Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for stage IA and IB melanoma. REVIEW METHODS: Three systematic reviews were conducted. (1) The effectiveness of surveillance strategies. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. (2) Prediction models to stratify by risk of recurrence, metastases and survival. Model performance was assessed by study-reported measures of discrimination (e.g. D-statistic, Harrel's c-statistic), calibration (e.g. the Hosmer-Lemeshow 'goodness-of-fit' test) or overall performance (e.g. Brier score, R2). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). (3) Diagnostic test accuracy of fine-needle biopsy and ultrasonography. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and overall survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Review data and data from elsewhere were used to model the cost-effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies and the value of further research. RESULTS: (1) The surveillance review included one randomised controlled trial. There was no evidence of a difference in new primary or recurrence detected (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.31). Risk of bias was considered to be of some concern. Certainty of the evidence was low. (2) Eleven risk prediction models were identified. Discrimination measures were reported for six models, with the area under the operating curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. Three models reported calibration measures, with coefficients of ≥ 0.88. Overall performance was reported by two models. In one, the Brier score was slightly better than the American Joint Committee on Cancer scheme score. The other reported an R2 of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.49). All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. (3) The diagnostic test accuracy review identified two studies. One study considered fine-needle biopsy and the other considered ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity for fine-needle biopsy were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97), respectively. For ultrasonography, sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the reference standards and flow and timing domains, the risk of bias was rated as being high for both studies. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, less intensive surveillance than recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be worthwhile. There was considerable uncertainty. Improving the diagnostic performance of cancer nurse specialists and introducing a risk prediction tool could be promising. Further research on transition probabilities between different stages of melanoma and on improving diagnostic accuracy would be of most value. LIMITATIONS: Overall, few data of limited quality were available, and these related to earlier versions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Consequently, there was considerable uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite adoption of rigorous methods, too few data are available to justify changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations on surveillance. However, alternative strategies warrant further research, specifically on improving estimates of incidence, progression of recurrent disease; diagnostic accuracy and health-related quality of life; developing and evaluating risk stratification tools; and understanding patient preferences. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086784. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol 25, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Malignant melanoma is the deadliest of skin cancers; in the UK, > 2500 people die from it every year. Initially, the cancer is removed surgically, which cures it for most people, but, for some, the cancer returns. For this reason, after a melanoma is removed, patients are followed up to see if the melanoma reoccurs or if new melanomas have developed. It is felt that early cancer detection improves the chance of future treatment working. A key question is how best to follow up patients after initial melanoma surgery. This study concentrates on the earliest stage of melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I), which accounts for more than 7 out of 10 of all melanoma diagnoses. The study also investigates if new ways of follow-up could be at least as good as current practice and a better use of NHS money. We systematically reviewed studies comparing different ways of organising follow-up, and then methods to identify those patients at high risk of developing a further melanoma and how good different tests are at detecting this cancer. We then compared different possible follow-up strategies. For each strategy, we considered its impact on quality and length of life, and how well it used NHS resources. We found little evidence to support a change in how follow-up should be organised currently. There were some ways of organising follow-up that might be better than current care, but further research is needed. We found that new research on whether or not follow-up should be performed by a cancer nurse specialist, rather than a dermatologist or surgeon, would be worthwhile. We also found that more research could be worthwhile on how frequently melanoma recurs and spreads, as well as how accurately a diagnosis of further cancer is made and how to identify those most at risk of further melanoma spread.

Meatal stenosis in boys following circumcision for lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans).

PURPOSE: Of boys circumcised for penile lichen sclerosus, ie balanitis xerotica obliterans, 7% to 19% require late surgery for meatal stenosis. We review the management and outcomes of boys circumcised for lichen sclerosus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of boys with clinical lichen sclerosus were reviewed for the period 2000 to 2010. Patients were excluded from the study if the foreskin was not submitted for histopathological analysis, circumcision was not performed at the center during the study period or medical records were unavailable. Data were compared by Fisher exact test and univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 300 circumcised boys lichen sclerosus was confirmed in 250. A total of 50 patients had nonlichen sclerosus histology. Mean age was 9.0 years (range 4 to 16) in patients with lichen sclerosus and 8.3 years (2 to 15) in those with nonlichen sclerosus histology. Boys with lichen sclerosus were more likely to have the meatus described as abnormal (57 vs 4) and to have undergone a meatal procedure at circumcision (55 vs 2) or a meatal operation at a later date (49 vs 3, all p <0.05). Boys with lichen sclerosus requiring later meatal procedures (meatal dilation in 25, meatotomy in 24) rarely underwent a meatal procedure at circumcision (4 of 49) and were less likely to have received preoperative topical steroids than boys not needing a later meatal procedure (2 of 49 vs 49 of 151, p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After circumcision for lichen sclerosus up to 1 in 5 boys requires a subsequent operation for meatal pathology. Pre-circumcision topical steroids may help decrease the rate of later meatal pathology. Submission of the foreskin for histological analysis should always be considered, as prognosis differs for lichen sclerosus vs nonlichen sclerosus histology. We recommend a care pathway for boys with lichen sclerosus.