Which medical disciplines diagnose and treat melanoma in Europe in 2019? A survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of melanoma is increasing. This places significant burden on societies to provide efficient cancer care. The European Cancer Organisation recently published the essential requirements for quality melanoma care. The present study is aimed for the first time to roughly estimate the extent to which these requirements have been met in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries was conducted from 1 February to 1 August 2019. Data on diagnostic techniques, surgical and medical treatment, organization of cancer care and education were collected and correlated with national health and economic indicators and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) as a surrogate for survival. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the correlations. SPSS software was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The MIR was lower in countries with a high health expenditure per capita and with a higher numbers of general practitioners (GPs) and surgeons (SURG) per million inhabitants. In these countries, GPs and dermatologists (DER) were involved in melanoma detection; high percentage of DER used dermatoscopy and were involved in the follow-up of all melanoma stages; both medical oncologists (ONC) and dermato-oncologists administered systemic treatments; and patients had better access to sentinel lymph node biopsy and were treated within multidisciplinary tumour boards. CONCLUSION: Based on these first estimates, the greater involvement of GPs in melanoma detection; the greater involvement of highly trained DER in dermatoscopy, dermatosurgery, follow-up and the systemic treatment of melanoma; and the provision of ongoing dermato-oncology training for pathologists, SURG, DER and ONC are necessary to provide an optimal melanoma care pathway. A comprehensive analysis of the melanoma care pathway based on clinical melanoma registries will be needed to more accurately evaluate these first insights.

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of topical 5-fluorouracil vs. imiquimod vs. ingenol mebutate vs. methyl aminolaevulinate conventional photodynamic therapy for the treatment of actinic keratosis in the head and neck area performed in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common premalignant skin condition that might have the ability to progress into squamous cell carcinoma. Due to the high incidence of AK, treatment of this disease significantly impacts healthcare spending. OBJECTIVES: To determine which commonly prescribed field-directed treatment is the most cost-effective, when comparing 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 5%, imiquimod (IMQ) 5%, ingenol mebutate (IM) 0·015% and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for AK in the head and neck region. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a single-blinded, prospective, multicentre randomized controlled trial with 624 participants in the Netherlands. The outcome measure was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the incremental costs per additional patient with ≥ 75% lesion reduction compared with baseline. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281682. RESULTS: The trial showed that 5-FU was the most effective field treatment for AK in the head and neck region. Twelve months post-treatment, the total mean costs for 5-FU were significantly lower (€433) than the €728, €775 and €1621 for IMQ, IM and MAL-PDT, respectively. The results showed that 5-FU was a dominant cost-effective treatment (more effective and less expensive) compared with the other treatments, 12 months post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we consider 5-FU 5% cream as the first-choice treatment option for multiple AKs in the head and neck area. What's already known about this topic? Due to the increasing incidence of actinic keratosis (AK), the recommended treatment results in a considerable socioeconomic burden for (dermatological) healthcare. Although cost-effectiveness modelling studies have been performed in which different treatments for AK were compared, a prospective clinical trial comparing four frequently prescribed treatments on effectiveness and resource consumption within a time horizon of 12 months has never been conducted. What does this study add? This is the first study examining the cost-effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil 5% cream, imiquimod 5% cream, ingenol mebutate 0·015% gel and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy, with data collected in a randomized controlled trial over a time horizon of 12 months. We found that 5-fluorouracil was a dominant cost-effective treatment (more effective and less costly), based on data from the Netherlands. Linked Comment: Steeb et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:612.

Poor agreement between the automated risk assessment of a smartphone application for skin cancer detection and the rating by dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Several smartphone applications (app) with an automated risk assessment claim to be able to detect skin cancer at an early stage. Various studies that have evaluated these apps showed mainly poor performance. However, all studies were done in patients and lesions were mainly selected by a specialist. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the performance of the automated risk assessment of an app by comparing its assessment to that of a dermatologist in lesions selected by the participants. METHODS: Participants of a National Skin Cancer Day were enrolled in a multicentre study. Skin lesions indicated by the participants were analysed by the automated risk assessment of the app prior to blinded rating by the dermatologist. The ratings of the automated risk assessment were compared to the assessment and diagnosis of the dermatologist. Due to the setting of the Skin Cancer Day, lesions were not verified by histopathology. RESULTS: We included 125 participants (199 lesions). The app was not able to analyse 90 cases (45%) of which nine BCC, four atypical naevi and one lentigo maligna. Thirty lesions (67%) with a high and 21 with a medium risk (70%) rating by the app were diagnosed as benign naevi or seborrhoeic keratoses. The interobserver agreement between the ratings of the automated risk assessment and the dermatologist was poor (weighted kappa = 0.02; 95% CI -0.08-0.12; P = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The rating of the automated risk assessment was poor. Further investigations about the diagnostic accuracy in real-life situations are needed to provide consumers with reliable information about this healthcare application.

Genetic profiling of basal cell carcinomas detects postzygotic mosaicism in basal cell naevus syndrome.

Basal cell naevus syndrome (BCNS) is associated with germline mutations in the PTCH1 gene. Postzygotic mosaicism can also cause BCNS. Here we describe two patients, one with multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and one with clinical BCNS, who had no PTCH1 mutation in DNA extracted from blood. In both patients, we performed genetic analysis on different BCCs, revealing the presence of a shared PTCH1 mutation in all tumours. Our findings show that in patients with symptoms of BCNS and initial absence of a PTCH1 mutation in blood, genetic profiling of BCCs can detect postzygotic mosaicism. What's already known about this topic? Basal cell naevus syndrome (BCNS) is associated with germline mutations in the PTCH1 gene, but it can also be caused by low-grade postzygotic mosaicism in PTCH1. What does this study add? In patients suspected of having BCNS or patients with multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) with a special distribution on the body and no mutation detected in blood, it is worthwhile to search for a shared PTCH1 mutation in their BCCs as this can detect postzygotic mosaicism. This information is important to ensure proper surveillance programmes, choose the right therapy and provide adequate genetic counselling.

Treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma by topical photodynamic therapy with fractionated 5-aminolaevulinic acid 20% vs. two-stage topical methyl aminolaevulinate: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common type of skin cancer and incidence rates are increasing. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a frequently used treatment, especially for superficial BCC (sBCC). Two topical photosensitizing agents are currently used to treat sBCC, namely 5-aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) and its ester, methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL). Previous research showed a high efficacy for ALA-PDT using a twofold fractionated illumination scheme in which two light fractions of 20 J cm-2 and 80 J cm-2 were delivered 4 h and 6 h after ALA application. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether twofold ALA-PDT is superior to conventional MAL-PDT for sBCC. METHODS: We performed a single-blind, randomized, multicentre trial in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Overall, 162 patients were randomized either to conventional MAL-PDT or twofold ALA-PDT. After 12 months, a total of six treatment failures occurred following ALA-PDT and 13 treatment failures occurred following MAL-PDT. The 12-month cumulative probability of remaining free from treatment failure was 92·3% [95% confidence interval (CI) (83·7-96·5)] for ALA-PDT and 83·4% (95% CI 73·1-90·0) for MAL-PDT (P = 0·091). CONCLUSIONS: The twofold ALA-PDT scheme resulted in fewer recurrences, although the difference between both treatment groups was not statistically significant. However, ALA-PDT resulted in higher pain scores and more post-treatment side-effects compared with MAL-PDT.

Current approach of skin lesions suspected of malignancy in general practice in the Netherlands: a quantitative overview.

BACKGROUND: The role of general practitioners (GPs) in skin cancer care is increasing. Previous, hospital-based studies suggest that GPs might not have the capabilities to gain responsibility concerning skin cancer care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current approach of GPs towards skin lesions suspected of malignancy in the Netherlands. METHODS: In three general practices, all consultations in 2015 concerning skin lesions suspected of malignancy were identified and reviewed. Patients demographics, circumstances of consultation, evaluation of skin lesion(s), presumed diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy and policy were evaluated. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty consultations were identified. Patient took initiative for encounter in 90%. Case-finding occurred in 2%. Diagnostic tools were used in 22%; dermoscopy was used in 8% and a diagnostic excision in 10%. The GP diagnosed a benign lesion in 69%. Therapeutic interventions were applied in 31% and a wait-and-see policy in 40%. The diagnosis after referral was a benign tumour in 39% of the cases, a malignancy in 29% and a premalignant lesion in 17%. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the presumed benign, malignant and premalignant diagnoses was 86%, 54% and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most lesions that are presented to the GP with a suspicion of a malignancy appear to be benign lesions. In the examined practices, the diagnosis of the GP is mainly based on clinical examination and little use is made of available diagnostic tools. The use of a diagnostic tool like a biopsy might prevent unnecessary referrals.

Reliability of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and a 4-point scale in evaluating linear facial surgical scars.

BACKGROUND: In order to evaluate and improve aesthetic outcome for patients undergoing dermatological surgery, a reliable evaluation tool must be used. The 4-point scale and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were both developed for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of the POSAS scale with the 4-point scale for facial linear surgical scars and to assess the influence of different scar characteristics on the overall impression. METHODS: Patients visiting the outpatient clinics of the Maastricht University Medical Centre with linear facial scars were included. The 4-point scale and the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) were completed by three independent observers. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) was completed by the patient on the day of the visit and 2 weeks later. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the reliability of the scales. Linear multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate how the score on each aspect affected the overall opinion. RESULTS: Fifty scars in 50 patients were included. The ICC of the 4-point scale was 0.819 (95% CI: 0.708-0.892) for multiple observers and 0.602 (95% CI: 0.447-0.734) for single observer. These were superior to the ICCs of total OSAS scores (0.783 95% CI: 0.547-0.888 for multiple observers and 0.546 95% CI: 0.287-0.726 for single observer). ICCs of individual sub-items on the OSAS scored even lower. The sub-items contributed differently to the overall opinion among the different observers or patient. CONCLUSION: In terms of reliability, the overall opinion and the 4-point scale were superior to the total POSAS score or the sub-items. Observers do not weight individual scar characteristics equally to arrive at an overall opinion, which challenges the assumption that calculating a total POSAS score by summing of the scores on the individual items is a valid approach.

Reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides: interpersonal and intrapersonal agreement on basal cell carcinoma presence and histological subtype.

BACKGROUND: The success of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) depends partly on the correct diagnosis of slides. OBJECTIVES: To determine reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides. METHODS: This was a prospective study evaluating the reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) presence, BCC location on the slide and BCC subtype among six raters who independently assessed 50 Mohs slides twice with a 2-month interval. Slides were randomly selected whereby difficult-to-diagnose slides were oversampled. For each slide, a reference diagnosis was established by an expert panel. Cohen's kappa (κ) was calculated to determine levels of agreement interpersonally (rater vs. reference diagnosis) and intrapersonally (rater at T1 vs. T2). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent risk factors for slides with interpersonal discordant diagnosis. The variables studied were BCC presence, whether a slide was scored as easy or difficult to diagnose, review duration of the 50 slides, profession and years of experience in diagnosis from Mohs slides. RESULTS: Interpersonal and intrapersonal agreement were substantial on BCC presence (κ = 0·66 and 0·68) and moderate on BCC subtype (κ = 0·45 and 0·55). Slides that were scored as difficult to diagnose were an independent risk factor for interpersonal discordant diagnosis on BCC presence (odds ratio 3·54, 95% confidence interval 1·81-6·84). CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of diagnosis from Mohs slides was substantial on BCC presence and moderate on BCC subtype. For slides that are scored difficult to diagnose, a second opinion is recommended to prevent misinterpretation and thereby recurrence of skin cancer.

Photodynamic therapy vs. topical imiquimod for treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma: a subgroup analysis within a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A recent noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that imiquimod can be considered as superior to methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) in the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC). Knowledge of treatment effectiveness in subgroups of patients is of great value in clinical practice to select the most effective treatment for an individual patient with sBCC. OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the relative treatment effect of MAL-PDT and imiquimod is consistent across subgroups defined by patient and tumour characteristics. METHODS: Data were derived from a single-blinded, noninferiority, multicentre RCT comparing MAL-PDT, topical imiquimod and fluorouracil (ISRCTN79701845). Treatment success was defined as free of tumour recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Subgroup analyses were performed for subgroups defined by sex, age, tumour location and tumour size. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients received MAL-PDT and 198 received imiquimod. The superiority of imiquimod vs. MAL-PDT was observed in subgroups of females, sBCC on the trunk and large tumours with risk differences in favour of imiquimod of 18·4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7·8-29·0%], 21·0% (95% CI 10·9-31·1%) and 18·9% (95% CI 7·1-30·7%), respectively. Higher probability of treatment success for imiquimod vs. MAL-PDT was consistently found in all other subgroups with the exception of sBCC localized on the lower extremities in older patients. In the latter subgroup, the risk difference at the expense of imiquimod was -57·3% (95% CI -81·7% to -32·9%). CONCLUSIONS: Imiquimod remains the first-choice treatment for sBCC in terms of effectiveness. In older patients with sBCC on the lower extremities MAL-PDT might be preferred. Results should be interpreted carefully as subgroup analyses were exploratory and not driven by prior hypotheses.

Cost-effectiveness of topical imiquimod and fluorouracil vs. photodynamic therapy for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A recent noninferiority randomized trial showed that in terms of clinical effectiveness imiquimod was superior and topical fluorouracil noninferior to methylaminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma (sBCC). Although it was expected that MAL-PDT would be more costly than either cream, a full cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary to determine the balance between effectiveness and costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether imiquimod or topical fluorouracil are cost-effective treatments for sBCC compared with MAL-PDT. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective. Data on resource use and costs were collected alongside the randomized clinical trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the incremental costs per additional patient free of tumour recurrence. RESULTS: At 12 months follow-up, the total mean costs for MAL-PDT were €680, for imiquimod cream €526 and for topical fluorouracil cream €388. Both imiquimod and topical fluorouracil were cost-effective treatments compared with MAL-PDT. Comparing costs and effectiveness of both creams led to a incremental investment of €4451 to achieve an additional patient free of tumour recurrence. The acceptability curve showed that, for a threshold value of €4451, the probability of imiquimod being more cost-effective than topical fluorouracil was 50%. CONCLUSION: Based on the 12 months follow-up results, imiquimod and topical fluorouracil cream are more cost-effective than MAL-PDT for treatment of sBCC. Hence, substituting MAL-PDT with either imiquimod or topical fluorouracil results in cost savings; these savings will be larger for topical fluorouracil. Long-term follow-up effectiveness data are necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of imiquimod vs. topical 5-fluorouracil cream.