The effect of screening on melanoma incidence and biopsy rates

Abstract

Background Cutaneous melanomas are common cancers in white‐skinned populations, and early detection is promoted as a means of reducing morbidity and mortality. There is concern that increased skin screening is leading to overdiagnosis of indolent melanomas with low risk of lethality. The extent of melanoma overdiagnosis associated with screening is unknown. Objectives To estimate possible overdiagnosis by comparing subsequent melanoma incidence and biopsy rates among people subjected to skin screening those who were not. Methods We recruited 43 762 residents of Queensland, Australia, aged 40–69 years, with no prior history of melanoma, selected at random from a population register in 2010. At baseline, participants completed a comprehensive melanoma risk factor survey and were asked if their skin had been examined by a doctor in the 3 years prior to baseline. We calculated incidence and relative risk of histologically confirmed melanoma (invasive and in situ) in years 2–7 of follow‐up, obtained through linkage to the cancer registry. In secondary analyses, we measured biopsy rates in years 2–6 of follow‐up. We used propensity score analysis to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results In total, 28 155 participants underwent skin screening prior to baseline. We observed 967 first‐incident melanomas (381 invasive) during 197 191 person‐years of follow‐up. Those screened had higher rates of melanoma (aHR 1·29, 95% CI 1·02–1·63) and subsequent skin biopses (aHR 1·85, 95% CI 1·69–2·04) than unscreened participants. The higher risk associated with skin screening was evident for in situ melanoma (aHR 1·45, 95% CI 1·09–1·92) but not invasive melanoma (aHR 1·05, 95% CI 0·72–1·54). In secondary analyses, where screening was defined as having a skin biopsy in the first year after baseline, we observed significantly increased risks of melanoma (aHR 1·53, 95% CI 1·23–1·89) and subsequent biopsies (aHR 2·64, 95% CI 2·46–2·84) relative to those who did not have a biopsy. Conclusions People who undergo skin screening subsequently experience higher rates of biopsies and melanoma (especially in situ melanoma), even after adjusting for all known risk factors, consistent with overdiagnosis. What is already known about this topic? Cutaneous melanomas are common cancers in white‐skinned populations for which early detection is promoted as a means of reducing morbidity and mortality. There is concern that increased surveillance is leading to the overdiagnosis of indolent melanomas that are not destined to be lethal. The extent of melanoma overdiagnosis associated with surveillance is not known. What does this study add? People subjected to skin examinations by a doctor or who undergo skin biopsies subsequently have higher numbers of biopsies and higher rates of melanoma than people not subjected to either, even after adjusting for all known risk factors. These findings suggest that heightened surveillance leads to a proportion of melanomas being diagnosed that otherwise may not have c...

The Contrasting Seasonality Patterns of Some Cancer-Types and Herpes Zoster Can Be Explained by a Binary Classification of Immunological Reactions

“…14 and references therein]; a large recent Australian study revealed about 60% in situ melanoma tumors (low-Treg tumors) at diagnosis. 40 …”

Patient presentation, skin biopsy utilization and cutaneous malignant melanoma incidence and mortality in northern Italy: Trends and correlations

“…18,23 A systematic literature review and field studies have confirmed that the implementation of skin cancer screening interventions leads to an increase in the incidence of in situ and thin CMM. 24,25 Other researchers have reported data at variance with the hypothesis of a key role of overdiagnosis in incidence trends. In the Netherlands, for example, the rates of both thin (≤1.0 mm) and thick (>4.0 mm) CMM have increased, accompanied by an increase in mortality too.…”

Melanoma overdiagnosis: why it matters and what can be done about it

“…Using a propensity score‐based analysis, they obtained results that may approximately mimic those from a trial of melanoma screening. 1 Participants who had a prior clinical skin examination were 30% more likely have a new diagnosis of melanoma than controls. Those who had a skin biopsy in the first year of follow‐up were 50% more likely.…”

“…In practice, the predictors of biomarkers will need to be assessed alongside clinical phenotypic and demographic factors. 1 Biomarkers can potentially help us with the prediction of the cause of a disease, its progression, regression, outcome, diagnosis and, in the case of the scoping review in this issue of the BJD, 2 the results of treatment. However, the sheer volume of the biomarker literature is in stark contrast to the few biomarkers that have established utility in clinical practice, 3 especially in inflammatory disease.…”

“…The analysis by Whiteman and colleagues of a large Australian prospective cohort study is a valuable addition to the evidence base. Using a propensity score‐based analysis, they obtained results that may approximately mimic those from a trial of melanoma screening 1 . Participants who had a prior clinical skin examination were 30% more likely have a new diagnosis of melanoma than controls.…”