Patient Preferences for Follow-up After Recent Excision of a Localized Melanoma

Association between dermatology follow-up and melanoma survival: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that patients with melanoma undergo dermatologic examination at least annually. Adherence to follow-up and its impact on survival are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the level of adherence to annual dermatologic follow-up in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, identify predictors for better adherence, and evaluate whether adherence was associated with melanoma-related mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective inception cohort analysis of adults with primary invasive melanoma in Ontario, Canada from 2010 to 2013 with follow-up until December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Adherence to dermatologic follow-up was variable with only 28.0% of patients seeing a dermatologist at least annually (median follow-up 5.0 years). Younger age, female sex, higher income, greater access to dermatology care, stage 2/3 melanoma, prior keratinocyte carcinoma, fewer comorbidities, and any outpatient visit in the 12 months prior to melanoma diagnosis were predictors for adherence. Greater adherence to annual dermatology visits was associated with reduced melanoma-specific mortality compared with lower levels of adherence (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78).

LIMITATIONS

Observational study design and inability to identify skin examinations performed by non-dermatologists.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to annual dermatology visits after melanoma diagnosis was low. Greater adherence may promote better patient survival but warrants confirmation in further research including randomized trials.

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify barriers and targeted strategies to improve adherence in randomised clinical trials: The example of MEL-SELF trial of patient-led surveillance for melanoma

BACKGROUND

Adherence to self-management interventions is critical in both clinical settings and trials to ensure maximal effectiveness. This study reports how the Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to assess barriers to self-management behaviours and develop strategies to maximise adherence in a trial setting (the MEL-SELF trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance).

METHODS

The Behaviour Change Wheel was applied by (i) using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COMB) model informed by empirical and review data to identify adherence barriers, (ii) mapping identified barriers to corresponding intervention functions, and (iii) identifying appropriate behaviour change techniques and developing potential solutions using the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and safety, Equity) criteria.

RESULTS

The target adherence behaviour was defined as conducting a thorough skin self-examination and submitting images for teledermatology review. Key barriers identified included: non-engaged skin check partners, inadequate planning, time constraints, low self-efficacy, and technological difficulties. Participants' motivation was positively influenced by perceived health benefits and negatively impacted by emotional states such as anxiety and depression. We identified the following feasible interventions to support adherence: education, training, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion, and incentivisation. Proposed solutions included action planning, calendar scheduling, alternative dermatoscopes, optimised communication, educational resources in various formats to boost self-efficacy and motivation and optimised reminders (which will be evaluated in a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)).

CONCLUSION

The Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to improve adherence in clinical trials by identifying barriers to self-management behaviours and guiding development of targeted strategies.

Acceptability of a Hypothetical Reduction in Routinely Scheduled Clinic Visits Among Patients With History of a Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

After treatment for a localized melanoma, patients attend routinely scheduled clinics to monitor for new primary or recurrent melanoma. Patient-led surveillance (skin self-examination with patient-performed teledermoscopy) is an alternative model of follow-up that could replace some routinely scheduled visits.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits among participants of the Melanoma Self Surveillance (MEL-SELF) pilot randomized clinical trial of patient-led surveillance (intervention) versus usual care (control).

METHODS

Patients previously treated for localized melanoma in New South Wales who were participating in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized clinical trial were asked to respond to a web-based questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months on trial. We used mixed methods to analyze the data. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits for melanoma surveillance.

RESULTS

Of 100 randomized participants, 87 answered the questionnaire at baseline, 66 answered the questionnaire at 6 months, and 79 provided a free-text explanation at either time point. At 6 months, 33% (17/51) of the control group and 35% (17/49) of the intervention group indicated that a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits with all melanoma doctors was at least slightly acceptable (difference in proportions -1%, 95% CI -20% to 17%; P=.89). Participants suggested that prerequisites for a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would include that sufficient time had elapsed since the previous diagnosis without a new primary melanoma or recurrence, an unscheduled appointment could be made at short notice if the patient noticed something concerning, their melanoma doctor had suggested reducing their clinic visit frequency, and patients had confidence that patient-led surveillance was a safe and effective alternative. Participants suggested that a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would not be acceptable where they perceived a very high risk of new or recurrent melanoma, low self-efficacy in skin self-examination and in the use of technologies for the patient-led surveillance intervention, and where they had a preference for clinician-led surveillance. Some patients said that a partial reduction to once a year may be acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients may be receptive to a reduction in routinely scheduled visits if they are assured that patient-led surveillance is safe and effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865&isReview=true; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03581188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03581188.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4704.

Strategies to Improve Adherence to Skin Self-examination and Other Self-management Practices in People at High Risk of Melanoma: A Scoping Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Adherence, both in research trials and in clinical practice, is crucial to the success of interventions. There is limited guidance on strategies to increase adherence and the measurement and reporting of adherence in trials of melanoma self-management practices.

Objective

This scoping review aimed to describe (1) strategies to improve adherence to self-management practices in randomized clinical trials of people at high risk of melanoma and (2) measurement and reporting of adherence data in these trials.

Evidence Review

Four databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, were searched from inception to July 2022. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of self-monitoring interventions for early detection of melanoma in people at increased risk due to personal history (eg, melanoma, transplant, dysplastic naevus syndrome), family history of melanoma, or as determined by a risk assessment tool or clinical judgment.

Findings

From 939 records screened, 18 eligible randomized clinical trials were identified, ranging in size from 40 to 724 participants, using a range of adherence strategies but with sparse evidence on effectiveness of the strategies. Strategies were classified as trial design (n = 15); social and economic support (n = 5); intervention design (n = 18); intervention and condition support (n = 10); and participant support (n = 18). No strategies were reported for supporting underserved groups (eg, people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, have low health literacy, non-English speakers, or older adults) to adhere to self-monitoring practices, and few trials targeted provider (referring to both clinicians and researchers) adherence (n = 5). Behavioral support tools included reminders (n = 8), priority-setting guidance (n = 5), and clinician feedback (n = 5). Measurement of adherence was usually by participant report of skin self-examination practice with some recent trials of digital interventions also directly measuring adherence to the intervention through website or application analytic data. Reporting of adherence data was limited, and fewer than half of all reports mentioned adherence in their discussion.

Conclusions and Relevance

Using an adaptation of the World Health Organization framework for clinical adherence, this scoping review of randomized clinical trials identified key concepts as well as gaps in the way adherence is approached in design, conduct, and reporting of trials for skin self-examination and other self-management practices in people at high risk of melanoma. These findings may usefully guide future trials and clinical practice; evaluation of adherence strategies may be possible using a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) framework within host trials.

Experiences of Patient-Led Surveillance, Including Patient-Performed Teledermoscopy, in the MEL-SELF Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Current clinician-led melanoma surveillance models require frequent routinely scheduled clinic visits, with associated travel, cost, and time burden for patients. Patient-led surveillance is a new model of follow-up care that could reduce health care use such as clinic visits and medical procedures and their associated costs, increase access to care, and promote early diagnosis of a subsequent new melanoma after treatment of a primary melanoma. Understanding patient experiences may allow improvements in implementation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore patients' experiences and perceptions of patient-led surveillance during the 6 months of participation in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient-led surveillance comprised regular skin self-examination, use of a mobile dermatoscope to image lesions of concern, and a smartphone app to track and send images to a teledermatologist for review, in addition to usual care.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients previously treated for melanoma localized to the skin in New South Wales, Australia, who were randomized to the patient-led surveillance (intervention group) in the trial. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the technology acceptance model.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 patients (n=8, 40% women and n=12, 60% men; median age 62 years). Patients who were more adherent experienced benefits such as increased awareness of their skin and improved skin self-examination practice, early detection of melanomas, and opportunities to be proactive in managing their clinical follow-up. Most participants experienced difficulty in obtaining clear images and technical problems with the app. These barriers were overcome or persevered by participants with previous experience with digital technology and with effective help from a skin check partner (such as a spouse, sibling, or friend). Having too many or too few moles decreased perceived usefulness.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with melanoma are receptive to and experience benefits from patient-led surveillance using teledermoscopy. Increased provision of training and technical support to patients and their skin check partners may help to realize the full potential benefits of this new model of melanoma surveillance.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow up? Statistical analysis plan for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial of patient-led surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance in people treated for localised cutaneous melanoma (stage 0, I, II). The primary trial aim is to determine if patient led-surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance increases the proportion of participants who are diagnosed with a new primary or recurrent melanoma at a fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visit. The secondary outcomes include time to diagnosis of any skin cancer, psychosocial outcomes, acceptability, and resource use.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to outline and publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan before the database lock and the start of analysis.

METHODS/DESIGN

The statistical analysis plan describes the overall analysis principles, including how participants will be included in each analysis, the presentation of the results, adjustments for covariates, the primary and secondary outcomes, and their respective analyses. In addition, we present the planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. A separate analysis plan will be published for health economic outcomes.

RESULTS

The MEL-SELF statistical analysis plan has been designed to minimize bias in estimating effects of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes. By pre-specifying analyses, we ensure the study's integrity and believability while enabling the reproducibility of the final analysis.

CONCLUSION

This detailed statistical analysis plan will help to ensure transparency of reporting of results from the MEL-SELF trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864. Registered 18 February 2021, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621000176864.aspx.

Adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of UK and European hand surgery units

Hand surgery services had to rapidly adapt to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network #RSTNCOVID Hand Surgery survey was to document the changes made in the UK and Europe and consider which might persist. A survey developed by the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network, in association with the British Association of Hand Therapists, was distributed to hand surgery units across the UK and Europe after the first wave of COVID-19. It was completed by one consultant hand surgeon at each of the 44 units that responded. Adult and paediatric trauma were maintained but elective services stopped. Consultations were increasingly virtual, and surgery was more likely to be under local anaesthetic and in a lower resource setting. Many of the changes are viewed as being beneficial. However, it is important to establish that they are clinically and cost effective. These survey results will help prioritise and support future research initiatives.

Health professional and patient views of a novel prognostic test for melanoma: A theoretically informed qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Cutaneous melanoma rates are steadily increasing. Up to 20% of patients diagnosed with AJCC Stage I/II melanomas will develop metastatic disease. To date there are no consistently reliable means to accurately identify truly high versus low-risk patient subpopulations. There is hence an urgent need for more accurate prediction of prognosis to determine appropriate clinical management. Validation of a novel prognostic test based on the immunohistochemical expression of two protein biomarkers in the epidermal microenvironment of primary melanomas was undertaken; loss of these biomarkers had previously been shown to be associated with a higher risk of recurrence or metastasis. A parallel qualitative study exploring secondary care health professional and patient views of the test was undertaken and this paper reports the perceived barriers and enablers to its implementation into the melanoma care pathway.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were employed drawing upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in the exploration and analysis. An inductive-deductive analysis was performed, with all data coded using a thematic then TDF framework.

FINDINGS

20 dermatologists, plastic surgeons, cancer nurse specialists, oncologists and histopathologists participated. Nine TDF domains were relevant to all health professional groups and the 'Skills' and 'Beliefs about Capabilities' domains were relevant only to histopathologists. 'Optimism' and 'Beliefs about consequences' were strong enablers particularly for clinicians. 'Environmental context and resources' (impact on pathology services) and 'Knowledge' (the need for robust evidence about the test reliability) were the main perceived barriers. 19 patients and one carer were interviewed. For the patients eight domains were relevant. ('Knowledge', 'Emotions', 'Beliefs about consequences', 'Social Role and identity', 'Behavioural regulation', 'Memory, attention and decision processes', 'Reinforcement' and 'Skills'). The consequences of the implementation of the test were reassurance about future risk, changes to the follow-up pathway on which there were mixed views, and the need to ensure they maintained self-surveillance (Beliefs about consequences). The test was acceptable to all patient interviewees but the resultant changes to management would need to be supported by mechanisms for fast-track back into the clinic, further information on self-surveillance and clear management plans at the time the result is conveyed (Behavioural regulation).

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals and patients perceived positive consequences-for patients and for health services-of adopting the test. However, its implementation would require exploration of the resource implications for pathology services, psychological support for patients with a high-risk test result and mechanisms to reassure and support patients should the test lead to reduced frequency or duration of follow-up. Exploring implementation at an early stage with health professionals presented challenges related to the provision of specific details of the test and its validation.

Assessing the Potential for Patient-led Surveillance After Treatment of Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Patient-led surveillance is a promising new model of follow-up care following excision of localized melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient-led surveillance in patients with prior localized primary cutaneous melanoma is as safe, feasible, and acceptable as clinician-led surveillance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a pilot for a randomized clinical trial at 2 specialist-led clinics in metropolitan Sydney, Australia, and a primary care skin cancer clinic managed by general practitioners in metropolitan Newcastle, Australia. The participants were 100 patients who had been treated for localized melanoma, owned a smartphone, had a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and had been routinely attending scheduled follow-up visits. The study was conducted from November 1, 2018, to January 17, 2020, with analysis performed from September 1, 2020, to November 15, 2020.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized (1:1) to 6 months of patient-led surveillance (the intervention comprised usual care plus reminders to perform SSE, patient-performed dermoscopy, teledermatologist assessment, and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits) or clinician-led surveillance (the control was usual care).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible and contacted patients who were randomized. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (eg, SSE knowledge, attitudes, and practices, psychological outcomes, other health care use) and clinical outcomes (eg, clinic visits, skin surgeries, subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma).

RESULTS

Of 326 patients who were eligible and contacted, 100 (31%) patients (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [12.0] years; 53 [53%] men) were randomized to patient-led (n = 49) or clinician-led (n = 51) surveillance. Data were available on patient-reported outcomes for 66 participants and on clinical outcomes for 100 participants. Compared with clinician-led surveillance, patient-led surveillance was associated with increased SSE frequency (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 14.0) and thoroughness (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.7), had no detectable adverse effect on psychological outcomes (fear of cancer recurrence subscale score; mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.5), and increased clinic visits (risk ratio [RR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), skin lesion excisions (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0), and subsequent melanoma diagnoses and subsequent melanoma diagnoses (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, -2% to 23%). New primary melanomas and 1 local recurrence were diagnosed in 8 (16%) of the participants in the intervention group, including 5 (10%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits; and in 3 (6%) of the participants in the control group, with none (0%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, 2% to 19%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This pilot of a randomized clinical trial found that patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma appears to be safe, feasible, and acceptable. Experiences from this pilot study have prompted improvements to the trial processes for the larger trial of the same intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001716459.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow-up? A protocol for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma.

METHODS

Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised).

DISCUSSION

The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.

Estimating the potential impact of interventions to reduce over-calling and under-calling of melanoma

BACKGROUND

Pathologists sometimes disagree over the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma. 'Over-calling' and 'under-calling' of melanoma may harm individuals and healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the extent of 'over-calling' and 'under-calling' of melanoma for a population undergoing one excision per person and to model the impact of potential solutions.

METHODS

In this epidemiological modelling study, we undertook simulations using published data on the prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of melanocytic histopathology in the U.S.

POPULATION

We simulated results for 10 000 patients each undergoing excision of one melanocytic lesion, interpreted by one community pathologist. We repeated the simulation using a hypothetical intervention that improves diagnostic agreement between community pathologist and a specialist dermatopathologist. We then evaluated four scenarios for how melanocytic lesions judged to be neither clearly benign (post-test probability of melanoma < 5%), nor clearly malignant (post-test probability of melanoma > 90%) might be handled, before sending for expert dermatopathologist review to decide the final diagnosis. These were (1) no intervention before expert review, (2) formal second community pathologist review, (3) intervention to increase diagnostic agreement and (4) both the intervention and formal second community pathologist review. The main outcomes were the probability of 'over-calling' and 'under-calling' melanoma, and number of lesions requiring expert referral for each scenario.

RESULTS

For 10 000 individuals undergoing excision of one melanocytic lesion, interpreted by a community pathologist, a hypothetical intervention to improve histopathology agreement reduced the number of benign lesions 'over-called' as melanoma from 308 to 164 and the number of melanomas 'under-called' from 289 to 240. If all uncertain diagnoses were sent for expert review, the number of referrals would decrease from 1500 to 737 cases if formal second community pathologist review was used, and to 701 cases if the hypothetical intervention was additionally used.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve histopathology agreement may reduce melanoma 'over-calling' and 'under-calling'.

Remote skin self-examination training of melanoma survivors and their skin check partners: A randomized trial and comparison with in-person training

Background

Compared with other cancers, melanoma has the longest delays measured as the median time to patient presentation for care from symptom onset. Time to presentation for care is a key determinant of outcomes, including disease stage, prognosis, and treatment.

Methods

Melanoma survivors with localized disease and their skin check partners enrolled in two sequential randomized control trials of skin self‐examination (SSE) training. In Phase 1, the pair read a workbook in the office and had quarterly total body skin examinations with a study dermatologist. In Phase 2, materials were mailed to pairs, whose surveillance was with a community physician. SSE knowledge, performance (frequency and extent), and identification of concerning moles were compared between phases.

Results

Among 341 patients, 197 received the workbook and the others were controls. Knowledge in performing SSE was higher for the workbook relative to controls in both phases. The SSE frequency ranged from 2.38 to 5.97 times in 9 months. Patients randomized to the workbook in both phases performed significantly more SSE than controls at 9 months (P < .05). In both phases, trained survivors performed significantly more SSEs on the scalp than controls at 9 and 18 months (P < .05). Phase 1 survivors performed significantly more SSEs on the abdomen, buttocks, and soles of the feet than controls, but this did not occur in Phase 2. Finally, in both phases, survivors trained with the workbook resulted in greater detection of suspicious lesions and melanomas.

Conclusions

These findings justify the benefits of remote SSE training for patients as an adjunct to provider‐administered screening.

Post-Treatment Head and Neck Cancer Care: National Audit and Analysis of Current Practice in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to audit current United Kingdom (UK) practice of Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) post-treatment surveillance against national guidelines, and determine the outcomes of these practices in detecting recurrence.

DESIGN

National cross-sectional study of current HNC surveillance practice.

SETTING

UK HNC outpatient departments.

PARTICIPANTS

HNC patients reviewed for post-treatment surveillance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Compliance with UK multidisciplinary guidelines, and rates of cancer recurrence detection by time, clinic type and symptoms.

RESULTS

Data were analysed from 5,123 consultations across 89 UK centres. 30% of consultations were in dedicated multidisciplinary clinics, with input from Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) available on the day in 23% of all consultations. Recurrence was suspected in 344 consultations and investigated with MRI in 29.6% (n=102) and PET-CT in 14.2% (n=49). Patient education regarding recurrence symptoms, and smoking and alcohol advice, was provided in 20.4%, 6.2%, and 5.3% of cases, respectively. Rates of recurrence detected were 35% in expedited appointments and 5.2% in planned follow-ups (p=0.0001). Of the expedited appointments, 63% were initiated by patients and 37% by clinicians. Recurrence was higher in those with new symptoms (7.1% versus 2.2%). The strongest predictors of recurrence were dyspnoea (positive predictive value (PPV)=16.2%), neck pain (PPV=10.4%) and mouth/throat pain (PPV=9.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated multidisciplinary clinics comprise a minority of consultations for HNC surveillance in the UK, with low availability of AHPs. PET-CT and MRI were underutilised for the investigation of suspected recurrence. There may be scope for greater emphasis on patient education and consequent patient-initiated symptom driven follow-up.

Definitions, survey methods, and findings of patient satisfaction studies in teledermatology: a systematic review

Remote consultations likely will grow in importance if the COVID-19 pandemic continues. This review analyzes which methods of teledermatology patients prefer by categorizing how recent studies have defined satisfaction, conducted surveys and concluded patients respond to the different modalities of teledermatology. Using PubMed and Cochrane databases, we reviewed studies from April 5th, 2010 to April 5th, 2020 that included the search terms patient satisfaction and teledermatology. All studies that included patient satisfaction as an outcome were included, but studies not published in English were excluded. We examined domains of satisfaction, survey method, study characteristics (including patient population, country, age, study design and evidence score), findings and statistical comparisons. We thoroughly reviewed 23 studies. Definitions of satisfaction varied, but all concluded patients were satisfied with the live-interactive and store-and-forward modalities. The studies reveal that store-and-forward is appropriate for clinicians with established patients who require regular follow-up. Verified areas of care include treatment of chronic conditions, topical skin cancer therapy, wound monitoring, and post-procedural follow-up. Only four studies conducted statistical analyses. One of those studies compared patient preference for each modality of teledermatology with face-to-face dermatology. While this study reported high satisfaction with each mode of teledermatology, patients still preferred face-to-face. Favorable responses to remote diagnostic capabilities suggest that these offerings improve preference for teledermatology. With only one study evaluating preference between each modality and face-to-face dermatology, more studies should address the discrepancy. Surveys that cover all domains of satisfaction may improve assessments and identify where gaps in preference exist.

Patients' Views About Skin Self-examination After Treatment for Localized Melanoma

Importance

Skin self-examination (SSE) is a key factor in the early detection of melanoma, and many new and recurrent melanomas are first detected by patients themselves or their family members.

Objective

To explore the views of patients with melanoma regarding SSE in general, as well as their attitudes toward using novel digital technologies to support their own SSE.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Qualitative study with semistructured interviews that were conducted from June 20 to December 12, 2016, with 37 individuals in Sydney, Australia, who were previously treated for a first primary localized melanoma during 2014 and had not had a recurrence or new primary melanoma in the time since treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients' views and experiences, analyzed thematically.

Results

A total of 37 patients (11 women and 26 men; median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 59.5-72 years]) were interviewed. Participants perceived SSE as important for the early identification of local recurrence or new primary melanomas. Despite this belief, participants did not report undertaking full-body SSE on a regular basis. Factors that influenced their low engagement in thorough SSE included lack of self-efficacy, reliance on clinician consultations as the primary means of melanoma detection, and fear of cancer recurrence. Regarding the use of digital technology to assist with SSE, the key motivating factors in favor of such tools were the ability to track changes in lesions over time and the use of automated reminders to undertake SSE. Deterrents included a lack of confidence in undertaking SSE and in using new technology.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients with melanoma are aware of the importance of thorough skin examinations. However, a lack of confidence in their ability to undertake SSE and reliance on clinicians as the primary means of melanoma detection may inhibit patients from undertaking regular and thorough SSE. Patients may benefit from new digital technologies that assist them in undertaking SSE, provided they have appropriate education and technical support.

Needs and preferences of patients regarding basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma care: a qualitative focus group study

BACKGROUND

Despite the high and rising incidence rate of keratinocyte cancer (KC) and the importance of incorporating patient values into evidence-based care, few studies have focused on the perspectives of patients with KC.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the needs and preferences of patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) regarding care.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted consisting of three focus groups with patients with BCC and three focus groups with patients with SCC. In total 42 patients participated. In each focus group, the patients' needs and preferences regarding treatment and follow-up were discussed, using a predefined topic list. All sessions were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers.

RESULTS

The following needs and preferences were identified: (i) the need to receive all relevant, tailored information; (ii) a physician who takes you seriously and communicates well; (iii) a short waiting period and the best treatment with direct results; (iv) to be seen by the same physician; a preference for a dermatologist during (v) treatment and (vi) follow-up; (vii) a general need for structured follow-up care and (viii) a full-body skin examination during follow-up. Patients with BCC additionally expressed the need for openness and transparency and wanting to participate in shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

It is advocated to organize skin cancer care that is better tailored to the needs of patients with KC, providing patient-centred care. This should include investing in the patient-physician relationship, and personalizing the type and form of information and the follow-up schedules. Adding the patient's perspective to current guidelines could facilitate this process.

Use of shared care and routine tests in follow-up after treatment for localised cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients may decide to undertake shared care with a general practitioner (GP) during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma. Routine imaging tests for surveillance may be commonly used despite no evidence of clinical utility. This study describes the frequency of shared care and routine tests during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma.

METHODS

We randomly sampled 351 people with localised melanoma [American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) substages 0 - II] who had not had recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed from a total of 902 people diagnosed and treated for localised melanoma at a specialist centre in 2014. We interviewed participants by telephone about their experience of follow-up in the past year, and documented the proportion of patients who were undertaking shared care follow-up with a GP. We also recorded the frequency and type of investigations during follow-up. We calculated weighted estimates that are representative of the full inception cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 351 people who were invited to participate, 230 (66%) people consented to the telephone interview. The majority undertook shared care follow-up with a GP (61%). People who choose to have shared care follow-up with a GP are more likely to be male (p = 0.006), have lower AJCC stage (p for trend = 0.02), reside in more remote areas (p for trend< 0.001), and are less likely to have completed secondary school (p < 0.001). Few people saw a non-doctor health practitioner as part of their follow-up (9%). Many people report undergoing tests for melanoma, much of which may be routine tests for surveillance (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of people treated for a first primary localised melanoma at a specialist centre, without recurrent or new melanoma, choose to undertake shared care follow-up with a GP. Many appear to have routine diagnostic imaging as part of their melanoma surveillance.