Skin cancer-related conditions managed in general practice in Australia, 2000-2016: a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey

Patients poorly recognize lesions of concern that are malignant melanomas: is self-screening the correct advice?

Background

Australia is known for its outdoor culture, with a large percentage of its population engaging in outdoor recreational activities, aquatic, non-aquatic and outdoor occupational activities. However, these outdoor enthusiasts face increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), leading to a higher risk of skin cancer, including malignant melanoma (MM). Over the past 40 years, there has been a significant rise in skin cancer rates in Australia, with two out of three Australians expected to develop some form of skin cancer by age 70. Currently, skin cancer examinations are not endorsed in asymptomatic or low-risk individuals in Australia, with only high-risk individuals recommended to undergo regular skin examinations. Notably, the Melanoma Institute Australia suggests that one-half of patients identify MMs themselves, although this claim appears to be based on limited Australian data which may not reflect contemporary practice. Therefore this study sought to determine the percentage of patients who were able to self-identify MMs as lesions of concern when presenting for a skin cancer examination.

Methods

Multi-site, cross-sectional study design incorporating a descriptive survey and total body skin cancer screening, including artificial intelligence by a skin cancer doctor.

Results

A total of 260 participants with suspect MM lesions were biopsied, with 83 (31.9%) found to be melanomas. Of the true positive MMs only a small percentage of participants (21.7% specificity) correctly had concerns about the suspect lesion being a MM. These MMs were located primarily on the back (44.4%), shoulder (11.1%) and upper leg (11.1%). There was no significant difference in the size between those participants aware of a MM versus those who were not (P = 0.824, 24.6 vs 23.4 mm2). Significantly more males identified lesions of concern that were MMs as compared to females (P = 0.008, 61.1% vs 38.9%, respectively). With regard to true negatives males and females were similar (52.1% vs 47.9%, respectively). With regard to false negatives (n = 65), a greater percentage of males than females did not recognize the MM as a lesion of concern (66.2% vs 33.8%, respectively). Participants were more likely to correctly identify an invasive MM as opposed to an in situ MM (27.3% versus 21.3%).

Conclusions

Only a small percentage of participants in this study were able to self-identify either in situ or invasive MM as a lesion of concern with a tendency to identify the more advanced, thicker MMs. Given that MM is associated with a high mortality and cost of treatment, particularly when invasive, the inability of lay persons to identify these cancerous lesions will likely lead to delayed treatment and a possible adverse outcome. We believe the current melanoma screening practices in Australian general practice should be revisited to improve patient outcomes with regard to MM. Additionally, prevention campaigns should include images and primary risk factors for MM.

Protocol for a systematic review of reviews on training primary care providers in dermoscopy to detect skin cancers

INTRODUCTION

Globally, incidence, prevalence and mortality rates of skin cancers are escalating. Earlier detection by well-trained primary care providers in techniques such as dermoscopy could reduce unnecessary referrals and improve longer term outcomes. A review of reviews is planned to compare and contrast the conduct, quality, findings and conclusions of multiple systematic and scoping reviews addressing the effectiveness of training primary care providers in dermoscopy, which will provide a critique and synthesis of the current body of review evidence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Four databases (Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE Complete) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to identify published, peer-reviewed English-language articles describing scoping and systematic reviews of the effectiveness of training primary care providers in the use of dermoscopy to detect skin cancers. Two researchers will independently conduct the searches and screen the results for potentially eligible studies using 'Research Screener' (a semi-automated machine learning tool). Backwards and forwards citation tracing will be conducted to supplement the search. A narrative summary of included reviews will be conducted. Study characteristics, for example, population; type of educational programme, including content, delivery method, duration and assessment; and outcomes for dermoscopy will be extracted into a standardised table. Data extraction will be checked by the second reviewer. Methodological quality will be evaluated by two reviewers independently using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews. Results of the assessments will be considered by the two reviewers and any discrepancies will be resolved by team consensus.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required to conduct the planned systematic review of peer-reviewed, published articles because the research does not involve human participants. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at leading public health, cancer and primary care conferences, and disseminated via website postings and social media channels.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023396276.