Diagnosis and clinical management of melanoma patients at higher risk of a new primary melanoma: A population-based study in New South Wales, Australia

Factors influencing acceptance, adoption and adherence to sentinel node biopsy recommendations in the Australian Melanoma Management Guidelines: a qualitative study using an implementation science framework

BACKGROUND

Sentinel node biopsy (SN biopsy) is a surgical procedure used to accurately stage patients with primary melanoma at high risk of recurrence. Although Australian Melanoma Management Guidelines recommend SN biopsy be considered in patients with melanomas > 1 mm thick, SN biopsy rates in Australia are reportedly low. Our objective was to identify factors impacting the acceptance, adoption and adherence to the Australian SN biopsy guideline recommendations.

METHODS

Opinions of Australian key informants including clinicians, representatives from melanoma education and training providers, professional associations and colleges, and melanoma advocacy organisations were collected through semi-structured interviews (n = 29) and from publicly released statements (n = 14 news articles). Data analysis involved inductive and deductive thematic analysis using Flottorp's determinants framework.

RESULTS

A complex interplay of contemporary and historical factors was identified as influencing acceptance, adoption and adherence to the SN biopsy guideline recommendations at the individual, guideline, patient, organisational and social levels. Expert and peer opinion leaders have played an important role in facilitating or inhibiting adoption of guideline recommendations, as have financial incentives driven by healthcare-funding policies and non-financial incentives including professional identity and standing. Of critical importance have been the social and knowledge boundaries that exist between different professional groups to whom the guidelines apply (surgeons, dermatologists and primary care practitioners) with adherence to the guideline recommendations having the potential to shift work across professional boundaries, altering a clinician's workflow and revenue. More recently, the emergence of effective immunotherapies and targeted therapies for patients at high risk of recurrence, the emergence of new opinion leaders on the topic (in medical oncology), and patient demands for accurate staging are playing crucial roles in overcoming the resistance to change created by these social and knowledge boundaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance and adherence to SN biopsy guideline recommendations in Australia over the past 20 years has involved a process of renegotiation and reframing of the evidence for SN biopsy in melanoma by clinicians from different professional groups and networks. This process has helped to refine the evidence for SN biopsy and our understanding of appropriate adoption. New effective systemic therapies have changed the balance towards accepting guideline recommendations.

Developing an Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR): a protocol paper

INTRODUCTION

Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world with variable care provided by a diverse range of clinicians. Clinical quality registries aim to identify these variations in care and provide anonymised, benchmarked feedback to clinicians and institutions to improve patient outcomes. The Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR) aims to collect population-wide, clinical-level data for the early management of cutaneous melanoma and provide anonymised feedback to healthcare providers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A modified Delphi process will be undertaken to identify key clinical quality indicators for inclusion in the MelCOR pilot. MelCOR will prospectively collect data relevant to these quality indicators, initially for all people over the age of 18 years living in Victoria and Queensland with a melanoma diagnosis confirmed by histopathology, via a two-stage recruitment and consent process. In stage 1, existing State-based cancer registries contact the treating clinician and provide an opportunity for them to opt themselves or their patients out of direct contact with MelCOR. After stage 1, re-identifiable clinical data are provided to the MelCOR under a waiver of consent. In stage 2, the State-based cancer registry will approach the patient directly and invite them to opt in to MelCOR and share identifiable data. If a patient elects to opt in, MelCOR will be able to contact patients directly to collect patient-reported outcome measures. Aggregated data will be used to provide benchmarked, comparative feedback to participating institutions/clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Following the successful collection of pilot data, the feasibility of an Australia-wide roll out will be evaluated. Key quality indicator data will be the core of the MelCOR dataset, with additional data points added later. Annual reports will be issued, first to the relevant stakeholders followed by the public. MelCOR is approved by the Alfred Ethics Committee (58280/127/20).

Melanoma risk assessment and management: a qualitative study among Australian general practitioners

Background

Preventive guidelines for melanoma recommend that patients at high risk of melanoma receive targeted screening; however, this requires careful selection of those at high risk. To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no previous research into how all physicians approach the selection and management of high-risk individuals. Melanoma risk-prediction models are available to assist in the identification of high-risk patients but are not routinely used clinically.

Aim

To examine how GPs assessed and managed melanoma risk, and the opportunities for using melanoma risk-prediction models in primary care.

Design and setting

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 Australian GPs.

Method

GPs who had completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire study on melanoma risk were purposively sampled and recruited. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with Australian GPs between 9 July and 10 September 2019. Interviews were audiorecorded, professionally transcribed, and analysed using grounded theory.

Results

Melanoma risk assessment and its management can be understood as a linear workflow consisting of five clinical process domains with patient selection as the entry point. There was variation between GPs on the identification of melanoma risk factors, melanoma risk estimation, management, and patient education because of intuitive and analytical processes guiding risk assessment, and the influence of patient factors. GPs were largely receptive towards melanoma risk-prediction models, sharing facilitators for and barriers to their potential implementation.

Conclusion

Further primary care interventions sensitive to existing workflow arrangements may be required to standardise melanoma risk-assessment and management processes.

Diagnostic tools used for melanoma: A survey of Australian general practitioners and dermatologists

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic tools such as dermoscopy, sequential digital dermoscopy imaging (SDDI), total body photography (TBP) and automated diagnostic tools are available to assist in early melanoma diagnosis. The use, accessibility and barriers of dermoscopy have been well studied; however, there are few similar studies regarding SDDI, TBP and automated diagnostic tools. We aim to understand the use of these diagnostic aids amongst Australian general practitioners (GPs) and dermatologists.

METHODS

Between June 2019 and January 2020, GPs and dermatologists across Australia were invited to participate in an online survey. Surveys were distributed through GP and dermatology organisations.

RESULTS

A total of 227 survey responses were received, 175 from GPs and 52 from dermatologists. Amongst GPs, 44.6% worked in a skin cancer clinic. Dermoscopy was used at least occasionally by 98.9% of all GPs. SDDI was used by 93.6% of skin cancer GPs, 80.8% of dermatologists and 45.3% of generalist GPs. TBP was used or recommended by 77.1% of generalist GPs, 82.3% of skin cancer GPs and 86.5% of dermatologists. The most common barriers to the use of TBP were cost, limited accessibility, poor patient compliance, and time required for both patients and doctors. Very few clinicians reported using automated diagnostic tools. There was an interest in future diagnostic aids for melanoma in 88% of GPs and dermatologists.

CONCLUSION

Dermoscopy, SDDI and TBP were commonly used by responding Australian skin cancer GPs and dermatologists in this survey. Automated diagnostic tools were not reported to be used routinely. Several barriers were identified for use of TBP.

Prevalence of skin examination behaviours among Australians over time

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine the prevalence and correlates of opportunistic skin check behaviours among Australians and whether changes over time might explain increasing underlying rates of melanoma in situ.

METHODS

The National Sun Protection Survey involved periodic telephone-based cross-sectional surveys during summer since 2003. Skin checks by a doctor in the past 12 months was asked in four summers over 2006-2017, and responses from 23,374 Australians aged 12-69 years were analysed. Prevalence estimates were weighted to be representative of the Australian population. Chi-square tests compared the prevalence over time and by characteristics.

RESULTS

The overall proportion reporting whole-body skin checks in the past 12 months was 20 % in 2006-07 and 2010-11, 21 % in 2013-14, and 22 % in 2016-17; but increased from 29 % in 2006-07 to 37 % in 2016-17 for those aged 45-69 years (p < 0.0001). In 2016-17, 5% reported a skin check of part-body and 9% for a specific mole or spot. The proportion reporting no skin checks increased from 61 % to 64 % over time (p < 0.0001). Whole-body skin checks were more common among older respondents, females, and also varied by residence location, skin sensitivity, skin colour, risk perception, and socio-economic index (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Approximately one third of Australians had their skin checked by a doctor within a 12-month period, but this varied across population sub-groups. Skin check behaviours were relatively stable over time, with modest increases in the prevalence of skin checks for those aged 45-69 years. These findings do not explain underlying large increases in rates of melanoma in situ.

Knowledge and attitudes of Australian dermatologists towards sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

In melanoma management, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is used to stage patients and to indicate prognosis. More recently, it has been used to select patients for adjuvant therapy. This study aimed to report knowledge of and attitudes towards SLNB for patients with melanoma among Australian dermatologists.

METHODS

Mixed methods study using cross-sectional questionnaires (n = 88) and semi-structured interviews (n = 13), May-September 2019.

RESULTS

Of the dermatologists surveyed, 56% thought SLNB had an important role in melanoma management, 26% were unsure and 18% thought SLNB unimportant. Of the 92% who would discuss SLNB with their patients, the main stated value of SLNB was for assessing eligibility for adjuvant therapies (79%); only 60% indicated SLNB was of value for providing prognostic information, and just over half (53%) thought it could improve staging. Interview data indicated that attitudes towards SLNB are shifting among dermatologists, driven by data from landmark clinical trials and the influence of professional networks. Accordingly, interviewees adopted one of three positions in relation to SLNB: (a) believed in utility of SLNB and adhered to the guidelines; (b) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB but adhered to the guidelines; and (c) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB and did not adhere to the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Although most of the dermatologists surveyed were familiar with and follow the SLNB recommendations, some disagreement with and distrust of the recommendations was evident. Greater acceptance of the SLNB recommendations appeared to be driven by the improved outcomes demonstrated in stage III patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy.

Meta-analysis of number needed to treat for diagnosis of melanoma by clinical setting

OBJECTIVE

To provide a formal statistical comparison of the efficacy of melanoma detection among different clinical settings.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of all relevant observational studies on number needed to treat (NNT) in relation to melanoma was performed in MEDLINE. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis and reported NNTs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The subgroup analysis was related to clinical setting.

RESULTS

In all, 29 articles including a total of 398,549 biopsies/excisions were analyzed. The overall NNT was 9.71 (95% CI, 7.72-12.29): 22.62 (95% CI, 12.95-40.10) for primary care, 9.60 (95% CI, 6.97-13.41) for dermatology, and 5.85 (95% CI, 4.24-8.27) for pigmented lesion specialists.

LIMITATIONS

There is heterogeneity in data reporting and the possibility of missing studies. In addition, the incidence of melanoma varies among clinical settings, which could affect NNT calculations.

CONCLUSION

Pigmented lesion specialists have the lowest NNT, followed by dermatologists, suggesting that involving specialists in the diagnosis and treatment of pigmented skin lesions can likely improve patient outcomes.

Evaluation of the efficacy of 3D total-body photography with sequential digital dermoscopy in a high-risk melanoma cohort: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma is Australia's fourth most common cancer. Early detection is fundamental in maximising health outcomes and minimising treatment costs. To date, population-based screening programmes have not been justified in health economic studies. However, a skin surveillance approach targeting high-risk individuals could improve the cost-benefit ratio.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper describes a 2-year longitudinal randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare routine clinical care (control) with an intensive skin surveillance programme (intervention) consisting of novel three-dimensional (3D) total-body photography (TBP), sequential digital dermoscopy and melanoma-risk stratification, in a high-risk melanoma cohort. Primary outcomes will evaluate clinical, economic and consumer impact of the intervention. Clinical outcomes will evaluate differences in the rate of lesion excisions/biopsies per person, benign to malignant ratio for excisions and thickness of melanomas diagnosed. A health economic analysis using government data repositories will capture healthcare utilisation and costs relating to skin surveillance. Consumer questionnaires will examine intervention acceptability, the psychological impact, and attitudes towards melanoma risk and sun protective behaviour. Secondary outcomes include the development of a holistic risk algorithm incorporating clinical, phenotypic and genetic factors to facilitate the identification of those most likely to benefit from this surveillance approach. Furthermore, the feasibility of integrating the intervention with teledermatology to enhance specialist care in remote locations will be evaluated. This will be the first RCT to compare a targeted surveillance programme utilising new 3D TBP technology against current routine clinical care for individuals at high risk of melanoma.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval from both Metro South Health HREC (HREC/17/QPAH/816) and The University of Queensland HREC (2018000074).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR12618000267257; Pre-results.

A National Budget Impact Analysis of a Specialised Surveillance Programme for Individuals at Very High Risk of Melanoma in Australia

BACKGROUND

Specialised surveillance using total body photography and digital dermoscopy to monitor people at very high risk of developing a second or subsequent melanoma has been reported as cost effective.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to estimate the 5-year healthcare budget impact of providing specialised surveillance for people at very high risk of subsequent melanoma from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system.

METHODS

A budget impact model was constructed to assess the costs of monitoring and potential savings compared with current routine care based on identification of patients at the time of a melanoma diagnosis. We used data from a published cost-effectiveness analysis of specialised surveillance, and Cancer Registry data, to estimate the patient population and healthcare costs for 2017-2021.

RESULTS

When all eligible patients, estimated at 18% of patients with melanoma diagnosed annually in Australia, received specialised surveillance rather than routine care, the cumulative 5-year cost was estimated at $93.5 million Australian dollars ($AU) ($US 64 million) for specialised surveillance compared with $AU 120.7 million ($US 82.7 million) for routine care, delivering savings of $AU 27.2 million ($US 18.6 million). With a staggered introduction of 60% of eligible patients accessing surveillance in year 1, increasing to 90% in years 4 and 5, the cumulative cost over 5 years was estimated at $AU 98.1 million ($US 67.2 million), amounting to savings of $AU 22.6 million ($US 15.5 million) compared with routine care.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialised melanoma surveillance is likely to provide substantial cost savings for the Australian healthcare system.