Search

Background: Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma.Methods: Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised).Discussion: The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this research was to understand how genomics-based personal melanoma risk information impacts psychological and emotional health outcomes in the general population. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, participants (n = 103) completed the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire, 3 months after receiving personal melanoma genomic risk information. Mean scores for MICRA items and subscales were stratified by genomic risk group (low, average, high), gender, education, age, and family history of melanoma. P values were obtained from t-tests and analysis of variance tests. We found that overall, participants (mean age: 53 years, range: 21-69; 52% female) had a total MICRA mean score of 18.6 (standard deviation: 11.1, range: 1-70; possible range: 0-105). The high genomic risk group had higher mean scores for the total (24.2, F 2,100  = 6.7, P = 0.0019), distress (3.3, F 2,100  = 9.4, P = 0.0002) and uncertainty (8.5, F 2,100  = 6.5, P = 0.0021) subscales compared with average (17.6, 1.1, and 4.5, respectively) and low-risk groups (14.1, 0.5, and 2.5, respectively). Positive experiences scores were consistent across risk groups. In conclusion, MICRA scores for the total, distress and uncertainty subscales in our study were relatively low overall, but people who receive a high genomic risk result may benefit from increased support following testing.

Self-reported sun exposure is commonly measured using questionnaires or diaries, but there are limited data on their validity, particularly for population subgroups. This research aimed to compare self-reported sun exposure, measured as (1) habitual time outdoors over the past month on weekends and weekdays and (2) a 4-day diary measure, against objective measurement of personal ultraviolet radiation using polysulfone film dosimeters. From November 2015 to January 2016, 94 people (22-69 years and living in New South Wales, Australia) completed a questionnaire, 4-day diary and 4-day dosimeter measures of overall, weekday and weekend sun exposure. Spearman correlations and Bland-Altman plots were used to measure agreement. The overall weekly correlation was 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 0.68) between standard erythemal doses (SEDs) measured by dosimeter and time spent outdoors measured by questionnaire, 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) between dosimeter and diary, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.48-0.68) between questionnaire and diary measures. Validity was lower for younger people and weekend sun exposure. There was strong correlation between dosimeter and sun diary measures and moderate correlation between dosimeter and questionnaire measures. Daily measurement over a longer period may be required to accurately capture weeklong sun exposure in all population subgroups., (© 2018 The American Society of Photobiology.)

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants' satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n = 117) were aged 22-69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing.