Site Editor
Soo Park, MD
Soo Park, MD
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2024
Skin screening or surveillance may increase diagnostic scrutiny and therefore increase the number of melanoma diagnoses within the general population, according to David C. Whiteman, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues. In fact, individuals who were screened for skin cancer were more likely to undergo subsequent biopsies and receive a diagnosis of melanoma compared with individuals who had not been previously screened. The findings of this longitudinal cohort study were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.
“In this national prospective study of more than 10 million Australians, we found that people who underwent a skin biopsy or excision for a noncancerous skin lesion in the index year subsequently experienced twofold to fourfold higher rates of detection activities and melanoma during follow-up,” stated the study investigators. “These data support the concept of a ‘cycle of overdetection,’ whereby detection events in one year predict diagnostic procedures and melanoma in future years.”
Linked data from men and women covered under Australia’s universal health insurance scheme from 2011 to 2016 were included in the study (n = 10,674,200). Medical claims were used to identify whether the patients had been unscreened, screened, or surveilled for skin cancer in 2013. If patients had been diagnosed with melanoma prior to 2013, they were excluded from the study. During the follow-up period of 2014 to 2016, rates of biopsies, excisions for suspected melanoma, and excisions for histologically confirmed melanoma were obtained from records.
During the follow-up period, patients who were screened were more likely than unscreened patients to undergo skin biopsies, excisions for suspected melanoma, and excisions for confirmed melanoma. For the surveilled group, the rate of diagnostic events was also found to be higher, and detection and rates of melanoma remained elevated in each year of follow-up compared with the group that had not been monitored.
Disclosure: The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
British Journal of Dermatology
JNCCN Spotlights
