Re-evaluating the ABCD criteria using a consecutive series of melanomas

A Retrospective Study of Diameter and Breslow Thickness in Invasive Melanomas

INTRODUCTION

A diameter larger than 6 mm is included in the criteria used in public health messages to detect a cutaneous melanoma. We aimed to investigate the independent association of Breslow thickness with the melanoma diameter.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in patients with invasive melanomas of the nodular melanoma (NM) or superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) subtype. The quartiles of the diameter (lower, median, upper) were studied in non-parametric quantile regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 537 cases of invasive melanomas were included and 60% had Breslow thickness ≤1.0 mm. There were 429 SSM (79.9%) and 108 NM (20.1%). Although NMs were significantly thicker (median Breslow thickness: 2.7 mm vs. 0.7 mm, respectively, p < 0.0001), they were not associated with larger diameter compared to SSMs (p = 0.71). After adjustment for age and sex, melanoma location and subtype, having Breslow thickness ≤1.0 mm was not significantly associated with the lower quartile, median and upper quartile of the diameter (p values: 0.063, 0.083, and 0.791, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In our study including melanomas of the NM or SSM subtype, Breslow thickness was not associated with the diameter, adding evidence to support the limitations of using diameter larger than 6 mm for the detection of invasive melanomas and indicating the potential of smaller melanomas to be thicker tumors.

Incidence of Second Primary Melanoma in Cutaneous Melanoma Survivors

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous melanoma survivors are at increased risk of a second primary melanoma. Valid estimates facilitate counseling on recommended surveillance after a melanoma diagnosis. However, most estimates of 5- and 10-year incidences of second melanomas are from older cohorts and/or single institutions. This study aimed to determine the 5- and 10-year incidences of second primary cutaneous melanomas in survivors of cutaneous melanoma.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify cases of non-metastatic, first cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between 1998 and 2012 (follow-up through December 2017). Eligible survivors were 18 years old or older who underwent surgery as a treatment component. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate 5- and 10-year incidences of a second melanoma, excluding new diagnoses within 3 months after the initial diagnosis. Patients were censored at second melanoma diagnosis, death, or 10-years, whichever was first. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with a second cutaneous melanoma diagnosis.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 152,811 patients. The incidence of second primary melanoma was 3.9% at 5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-4.0%) and 6.7% at 10 years (95% CI, 6.6-6.9%). Older age, male sex, and regional disease were associated with increased risk of a second primary melanoma diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Melanoma survivors are at risk of a second primary melanoma, making routine skin surveillance part of recommended follow-up evaluation. A higher incidence of second melanoma with older age and regional disease at presentation is possibly explained by increased health care use providing more diagnostic opportunities, whereas male sex may represent an inherent risk factor.

Review of educational tools for skin self-examination: A qualitative analysis of laypeople's preferences

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Skin self-examination (SSE) empowers individuals to be aware of their skin and to identify and present to a doctor with any suspicious lesions; however evidence-based, clear guidance for SSE is lacking.

METHODS

A new acronym entitled SCAN (Sore, Changing, Abnormal, New) was compiled to help laypeople recognise early signs of skin cancer. This study undertook a qualitative investigation on how well laypeople understand SCAN and other commonly used educational tools (ABCDE, AC, and "ugly duckling"), whether they have a preferred SSE tool, and whether pictorial presentations enhance their understanding.

RESULTS

Seven focus groups were conducted with 28 participants (age range 19-78 years), including 6 participants with a previous melanoma diagnosis. Among all the educational tools presented, SCAN was commonly described as the favoured to guide SSE. SCAN was perceived as patient-oriented due to its simplicity and use of easily understood words, while other tools, although perceived as positive in some aspects, were often identified as complex, difficult to understand and aimed towards clinician use. Pictorial presentations were desired as part of an educational tool; however, many also raised their potential disadvantages.

CONCLUSION

This was the first study to determine the patient perspective of SCAN and established a diverse range of potential quality indicators for SSE educational tools. SO WHAT?: The findings of this study suggest that current widely used SSE tools may not be the most effective to promote SSE. SCAN may be preferred, as it simplifies SSE by using lay language and is applicable to all skin cancers.