Literature DB >> 8534937

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance of stage I melanoma. A retrospective appraisal based on a 10-year experience in a dermatology department in France.

N Bassères1, J J Grob, M A Richard, X Thirion, H Zarour, C Noe, A M Collet-Vilette, I Lota, J J Bonerandi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no agreement about surveillance after resection of a stage I melanoma.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this surveillance.
METHODS: Out of 912 patients with stage I (and Clark's level > or = II) melanoma examined from 1981 to 1991, only 528 were regularly followed in our department.
RESULTS: 115 out of 528 relapsed; 33% were detected by the patient himself, 16% by the referring physician and 39% were detected in our department. Chest X-ray or abdomen ultrasonography revealed only 10% of relapses; CT scans were useless. There was a huge gap between the cost-effectiveness of clinical examinations and radiology. The time between relapse and the last check-up in our department was less than 4 months in one third of the metastases.
CONCLUSIONS: In stage I melanoma, only clinical examination is really cost-effective in the detection of metastases. However, many metastases are likely to become prominent between two examinations if patients are examined less than 3 times a year. A progressive decrease in frequency is thus not advisable, until the risk is considered low enough to stop follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8534937     DOI: 10.1159/000246546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dermatology        ISSN: 1018-8665            Impact factor:   5.366


  8 in total

Review 1.  Follow-up in patients with low-risk cutaneous melanoma: is it worth it?

Authors:  Ulrike Leiter; Thomas Eigentler; Claus Garbe
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2014-12-04

Review 2.  Long-term follow-up for melanoma patients: is there any evidence of a benefit?

Authors:  Natasha M Rueth; Kate D Cromwell; Janice N Cormier
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 3.495

Review 3.  Variability in melanoma post-treatment surveillance practices by country and physician specialty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kate D Cromwell; Merrick I Ross; Yan Xing; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard E Royal; Anthony Lucci; Jeffrey E Lee; Janice N Cormier
Journal:  Melanoma Res       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.599

Review 4.  A Global Review of Melanoma Follow-up Guidelines.

Authors:  Shannon C Trotter; Novie Sroa; Richard R Winkelmann; Thomas Olencki; Mark Bechtel
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2013-09

5.  Cancer imaging - the significance of the findings.

Authors:  R H Reznek
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2000-10-09       Impact factor: 3.909

6.  Detection of melanoma nodal metastases; differences in detection between elderly and younger patients do not affect survival.

Authors:  S Kruijff; E Bastiaannet; A J H Suurmeijer; H J Hoekstra
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Brazilian guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part II.

Authors:  Luiz Guilherme Martins Castro; Renato Marchiori Bakos; João Pedreira Duprat Neto; Flávia Vasques Bittencourt; Thais Helena Bello Di Giacomo; Sérgio Schrader Serpa; Maria Cristina de Lorenzo Messina; Walter Refkalefsky Loureiro; Ricardo Silvestre e Silva Macarenco; Hamilton Ometto Stolf; Gabriel Gontijo
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.896

8.  Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients--monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patient survival.

Authors:  U Hofmann; M Szedlak; W Rittgen; E G Jung; D Schadendorf
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.