 212/237 (89%) were examined. High counts by patients on the front of the trunk (> 7 moles of > or = 2 mm) were reasonably sensitive (79%), predictive (75%), and specific (97%) of the observer's mole counts (kappa = 0.74), unlike arm or total body counts. Sun protection behaviour correlated between individuals and other family members (Spearman's coefficient r = 0.50, P < 0.01). In the past three months 15/114 adults (13.2%, 95% confidence interval 7.0% to 19.4%) reported any change in a mole and 6/114 (5.3%, 2.0% to 11.1%) "major" changes; 6/109 adults (5.5%, 2.1% to 11.6%) had both high mole counts and freckling. CONCLUSIONS: Asking patients to count trunk moles could be a feasible way of identifying patients at high risk of melanoma. Concentrating on reported major changes in moles should avoid considerable workload in general practice. The generalisability of these findings and the adverse effects, net benefit in earlier diagnosis and prevention, and workload implications of such self screening need further research.
Authors: Wen-Qing Li; Eunyoung Cho; Martin A Weinstock; Suyun Li; Meir J Stampfer; Abrar A Qureshi Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Hongmei Nan; Mousheng Xu; Jiangwen Zhang; Mingfeng Zhang; Peter Kraft; Abrar A Qureshi; Constance Chen; Qun Guo; Frank B Hu; Eric B Rimm; Gary Curhan; Yiqing Song; Christopher I Amos; Li-E Wang; Jeffrey E Lee; Qingyi Wei; David J Hunter; Jiali Han Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Jiali Han; Abrar A Qureshi; Jennifer Prescott; Qun Guo; Li Ye; David J Hunter; Immaculata De Vivo Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: J Melia; S Moss; D Coleman; T Frost; R Graham-Brown; J A Hunter; R A Marsden; A du Vivier; A P Warin; J White; S M Whitehead; M A Wroughton Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-09-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Xin Li; Peter Kraft; Immaculata De Vivo; Edward Giovannucci; Liming Liang; Hongmei Nan Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 15.487