Search

This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a newly developed psycho-educational intervention to reduce fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in early-stage melanoma patients.

This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a newly developed psycho-educational intervention to reduce fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in early-stage melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To describe the method of diagnosis, clinical management and adherence to clinical practice guidelines for melanoma patients at high risk of a subsequent primary melanoma, and compare this with melanoma patients at lower risk. METHODS: The Melanoma Patterns of Care study was a population-based, observational study based on doctors' reported clinical management of melanoma patients in New South Wales, Australia, diagnosed with in situ or invasive melanoma over a 12-month period from October 2006. Of 2605 patients with localised melanoma, 1019 (39%) were defined as at higher risk due to the presence of one or more of the following factors: a family history of melanoma (11%), multiple primary melanomas (17%), or many naevi (24%). RESULTS: Compared to patients at lower risk, high risk patients were more likely to receive their initial care from a primary care physician (56% vs 50%, P = 0.002), have their melanoma detected during a routine skin check (40% vs 33%, P < 0.001), have their lesion assessed with dermoscopy (63% vs 56%, P = 0.002), and be encouraged to have skin surveillance (84% vs 77%, P < 0.001) and skin self-examination (87% vs 83%, P = 0.03). Higher socioeconomic status and urban residence were associated with patients at higher risk receiving initial treatment from a specialist doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management of higher risk patients was more likely to conform to clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and skin surveillance than to melanoma patients at lower risk.

Purpose People with a history of melanoma commonly report a fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), yet psychologic support is not routinely offered as part of ongoing melanoma care. This randomized controlled trial examined the efficacy of a psychoeducational intervention to reduce FCR and improve psychologic adjustment in this patient group compared with usual care. Methods The intervention comprised a newly developed psychoeducational resource and three telephonebased psychotherapeutic sessions over a 1-month period timed in accordance with dermatologic appointments. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 80) or usual care (n = 84). Assessments were completed at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months after dermatologic appointments. Linear mixed models were used to examine differences between treatment and control groups for patient-reported outcomes, including FCR, anxiety, stress, depression, melanoma-related knowledge, health behaviors, satisfaction with melanoma care, unmet needs, and health-related quality of life. Results At 6 months, the intervention group reported lower FCR severity, trigger, and distress scores than the control group in the baseline-adjusted models; the between-group mean difference was 21.9 for FCR severity (95%CI, 23.1 to 20.7; P = .002), 22.0 for FCR triggers (95%CI, 23.3 to 20.7; P = .003), and 20.7 for FCR distress (95% CI, 21.3 to 20.1; P = .03). The decrease in FCR severity (but not triggers or distress) remained statistically significant after adjustment for other covariates (P = .04). At 6 months, the intervention group also reported lower stress (21.6; 95% CI, 23.1 to 20.2; P = .03) and improved melanoma-related knowledge (1.7; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6; P , .001) compared with the control group. No differences were found between groups for other secondary outcomes. Conclusion This newly developed evidence-based psychoeducational intervention was effective in reducing FCR and stress and increasing melanoma-related knowledge in peo

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation is a within-trial analysis to evaluate the incremental costs and health outcomes of a psychoeducational intervention compared to usual care from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted, providing estimates of the cost to reduce fear of melanoma recurrence and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Fear of melanoma recurrence will be measured using the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory and preference-based quality of life measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life-8 Dimensions (AQoL-8D) instrument. The AQoL-8D will provide utilities for estimation of QALYs in the cost-utility analysis. Unit costs of health services and medicines will be taken from the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme national databases. Health outcomes, and health service and medication use will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months follow-up. The within-trial analysis will be conducted at 12 months, consistent with the end point of the trial.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to conduct the study was granted by the Sydney Local Health District (RPAH zone) Ethics Review Committee (X13-0065 and HREC/13/RPAH/86), the Department of Health and Ageing Human Research Ethics Committee (21/2013), the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2013/595), and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee (EO 2013/4/58).TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000304730; Pre-results.INTRODUCTION: Psychological support programmes are not currently funded for people with a history of melanoma. A major barrier to the implementation of effective psychological interventions in routine clinical care is a lack of cost-effect

INTRODUCTION: Psychological support programmes are not currently funded for people with a history of melanoma. A major barrier to the implementation of effective psychological interventions in routine clinical care is a lack of cost-effectiveness data. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial of a psychoeducational intervention for people with a history of melanoma who are at high risk of developing new primary disease. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation is a within-trial analysis to evaluate the incremental costs and health outcomes of a psychoeducational intervention compared to usual care from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted, providing estimates of the cost to reduce fear of melanoma recurrence and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Fear of melanoma recurrence will be measured using the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory and preference-based quality of life measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life-8 Dimensions (AQoL-8D) instrument. The AQoL-8D will provide utilities for estimation of QALYs in the cost-utility analysis. Unit costs of health services and medicines will be taken from the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme national databases. Health outcomes, and health service and medication use will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months follow-up. The within-trial analysis will be conducted at 12 months, consistent with the end point of the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to conduct the study was granted by the Sydney Local Health District (RPAH zone) Ethics Review Committee (X13-0065 and HREC/13/RPAH/86), the Department of Health and Ageing Human Research Ethics Committee (21/2013), the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2013/595), and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee (EO 2013/4/58). TRIAL REGISTRAT

Early detection of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is crucial to reduce the morbidity of this tumor.

In a pilot study, the three-point checklist of dermoscopy has been shown to represent a valid and reproducible tool with high sensitivity for the diagnosis of skin cancer in the hands of a small group of nonexperts.

There is a need for better standardization of the dermoscopic terminology in assessing pigmented skin lesions.