Search

IntroductionThe worldwide incidence of melanoma has been increasing rapidly in recent decades with Switzerland having one of the highest rates in Europe. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is one of the main risk factors for skin cancer. Our objective was to investigate UV protective behavior and melanoma awareness in a high-risk cohort for melanoma.MethodsIn this prospective monocentric study, we assessed general melanoma awareness and UV protection habits in at-risk patients (≥100 nevi, ≥5 dysplastic nevi, known CDKN2A mutation, and/or positive family history) and melanoma patients using questionnaires. ResultsBetween 01/2021 and 03/ 2022, a total of 269 patients (53.5% at-risk patients, 46.5% melanoma patients) were included. We observed a significant trend toward using a higher sun protection factor (SPF) in melanoma patients compared with at-risk patients (SPF 50+: 48% [n=60] vs. 26% [n=37]; p=0.0016). Those with a college or university degree used a high SPF significantly more often than patients with lower education levels (p=0.0007). However, higher educational levels correlated with increased annual sun exposure (p=0.041). Neither a positive family history for melanoma, nor gender or Fitzpatrick skin type influenced sun protection behavior. An age of ≥ 50 years presented as a significant risk factor for melanoma development with an odd’s ratio of 2.32. Study participation resulted in improved sun protection behavior with 51% reporting more frequent sunscreen use after study inclusion. DiscussionUV protection remains a critical factor in melanoma prevention. We suggest that melanoma awareness should continue to be raised through public skin cancer prevention campaigns with a particular focus on individuals with low levels of education.

The exponential increase in algorithm-based mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for melanoma screening is a reaction to a growing market. However, the performance of available apps remains to be investigated. In this prospective study, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a class 1 CE-certified smartphone app in melanoma risk stratification and its patient and dermatologist satisfaction. Pigmented skin lesions ≥ 3 mm and any suspicious smaller lesions were assessed by the smartphone app SkinVision® (SkinVision® B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands, App-Version 6.8.1), 2D FotoFinder ATBM® master (FotoFinder ATBM® Systems GmbH, Bad Birnbach, Germany, Version 3.3.1.0), 3D Vectra® WB360 (Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, NJ, USA, Version 4.7.1) total body photography (TBP) devices, and dermatologists. The high-risk score of the smartphone app was compared with the two gold standards: histological diagnosis, or if not available, the combination of dermatologists’, 2D and 3D risk assessments. A total of 1204 lesions among 114 patients (mean age 59 years; 51% females (55 patients at high-risk for developing a melanoma, 59 melanoma patients)) were included. The smartphone app’s sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) varied between 41.3–83.3%, 60.0–82.9%, and 0.62–0.72% according to two study-defined reference standards. Additionally, all patients and dermatologists completed a newly created questionnaire for preference and trust of screening type. The smartphone app was rated as trustworthy by 36% (20/55) of patients at high-risk for melanoma, 49% (29/59) of melanoma patients, and 8.8% (10/114) of dermatologists. Most of the patients rated the 2D TBP imaging (93% (51/55) resp. 88% (52/59)) and the 3D TBP imaging (91% (50/55) resp. 90% (53/59)) as trustworthy. A skin cancer screening by combination of dermatologist and smartphone app was favored by only 1.8% (1/55) resp. 3.4% (2/59) of the patients; no patient preferred an assessment by a smartphone app alone. The diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice was not as reliable as previously advertised and the satisfaction with smartphone apps for melanoma risk stratification was scarce. MHealth apps might be a potential medium to increase awareness for melanoma screening in the lay population, but healthcare professionals and users should be alerted to the potential harm of over-detection and poor performance. In conclusion, we suggest further robust evidence-based evaluation before including market-approved apps in self-examination for public health benefits.