Remote partner assisted skin self-examination skills training of melanoma survivors and their partners

'Being a farmer, I mostly always think there is something more important to do': A mixed methods analysis of the skin cancer detection practices of Australian farmers

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Farmers experience skin cancer and die from melanoma at significantly higher rates than the general Australian population. This study examined Australian farmers' engagement with self-skin examinations (SSE), participation in clinical skin examinations (CSE) by a health professional, and self-reported barriers to engagement with these important skin cancer detection practices.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, mixed-methods design was used. Australian farmers were recruited through an industry-based organisation representing livestock farmers. Farmers (N = 498; 22-89 years; 83.1% male) responded to a paper-based survey that included closed- and open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Farmers reported engagement with self-conducted SSE and routine CSE that was comparable to findings in the general population, but 29.4% of farmers reported that they had not sought a CSE as soon as possible after noticing changes to their skin. Farmers reported a range of barriers to SSE, including physical difficulties examining their skin, difficulties identifying changes in their skin, forgetfulness, and lack of motivation. Barriers to CSE included accessibility, cost, difficulties finding the right doctor, and avoidance and complacency.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to make clinical skin cancer detection more accessible to farmers, in addition to promoting self-skin examination and help-seeking behaviours within this at risk population. SO WHAT?: Novel approaches are needed to address systemic barriers faced by Australian farmers. These may include the use of teledermatology or artificial intelligence to assist with CSE. Remote training delivery methods may be also utilised to teach SSE skills to farmers who may be otherwise unable to access such opportunities.

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.

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.

Accuracy of mobile digital teledermoscopy for skin self-examinations in adults at high risk of skin cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Skin self-examinations supplemented with mobile teledermoscopy might improve early detection of skin cancers compared with naked-eye skin self-examinations. We aimed to assess whether mobile teledermoscopy-enhanced skin self-examination can improve sensitivity and specificity of self-detection of skin cancers when compared with naked-eye skin self-examination.

METHODS

This randomised, controlled trial was done in Brisbane (QLD, Australia). Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had at least two skin cancer risk factors as self-reported in the eligibility survey and had to own or have access to an iPhone compatible with a dermatoscope attachment (iPhone versions 5-8). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation procedure, to the intervention group (mobile dermoscopy-enhanced self-skin examination) or the control group (naked-eye skin self-examination). Control group and intervention group participants received web-based instructions on how to complete a whole body skin self-examination. All participants completed skin examinations at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months; intervention group participants submitted photographs of suspicious lesions to a dermatologist for telediagnosis after each skin examination and control group participants noted lesions on a body chart that was sent to the research team after each skin examination. All participants had an in-person whole-body clinical skin examination within 3 months of their last skin self-examination. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of skin self-examination, patient selection of clinically atypical lesions suspicious for melanoma or keratinocyte skin cancers (body sites examined, number of lesions photographed, types of lesions, and lesions missed), and diagnostic concordance of telediagnosis versus in-person whole-body clinical skin examination diagnosis. All primary outcomes were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who had a clinical skin examination within 3 months of their last skin self-examination. This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000989448.

FINDINGS

Between March 6, 2017, and June 7, 2018, 234 participants consented to enrol in the study, of whom 116 (50%) were assigned to the intervention group and 118 (50%) were assigned to the control group. 199 participants (98 participants in the intervention group and 101 participants in the control group) attended the clinical skin examination and thus were eligible for analyses. Participants in the intervention group submitted 615 lesions (median 6·0 per person; range 1-24) for telediagnosis and participants in the control group identified and recorded 673 lesions (median 6·0 per person; range 1-16). At the lesion level, sensitivity for lesions clinically suspicious for skin cancer was 75% (95% CI 63-84) in the intervention group and 88% (95% CI 80-91) in the control group (p=0·04). Specificity was 87% (95% CI 85-90) in the intervention group and 89% (95% CI 87-91) in the control group (p=0·42). At the individual level, the intervention group had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 76-99) compared with 97% (95% CI 91-100) in the control group (p=0·26), and a specificity of 95% (95% CI 90-100) compared with 96% (95% CI 91-100) in the control group. The overall diagnostic concordance between the telediagnosis and in-person clinical skin examination was 88%.

INTERPRETATION

The use of mobile teledermoscopy did not increase sensitivity for the detection of skin cancers compared with naked-eye skin self-examination; thus, further evidence is necessary for inclusion of skin self-examination technology for public health benefit.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).