Search

Background: Scalp melanomas are usually thicker and show worse prognosis than other sites and other head and neck melanomas. One hypothesis to explain this aggressive behavior could be diagnosis delay attributed to hair concealment of lesions. Methods: Primary melanomas of the scalp diagnosed over two decades at four reference centers in Australia and Italy were included. Hair coverage and visibility of the lesions were assessed on preoperative photographic documentation by two investigators and correlated with some prognostic factors (Breslow thickness, mitotic rate, and ulceration). Patients records and pathology reports provided clinical and histological data. Results: The majority of 113 melanomas included were located on easily visible areas of the scalp – hairless scalp (49%) or hairline (15%). The remaining ones (36%), considered to be hair‐covered, showed more frequently thinning of hair (63%) than a dense hair coverage (37%). Melanomas of "hairy scalps" were more frequently invasive (81%) and had higher median Breslow (0.8 ± 1.3 mm) than those arising on bald scalps or areas with thinning of hair (43%; 0 ± 0.6 mm), P = 0.004. However, when considering only the invasive cases (n = 55), Breslow thickness and mitotic rate were not statistically different between concealed and easily visible areas. Melanomas detected by a doctor were thinner than those first noticed by the patient, relatives, or a hairdresser (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Most scalp melanomas arose on easily visible areas, which are more prone to ultraviolet damage. Hair‐covered ones, despite rare, could be overlooked during examination. Proactive screening of the scalp area should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: There are limited population‐based data documenting the incidence and management of lentigo maligna (LM) and invasive lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). We report the data on occurrence and management of LM and LMM in an Australian population. Methods: Prospective collection of incidence and clinician‐reported management of melanoma in situ (MIS; n = 450, capped) and localised invasive melanoma (n = 3251) notified to the New South Wales Cancer Registry over 12‐months in 2006–2007. Results: The estimated annual incidence of all MIS was 27.0 per 100 000 (LM 12.2, non‐LM MIS 5.9 and unclassified MIS 9.0). Patients with LM or LMM were on average approximately 10 years older than those with other melanoma subtypes (P < 0.001). The head and neck was the location of 59% of LM, 44% of LMM and <20% of other melanoma subtypes (P < 0.001). The majority of LM and LMM were treated only by specialists. Diagnostic partial biopsies were more frequent for LM and LMM than for other melanoma subtypes, and primary care physicians were more likely than specialists to do a punch partial biopsy than a shave biopsy. The reported median definitive excision margin for LM was 5.0 mm compared with 7.2 mm for non‐LM MIS (P = 0.001). Conclusions: In this Australian population, LM was twice as frequent as other types of MIS. Improved strategies for diagnosis and management are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The evidence-based national clinical practice guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma published in 2008 are currently being updated. This article summarises the findings from multiple chapters of the guidelines on different methods of melanoma detection and of monitoring the skin for patients at high risk of melanoma. Early detection of melanoma is critical, as thinner tumours are associated with enhanced survival; therefore, strategies to improve early detection are important to reduce melanoma-related mortality.Main Recommendations: Clinicians who perform skin examinations for the purpose of detecting skin cancer should be trained in and use dermoscopy. The use of short term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging to detect melanomas that lack dermoscopic features of melanoma is recommended to assess individual melanocytic lesions of concern. The use of long term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging to detect melanomas that lack dermoscopic features of melanoma is recommended to assess individual or multiple melanocytic lesions for routine surveillance of high risk patients. The use of total body photography should be considered in managing patients at increased risk for melanoma, particularly those with high naevus counts and dysplastic naevi. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of automated instruments for the clinical diagnosis of primary melanoma.Management Overview: Determining the relative indications for each diagnostic method and how each method should be introduced into the surveillance of a patient requires careful consideration and an individualised approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosis of skin cancer requires medical expertise, which is scarce. Mobile phone-powered artificial intelligence (AI) could aid diagnosis, but it is unclear how this technology performs in a clinical scenario. Our primary aim was to test in the clinic whether there was equivalence between AI algorithms and clinicians for the diagnosis and management of pigmented skin lesions., Methods: In this multicentre, prospective, diagnostic, clinical trial, we included specialist and novice clinicians and patients from two tertiary referral centres in Australia and Austria. Specialists had a specialist medical qualification related to diagnosing and managing pigmented skin lesions, whereas novices were dermatology junior doctors or registrars in trainee positions who had experience in examining and managing these lesions. Eligible patients were aged 18-99 years and had a modified Fitzpatrick I-III skin type; those in the diagnostic trial were undergoing routine excision or biopsy of one or more suspicious pigmented skin lesions bigger than 3 mm in the longest diameter, and those in the management trial had baseline total-body photographs taken within 1-4 years. We used two mobile phone-powered AI instruments incorporating a simple optical attachment: a new 7-class AI algorithm and the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) AI algorithm, which was previously tested in a large online reader study. The reference standard for excised lesions in the diagnostic trial was histopathological examination; in the management trial, the reference standard was a descending hierarchy based on histopathological examination, comparison of baseline total-body photographs, digital monitoring, and telediagnosis. The main outcome of this study was to compare the accuracy of expert and novice diagnostic and management decisions with the two AI instruments. Possible decisions in the management trial were dismissal, biopsy, or 3-month monitoring. Decisions to monitor were considered equivalent to dismissal (scenario A) or biopsy of malignant lesions (scenario B). The trial was registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000695909 (Universal trial number U1111-1251-8995)., Findings: The diagnostic study included 172 suspicious pigmented lesions (84 malignant) from 124 patients and the management study included 5696 pigmented lesions (18 malignant) from the whole body of 66 high-risk patients. The diagnoses of the 7-class AI algorithm were equivalent to the specialists' diagnoses (absolute accuracy difference 1·2% [95% CI -6·9 to 9·2]) and significantly superior to the novices' ones (21·5% [13·1 to 30·0]). The diagnoses of the ISIC AI algorithm were significantly inferior to the specialists' diagnoses (-11·6% [-20·3 to -3·0]) but significantly superior to the novices' ones (8·7% [-0·5 to 18·0]). The best 7-class management AI was significantly inferior to specialists' management (absolute accuracy difference in correct management decision -0·5% [95% CI -0·7 to -0·2] in scenario A and -0·4% [-0·8 to -0·05] in scenario B). Compared with the novices' management, the 7-class management AI was significantly inferior (-0·4% [-0·6 to -0·2]) in scenario A but significantly superior (0·4% [0·0 to 0·9]) in scenario B., Interpretation: The mobile phone-powered AI technology is simple, practical, and accurate for the diagnosis of suspicious pigmented skin cancer in patients presenting to a specialist setting, although its usage for management decisions requires more careful execution. An AI algorithm that was superior in experimental studies was significantly inferior to specialists in a real-world scenario, suggesting that caution is needed when extrapolating results of experimental studies to clinical practice., Funding: MetaOptima Technology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SWM is on the scientific advisory board of SciBase AB, and previously for Kāhu (MoleMap), both of which produce competing diagnostic devices for skin cancer. MM received payment from MetaOptima Technology for doing the trial in Sydney. She has also received payments from MetaOptima Technology (unrelated to and before the trial) as a consultant. SNL's institute has received payment for consultancy services from MetaOptima Technology, unrelated to the trial. WY, JL, and MR are employees of MetaOptima Technology. MR is a board member and equity owner of MetaOptima Technology. PT has received fees for professional services from Silverchair; an unrestricted 1-year postdoctoral grant from MetaOptima Technology (2017); speaker fees from Novartis, Lilly, and FotoFinder; and unrestricted grants from Lilly. He is also on the executive board of the International Dermoscopy Society, is President of the Austrian Dermatopathology Society, and is a coauthor of textbooks on dermatoscopy (published by Facultas) and dermatopathology (published by Springer). PG has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology, unrelated to the trial. She has also received fees from La Roche-Posay and Pierre Fabre, support for attending meetings from La Roche-Posay, and is on the faculty of Melanoma Institute Australia. RAS has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion Biotech, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline. HHC serves as a medical advisor to Metasense. DC has served as a speaker for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and MSD; has served as an advisory board member for ViiV Healthcare; and has received travel support from AbbVie, MSD, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. MG has received a conference travel grant from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. GH has been supported by an Avant Foundation Early Career Researcher grant and by National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence funding (1135285). PK has received fees and travel support from Sanofi. JMR has received speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, and Novartis, and travel support from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. MS has received consulting fees and travel support from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare/GSK, and MSD; is on the advisory boards of Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare/GSK, and MSD; and is a board member of the Austrian Sexually Transmitted Disease Society. JT has received speaker fees from Lilly and Novartis, travel support from Almirall and AbbVie, and an unrestricted grant from Lilly. PW has received travel support from Pfizer and Merz Pharma, and fees for a case report from Novartis. WW has received a grant from WWTF; consulting fees from Böhringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Genzyme, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Janssen, and Pfizer. He is a committee member of the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venerology and is on the advisory boards of Sanofi Genzyme, Böhringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. CZ was a coinvestigator on Sydney Cancer Partners Pilot Study Scheme Grant Procel Study-Perioperative Propranolol and Celexocib in Stage III melanoma. HK has received speaker fees from La Roche-Posay, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pelpharma, Heine, and FotoFinder; has received equipment to his institution from Heine, FotoFinder, Canfield, and DermaMedical; and has received license fees to his institution from MetaOptima Technology, Heine, and Casi. He is member of the executive board of the International Dermoscopy Society. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Specialised surveillance using total body photography and digital dermoscopy to monitor people at very high risk of developing a second or subsequent melanoma has been reported as cost effective., Objectives: We aimed to estimate the 5-year healthcare budget impact of providing specialised surveillance for people at very high risk of subsequent melanoma from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system., Methods: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the costs of monitoring and potential savings compared with current routine care based on identification of patients at the time of a melanoma diagnosis. We used data from a published cost-effectiveness analysis of specialised surveillance, and Cancer Registry data, to estimate the patient population and healthcare costs for 2017-2021., Results: When all eligible patients, estimated at 18% of patients with melanoma diagnosed annually in Australia, received specialised surveillance rather than routine care, the cumulative 5-year cost was estimated at $93.5 million Australian dollars ($AU) ($US 64 million) for specialised surveillance compared with $AU 120.7 million ($US 82.7 million) for routine care, delivering savings of $AU 27.2 million ($US 18.6 million). With a staggered introduction of 60% of eligible patients accessing surveillance in year 1, increasing to 90% in years 4 and 5, the cumulative cost over 5 years was estimated at $AU 98.1 million ($US 67.2 million), amounting to savings of $AU 22.6 million ($US 15.5 million) compared with routine care., Conclusions: Specialised melanoma surveillance is likely to provide substantial cost savings for the Australian healthcare system.

Importance: The diagnosis of a life-threatening disease like melanoma can affect all aspects of a person's life, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological aspects of melanoma such as fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Economic evaluations of psychological interventions require preference-based (utility) instruments that are sensitive to changes in well-being and HRQOL; however, very few studies have evaluated the sensitivity of these instruments when used for people with melanoma., Objective: To compare utility scores from the multiple-attribute instrument Assessment of Quality of Life-8-Dimension Scale (AQoL-8D) with the mapped utility scores of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M) and to investigate the sensitivity of both instruments in identifying the influence of FCR on HRQOL., Design, Setting, and Participants: This assessment of data from a randomized clinical trial of a psychoeducational intervention to reduce FCR, conducted at 3 high-risk melanoma clinics in Australia, evaluated 164 patients with early-stage melanoma and a high risk of developing a second primary melanoma., Main Outcomes and Measures: The FACT-M and AQoL-8D were used to assess HRQOL and FCR among the study participants. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the total and subdomain scores of the 2 instruments, and the strength of associations was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing participants' HRQOL, demographic, and clinical characteristics using the χ2 test and F statistic. Both the FACT-M and AQoL-8D utilities were regressed on FCR Inventory (FCRI) severity scores to estimate the effect of elevated FCR on HRQOL., Results: A total of 164 participants completed the baseline questionnaires, but only 163 met all inclusion criteria and underwent the full analysis: 72 were women; 91 were men; and mean (SD) age was 58.2 (12.1) years. Both the AQoL-8D and FACT-M instruments showed good concurrent validity and could differentiate between relevant subgroups including level of FCRI severity. The AQoL-8D and FACT-M utilities were strongly correlated (r2 = 0.57). Respondents had a mean (SD) AQoL-8D utility of 0.77 (0.2), and a mean (SD) FACT-M utility score of 0.76 (0.07). High levels of FCRI severity were associated with a decrease in utility of 0.12 (95% CI, -0.19 to -0.05) as measured by AQoL-8D, and a decrease of 0.03 (95% CI, -0.05 to -0.01) as measured by the FACT-M., Conclusions and Relevance: For economic evaluations of psychological interventions in melanoma, the AQoL-8D and FACT-M are valid measures of utility; however, the AQoL-8D demonstrates greater sensitivity to FCRI severity. Our results suggest a significant association between FCR and HRQOL.

Importance: Lentigo maligna (LM) is a clinical, pathologic, and therapeutic challenge with a higher risk of local recurrence than other types of melanoma correctly treated and also carries the cosmetically sensitive localization of head and neck., Objective: To determine whether in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) mapping of difficult LM cases might alter patient care and management., Design: Analysis of LM and LM melanoma (LMM) in a series of patients with large facial lesions requiring complex reconstructive surgery and/or recurrent or poorly delineated lesions at any body sites were investigated., Settings: Two tertiary referral melanoma centers in Sydney, Australia., Participants: Thirty-seven patients with LM (including 5 with LMM) were mapped with RCM. Fifteen patients had a recurrent LM, including 9 with multiple prior recurrences. The LM was classified amelanotic in 10 patients, lightly pigmented in 9, and partially pigmented in 18., Interventions: The RCM images were obtained in 4 radial directions (allowing for anatomic barriers) for LM margin delineation using an RCM LM score previously described by our research team., Main Outcome Measures: Differences in the margin of LM as determined by RCM vs dermoscopy vs histopathologic analysis., Results: Seventeen of 29 patients (59%) with dermoscopically visible lesions had subclinical (RCM-identified) disease evident more than 5 mm beyond the dermoscopy margin (ie, beyond the excision margin recommended in published guidelines). The RCM mapping changed the management in 27 patients (73%): 11 patients had a major change in their surgical procedure, and 16 were offered radiotherapy or imiquimod treatment as a consequence of the RCM findings. Treatment was surgical in 17 of 37 patients. Surgical excision margins (based on the RCM mapping) were histopathologically involved in only 2 patients, each of whom had an LM lesion larger than 6 cm., Conclusions and Relevance: In vivo RCM can provide valuable information facilitating optimal patient care management.

Background: There is limited evidence on the relative effectiveness of different follow-up schedules for patients with AJCC stage I or II melanoma, but less frequent follow-up than is currently recommended has been proposed., Objectives: To describe melanoma clinicians' perspectives on the functions of follow-up, factors that influence follow-up intervals, and important considerations for extending intervals., Methods: Qualitative interviews with 16 clinicians (surgical oncologists, dermatologists, melanoma unit physicians) who conduct follow-up at two of Australia's largest specialist centers., Results: Follow-up is conducted for early detection of recurrences or new primary melanomas, to manage patient anxiety, support patient self-care, and as part of shared care. Recommended intervals are based on guidelines but account for each patient's clinical risk profile, level of anxiety, patient education requirements, capacity to engage in skin self-examination, and how the clinician prefers to manage any suspicious lesions., Conclusions: To revise guidelines and implement change it is important to understand the rationale underpinning existing practice. Extended follow-up intervals for early stage melanoma are more likely to be adopted after the first year when patients are less anxious and sufficiently prepared to conduct self-examination. Clinicians may retain existing schedules for highly anxious patients or those unable to examine themselves., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The minimum requirement for the general dermatologist for clinically assessing pigmented skin lesions is dermoscopy. In expert hands, this technique has been shown to improve both the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of melanoma. This is also reflected by lower benign melanoma excision ratios and decreased excision rates. Evidence is mounting for the routine use of total body skin photography for patients with a very high risk of developing cutaneous melanoma. Both long-term (12 months) and short-term (3 months) digital dermoscopy monitoring has been shown to allow the detection of dermoscopically featureless melanoma and is central for the clinical assessment of melanocytic lesions at the Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Center. The use of automated instruments for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma is still in an experimental phase, and its utility is dependent on the evidence that such instruments give a clinically useful expert second opinion. Currently, other noninvasive diagnostic techniques, such as in vivo confocal scanning laser microscopy, are reserved for clinical research settings.

Objective: To describe the diagnostic performance of SolarScan (Polartechnics Ltd, Sydney, Australia), an automated instrument for the diagnosis of primary melanoma., Design: Images from a data set of 2430 lesions (382 were melanomas; median Breslow thickness, 0.36 mm) were divided into a training set and an independent test set at a ratio of approximately 2:1. A diagnostic algorithm (absolute diagnosis of melanoma vs benign lesion and estimated probability of melanoma) was developed and its performance described on the test set. High-quality clinical and dermoscopy images with a detailed patient history for 78 lesions (13 of which were melanomas) from the test set were given to various clinicians to compare their diagnostic accuracy with that of SolarScan., Setting: Seven specialist referral centers and 2 general practice skin cancer clinics from 3 continents. Comparison between clinician diagnosis and SolarScan diagnosis was by 3 dermoscopy experts, 4 dermatologists, 3 trainee dermatologists, and 3 general practitioners., Patients: Images of the melanocytic lesions were obtained from patients who required either excision or digital monitoring to exclude malignancy., Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, median probability for the diagnosis of melanoma, a direct comparison of SolarScan with diagnoses performed by humans, and interinstrument and intrainstrument reproducibility., Results: The melanocytic-only diagnostic model was highly reproducible in the test set and gave a sensitivity of 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86%-96%) and specificity of 68% (95% CI, 64%-72%) for melanoma. SolarScan had comparable or superior sensitivity and specificity (85% vs 65%) compared with those of experts (90% vs 59%), dermatologists (81% vs 60%), trainees (85% vs 36%; P =.06), and general practitioners (62% vs 63%). The intraclass correlation coefficient of intrainstrument repeatability was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88), indicating an excellent repeatability. There was no significant interinstrument variation (P = .80)., Conclusions: SolarScan is a robust diagnostic instrument for pigmented or partially pigmented melanocytic lesions of the skin. Preliminary data suggest that its performance is comparable or superior to that of a range of clinician groups. However, these findings should be confirmed in a formal clinical trial.