Search

OBJECTIVE: Skin cancer is Australia's most common and costly cancer. We examined the frequency of Australian general practice consultations for skin cancer-related conditions, by patient and general practitioner (GP) characteristics and by time period. DESIGN: Nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of general practice clinical activity. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 15 years or older having a skin cancer-related condition managed by GPs in the Bettering the Evaluation And Care of Health study between April 2000 and March 2016. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions and rates per 1000 encounters. RESULTS: In this period, 15 678 GPs recorded 1 370 826 patient encounters, of which skin cancer-related conditions were managed 65 411 times (rate of 47.72 per 1000 encounters, 95% CI 46.41 to 49.02). Across the whole period, 'skin conditions' managed were solar keratosis (29.87%), keratinocyte cancer (24.85%), other skin lesion (12.93%), nevi (10.98%), skin check (10.37%), benign skin neoplasm (8.76%) and melanoma (2.42%). Over time, management rates increased for keratinocyte cancers, skin checks, skin lesions, benign skin neoplasms and melanoma; but remained stable for solar keratoses and nevi. Skin cancer-related encounter rates were higher for patients aged 65-89 years, male, living in Queensland or in regional or remote areas, with lower area-based socioeconomic status, of English-speaking background, Veteran card holders and non-healthcare card holders; and for GPs who were aged 35-44 years or male. CONCLUSION: These findings show the spectrum and burden of skin cancer-related conditions managed in general practice in Australia, which can guide GP education, policy and interventions to optimise skin cancer prevention and management.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a diagnostic procedure developed in the 1990s. It is currently used to stage patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, provide prognostic information and guide management. The Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines state that SLNB should be considered for patients with cutaneous melanoma >1 mm in thickness (or >0.8 mm with high-risk pathology features). Until recently, sentinel lymph node (SLN) status was used to identify patients who might benefit from a completion lymph node dissection, a procedure that is no longer routinely recommended. SLN status is now also being used to identify patients who might benefit from systemic adjuvant therapies such as anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy or BRAF-directed molecular targeted therapy, treatments that have significantly improved relapse-free survival for patients with resected stage III melanoma and improved overall survival of patients with unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma. Australian and international data indicate that approximately half of eligible patients receive an SLNB. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods study seeks to understand the structural, contextual and cultural factors affecting implementation of the SLNB guidelines. Data collection will include: (1) cross-sectional questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners and dermatologists; (2) semistructured interviews with other healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and early definitive care of melanoma patients and key stakeholders including researchers, representatives of professional colleges, training organisations and consumer melanoma groups; and (3) documentary analysis of documents from government, health services and non-government organisations. Descriptive analyses and multivariable regression models will be used to examine factors related to SLNB practices and attitudes. Qualitative data will be analysed using

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.