Objectives To assess whether adding a novel computerised diagnostic tool, the MoleMate system (SIAscopy with primary care scoring algorithm), to current best practice results in more appropriate referrals of suspicious pigmented lesions to secondary care, and to assess its impact on clinicians and patients.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 15 general practices in eastern England.Participants 1297 adults with pigmented skin lesions not immediately diagnosed as benign.Interventions Patients were assessed by trained primary care clinicians using best practice (clinical history, naked eye examination, seven point checklist) either alone (control group) or with the MoleMate system (intervention group).Main outcome measures Appropriateness of referral, defined as the proportion of referred lesions that were biopsied or monitored. Secondary outcomes related to the clinicians (diagnostic performance, confidence, learning effects) and patients (satisfaction, anxiety). Economic evaluation, diagnostic performance of the seven point checklist, and five year follow-up of melanoma incidence were also secondary outcomes and will be reported later.Results 1297 participants with 1580 lesions were randomised: 643 participants with 788 lesions to the intervention group and 654 participants with 792 lesions to the control group. The appropriateness of referral did not differ significantly between the intervention or control groups: 56.8% (130/229) v 64.5% (111/172); difference −8.1% (95% confidence interval −18.0% to 1.8%). The proportion of benign lesions appropriately managed in primary care did not differ (intervention 99.6% v control 99.2%, P=0.46), neither did the percentage agreement with an expert decision to biopsy or monitor (intervention 98.5% v control 95.7%, P=0.26). The percentage agreement with expert assessment that the lesion was benign was significantly lower with MoleMate (intervention 84.4% v control 90.6%, P<0.001), and a higher proportion of lesions were referred (intervention 29.8% v control 22.4%, P=0.001). Thirty six histologically confirmed melanomas were diagnosed: 18/18 were appropriately referred in the intervention group and 17/18 in the control group. Clinicians in both groups were confident, and there was no evidence of learning effects, and therefore contamination, between groups. Patients in the intervention group ranked their consultations higher for thoroughness and reassuring care, although anxiety scores were similar between the groups. ConclusionsWe found no evidence that the MoleMate system improved appropriateness of referral. The systematic application of best practice guidelines alone was more accurate than the MoleMate system, and both performed better than reports of current practice. Therefore the systematic application of best practice guidelines (including the seven point checklist) should be the paradigm for management of suspicious skin lesions in primary care. IntroductionDifferentiating melanomas from other pigmented skin lesions in primary care is challenging. 1 ...
Background Novel diagnostic triage and testing strategies to support early detection of cancer could improve clinical outcomes. Most apparently promising diagnostic tests ultimately fail because of inadequate performance in real-world, low prevalence populations such as primary care or general community populations. They should therefore be systematically evaluated before implementation to determine whether they lead to earlier detection, are cost-effective, and improve patient safety and quality of care, while minimising over-investigation and over-diagnosis. Methods We performed a systematic scoping review of frameworks for the evaluation of tests and diagnostic approaches. Results We identified 16 frameworks: none addressed the entire continuum from test development to impact on diagnosis and patient outcomes in the intended population, nor the way in which tests may be used for triage purposes as part of a wider diagnostic strategy. Informed by these findings, we developed a new framework, the ‘CanTest Framework’, which proposes five iterative research phases forming a clear translational pathway from new test development to health system implementation and evaluation. Conclusion This framework is suitable for testing in low prevalence populations, where tests are often applied for triage testing and incorporated into a wider diagnostic strategy. It has relevance for a wide range of stakeholders including patients, policymakers, purchasers, healthcare providers and industry. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5746-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background Advanced age is a major risk factor for the development of many diseases including those affecting the central nervous system (CNS). Wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma (IDH wt GBM) is the most common primary brain cancer and accounts for ≥90% of all adult GBM diagnoses. Patients with IDH wt GBM have a median age of diagnosis at 68-70 years of age and increasing age is associated with an increasingly worse prognosis for patients with this type of GBM. Methods SEER, TCGA, and CGGA databases were analyzed for mortality indices. Meta-analysis of 80 clinical trials were evaluated for log-hazard ratio for aging to tumor survivorship. Results Despite significant advances in the understanding of intratumoral genetic alterations, molecular characteristics of tumor microenvironments, and relationships between tumor molecular characteristics and the use of targeted therapeutics, life expectancy for older adults with GBM has yet to improve. Conclusions Based upon the results of our analysis, we propose that age-dependent factors that are yet to be fully elucidated, contribute to IDH wt GBM patient outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.