-
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Apr 2018The use of sunscreen is a key component of public health campaigns for skin cancer prevention, but epidemiological studies have raised doubts on its effectiveness in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The use of sunscreen is a key component of public health campaigns for skin cancer prevention, but epidemiological studies have raised doubts on its effectiveness in the general population. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between risk of skin cancer and sunscreen use. We searched PubMed, BIREME and Google Scholar from inception to May 17, 2017, to identify observational studies and controlled trials. We used a random-effects model for conventional and cumulative meta-analyses. We included 29 studies (25 case-control, two cohort, one cross-sectional, and one controlled trial) involving 313,717 participants (10,670 cases). The overall meta-analysis did not show a significant association between skin cancer and sunscreen use (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.91-1.28, I = 89.4%). Neither melanoma (25 studies; 9,813 cases) nor non-melanoma skin cancer (five studies; 857 cases) were associated with sunscreen use, with a pooled OR (95% CI) of 1.10 (0.92-1.33) and 0.99 (0.62-1.57), respectively. The cumulative evidence before the 1980s showed a relatively strong positive association between melanoma and sunscreen use (cumulative OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.66-3.33). The strength of the association between risk of skin cancer and sunscreen use has constantly decreased since the early 1980s, and the association was no longer statistically significant from the early 1990s. While the current evidence suggests no increased risk of skin cancer related to sunscreen use, this systematic review does not confirm the expected protective benefits of sunscreen against skin cancer in the general population.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Geography, Medical; Humans; Melanoma; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Skin Neoplasms; Sunscreening Agents
PubMed: 29620003
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2018.3251 -
JAMA Dermatology Feb 2021While current evidence supports UV exposure as an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma in fair-skinned populations, the evidence for this association in skin of...
IMPORTANCE
While current evidence supports UV exposure as an important risk factor for cutaneous melanoma in fair-skinned populations, the evidence for this association in skin of color is less certain.
OBJECTIVE
To critically assess and synthesize the published data regarding the association between UV exposure and the risk of cutaneous melanoma in skin of color.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A search was conducted including PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from database origin to June 3, 2020. Only peer-reviewed original studies were screened in full text. Eligible studies analyzed UV exposure as a risk factor for cutaneous melanoma in people with skin of color, which was defined broadly as any race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI, or tanning ability of rarely or never burns. Measures of UV exposure included UV index, irradiance, latitude, history of phototherapy, and history of sunburn. Evidence quality was assessed using criteria from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
FINDINGS
After duplicate removal, 11 059 database records were screened, 548 full-text articles were assessed, and 13 met inclusion criteria. Study types included 7 ecological studies, 5 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study. All studies used race and/or ethnicity to categorize the participants, and more than 7700 melanomas in skin of color were included. Of the 13 studies that met inclusion criteria, 11 found no association between UV exposure and melanoma in skin of color, 1 study showed a small positive relationship in Black males, and 1 showed a weak association in Hispanic males. All studies were of moderate to low quality (Oxford Centre ratings 2b to 4).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, the evidence suggests that UV exposure may not be an important risk factor for melanoma development in people with skin of color. Current recommendations promoting UV protection for melanoma prevention in skin of color are not supported by most current studies. However, evidence is of moderate to low quality, and further research is required to fully elucidate this association.
Topics: Humans; Melanoma; Risk Factors; Skin Neoplasms; Skin Pigmentation; Sunburn; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 33325988
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.4616 -
JAMA Oncology Apr 2022Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and...
IMPORTANCE
Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and axillary skin. Extramammary Paget disease can precede or occur along with internal malignant neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for the care of adults with EMPD.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review of the literature on EMPD from January 1990 to September 18, 2019, was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Libraries. Analysis included 483 studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluation of the findings led to the development of clinical care recommendations for EMPD.
FINDINGS
The key findings were as follows: (1) Multiple skin biopsies, including those of any nodular areas, are critical for diagnosis. (2) Malignant neoplasm screening appropriate for age and anatomical site should be performed at baseline to distinguish between primary and secondary EMPD. (3) Routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy or lymph node dissection is not recommended. (4) For intraepidermal EMPD, surgical and nonsurgical treatments may be used depending on patient and tumor characteristics, although cure rates may be superior with surgical approaches. For invasive EMPD, surgical resection with curative intent is preferred. (5) Patients with unresectable intraepidermal EMPD or patients who are medically unable to undergo surgery may receive nonsurgical treatments, including radiotherapy, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, carbon dioxide laser therapy, or other modalities. (6) Distant metastatic disease may be treated with chemotherapy or individualized targeted approaches. (7) Close follow-up to monitor for recurrence is recommended for at least the first 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Clinical practice guidelines for EMPD provide guidance regarding recommended diagnostic approaches, differentiation between invasive and noninvasive disease, and use of surgical vs nonsurgical treatments. Prospective registries may further improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in primary vs secondary EMPD, clarify features of high-risk tumors, and identify superior management approaches.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Imiquimod; Paget Disease, Extramammary; Prospective Studies; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 35050310
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7148 -
Topics in Companion Animal Medicine Nov 2020Mast cell tumor (MCT) or mastocytoma is one of the most frequent malignant cutaneous tumors in the dog, and the second most frequent in the cat. Several mast cell tumor...
Mast cell tumor (MCT) or mastocytoma is one of the most frequent malignant cutaneous tumors in the dog, and the second most frequent in the cat. Several mast cell tumor therapeutic approaches have been proposed in the past years for dogs and cats, resulting in very distinct outcomes. The current comprehensive literature review presents a critical approach to the scientific information published about the MCTs treatments and the subsequent prognosis and survival times, in dogs and in cats diagnosed with MCTs. A systematic review of the literature following the Cochrane principles and methodology was performed. The authors resorted to MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases to select the 133 publications with evidence-based treatments for MCTs in companion animals. Results of the review suggest that the recommended treatment, prognosis and survival times for dogs and cats with MCTs depends at all times on the clinical staging, histological grade and location of the tumor.
Topics: Animals; Cat Diseases; Cats; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Mastocytoma; Skin Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32891740
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcam.2020.100472 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Oct 2023To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.
PURPOSE
To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.
METHODS
American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.
RESULTS
The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.
UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS
Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with -mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Nivolumab; Oncolytic Virotherapy; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Skin Neoplasms; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 37579248
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.01136 -
JAMA Dermatology Apr 2016To date, the magnitude of association and the quality of evidence for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and risk factors for outcomes have not been reviewed and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
To date, the magnitude of association and the quality of evidence for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and risk factors for outcomes have not been reviewed and analyzed systematically.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically analyze all published data on risk factors for recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death (DSD) of cSCC.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from each database's inception to May 14, 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were studies of at least 10 patients, comparative data for at least 1 cSCC risk factor, and an outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were noncutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), anogenital SCC, inability to extract cSCC data from other malignancy data, SCC in situ, Marjolin ulcer, and genetic disorders predisposing to cSCC.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
A priori outcomes were recurrence, metastasis, and DSD.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies (17 248 patients with 23 421 cSCCs) were included. Significant risk factors for recurrence were the following: Breslow thickness exceeding 2 mm (risk ratio [RR], 9.64; 95% CI, 1.30-71.52), invasion beyond subcutaneous fat (RR, 7.61; 95% CI, 4.17-13.88), Breslow thickness exceeding 6 mm (RR, 7.13; 95% CI, 3.04-16.72), perineural invasion (RR, 4.30; 95% CI, 2.80-6.60), diameter exceeding 20 mm (RR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.91-5.45), location on the temple (RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.12-9.15), and poor differentiation (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.72-4.14). Significant risk factors for metastasis were: invasion beyond subcutaneous fat (RR, 11.21; 95% CI, 3.59-34.97), Breslow thickness exceeding 2 mm (RR, 10.76; 95% CI, 2.55-45.31), Breslow thickness exceeding 6 mm (RR, 6.93; 95% CI, 4.02-11.94), diameter exceeding 20 mm (RR, 6.15; 95% CI, 3.56-10.65), poor differentiation (RR, 4.98; 95% CI, 3.30-7.49), perineural invasion (RR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.31-3.75), immunosuppression (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37), and location on the temple (RR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.72-4.63), ear (RR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.67-3.23), or lip (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.54-3.37). Significant risk factors for DSD were: diameter exceeding 20 mm (RR, 19.10; 95% CI, 5.80-62.95), poor differentiation (RR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.76-18.20), location on the ear (RR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.28-17.12) or lip (RR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.41-14.69), invasion beyond subcutaneous fat (RR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.05-9.82), and perineural invasion (RR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.10-5.32). Evidence quality was considered low to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Tumor depth is associated with the highest RR of local recurrence and metastasis of cSCC, and tumor diameter exceeding 20 mm is associated with the highest RR of DSD. Unified, consistent collection and reporting of risk factors in a prospective, multicentered effort are needed to further understand the increasing incidence of cSCC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Risk Factors; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 26762219
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.4994 -
BMC Medicine Jul 2022Previous findings on the associations of thiazide use with skin cancers were conflicting. This study aimed to examine the associations of individual thiazide use with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous findings on the associations of thiazide use with skin cancers were conflicting. This study aimed to examine the associations of individual thiazide use with skin cancer risk, differentiated by subtypes of skin cancers, geographic regions, and cumulative doses of individual thiazides.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies on January 5, 2022, scanned the references of included studies, and consulted experts. We included case-control and cohort studies or randomized trials reporting the associations of individual thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics use with skin cancers. Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and melanoma were analysed separately. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted for pooled odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) for skin cancers related to individual thiazide use.
RESULTS
We included 15, 5, and 5 case-control or cohort studies reporting the risk for skin cancers associated with hydrochlorothiazide, bendroflumethiazide, and indapamide use, respectively, with 17,848,313 participants. The meta-analysis showed associations of hydrochlorothiazide use with increased risk of NMSC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24; HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.54), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.65; HR 1.61, 95% CI 0.97-2.67), and melanoma (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20; HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14). The increased risks for SCC were associated with high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.43-4.57; HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00-1.45). Hydrochlorothiazide use was associated with different subtypes of melanoma including superficial spreading (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33), nodular (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lentigo maligna melanoma (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08-1.65). Various cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide were associated with increased odds for melanoma. However, the associations of hydrochlorothiazide use with increased risk of NMSC and melanoma only appeared in non-Asian countries. No meaningful increase in the risk for skin cancers was associated with bendroflumethiazide and indapamide.
CONCLUSIONS
Hydrochlorothiazide is associated with an increased risk for NMSC (especially SCC) and melanoma in non-Asian countries, whereas bendroflumethiazide and indapamide are not associated with a meaningful risk for skin cancers. Healthcare professionals and patients should be informed of the different risk profiles of skin cancers associated with different thiazides, cumulative doses, and regions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021234317 .
Topics: Bendroflumethiazide; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Humans; Hydrochlorothiazide; Indapamide; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Thiazides
PubMed: 35794547
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02419-9 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jun 2023The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and melanoma development in renal transplant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and melanoma development in renal transplant recipients who receive calcineurin inhibitors to that of patients treated with other immunosuppressive agents, and investigate the possible association between the type of maintenance immunosuppression and the incidence of NSMC and melanoma in this group of patients. The authors searched databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles that would help establish the influence of calcineurin inhibitors on skin cancer development. The inclusion criteria for the study consisted of randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared patients who received kidney transplants and were treated with a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), such as cyclosporine A (CsA) or tacrolimus (Tac), to those who received alternative immunosuppressants and did not receive a CNI. Seven articles were analyzed overall. The results revealed a correlation between CNI treatment in renal transplant recipients and increased total skin cancer risk (OR 1.28; 95% CI: 0.10-16.28; < 0.01), melanoma risk (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.25-4.74; < 0.01), and NMSC risk (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.26; < 0.01). In conclusion, the calcineurin inhibitors used after kidney transplantation are associated with a higher risk of skin cancer-both non-melanoma and melanoma-when compared with other immunosuppressive therapies. This finding suggests that careful monitoring for skin lesions in post-transplant patients must be conducted. However, the decision on the kind of immunotherapy used should always be considered on an individual basis for each renal transplant recipient.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Kidney Transplantation; Incidence; Immunosuppressive Agents; Skin Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37366913
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30060430 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Nivolumab; Skin Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neoplasm Staging; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 36648215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012974.pub2 -
JAMA Dermatology Mar 2017As technology becomes more commonplace in dermatological practice, it is essential to continuously review the accuracy of teledermatology devices and services compared... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
As technology becomes more commonplace in dermatological practice, it is essential to continuously review the accuracy of teledermatology devices and services compared with in-person care. The last systematic review was conducted over 5 years ago.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize and assess the quality of the evidence to address 3 research questions: (1) How accurate is teledermatology for skin cancer diagnosis compared with usual care (face-to-face [FTF] diagnosis)? (2) Does teledermatology save clinician and/or patient time, compared with usual care? (3) What are the enablers and barriers to adoption of teledermatology in clinical practice for the diagnosis of skin cancer?
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database. Six databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy and concordance, management accuracy and concordance, measures of time (waiting times, delay to diagnosis), and enablers and barriers to implementation. Potentially eligible articles were screened by 2 reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of individual studies assessing diagnostic accuracy.
FINDINGS
Twenty-one studies were reviewed. The diagnostic accuracy (defined as agreement with histopathology for excised lesions or clinical diagnosis for nonexcised lesions) of FTF dermatology consultation remains higher (67%-85% agreement with reference standard, Cohen κ, 0.90) when compared with teledermatology (51%-85% agreement with reference standard, κ, 0.41-0.63), for the diagnosis of skin cancer. However, some studies do report high accuracy of teledermatology diagnoses. Most studies of diagnostic accuracy and concordance had significant methodological limitations. Studies of health service outcomes found teledermatology reduced waiting times and could result in earlier assessment and treatment. Patients reported high satisfaction and were willing to pay out of pocket for access to such services.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Robust implementation studies of teledermatology are needed, paying careful attention to reducing risk of bias when assessing diagnostic accuracy. Teledermatology services consistently reduced waiting times to assessment and diagnosis, and patient satisfaction was high.
Topics: Dermatology; Diagnostic Errors; Humans; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Patient Satisfaction; Skin Neoplasms; Telemedicine; Time Factors
PubMed: 27926766
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4361