Finding my tribe: a qualitative interview study of how people living with metastatic breast cancer perceive support groups.

PURPOSE: This study explored the value of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) support groups, and factors that affect attendance, from the perspective of people with MBC. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 women with MBC (support group attendees n = 16; non-attendees n = 12) between January 2022 and July 2023. Data were analysed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: the value of sharing experiential knowledge, spaces for open and honest conversations, and opportunities to find connection and community. These factors were the main reasons that some participants valued, and chose to attend, an MBC support group. Stage-specificity and professional facilitation were identified as important aspects of group structure. Key reasons for non-attendance were concerns about misinformation, confronting the death of group members, and satisfaction with existing support networks. CONCLUSIONS: MBC support groups are beneficial for some people with MBC, providing opportunities to connect with others with the same diagnosis. For others, different forms of peer support such as online forums or one-on-one support may be preferred. We argue that ensuring those with MBC have equal access to the peer support they need will be essential in supporting people to live as well as possible with MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: MBC support groups, if appropriately led, can provide emotional and informational benefits for people with MBC. This research may also have relevance to other metastatic cancers where novel therapies are extending survival, resulting in an emerging cancer population with distinct supportive and survivorship needs.

Quality measures in primary care skin cancer management: a qualitative study of the views of key informants.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored potential quality measures to improve skin cancer management in primary care settings, and the barriers and facilitators associated with their implementation. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews and qualitative proforma surveys were conducted with skin cancer experts from a range of healthcare settings. Framework analysis was employed to identify key groups of quality measures within the domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process, outcome). Interview and survey data were triangulated to identify common groups of quality measures, barriers and facilitators. PARTICIPANTS: We purposively recruited skin cancer experts from Australia and internationally with knowledge and experience in skin cancer management. The final sample consisted of 15 participants who had clinical or academic backgrounds. RESULTS: Participants unequivocally expressed the need for quality measures to guide skin cancer care. Ten groups of quality measures were identified: three groups related to the structural elements of care (eg, diagnostic tools), four related to the processes of care (eg, diagnostic process) and three related to outcomes of care (eg, treatment outcomes). Implementation barriers included clinician resistance, system inadequacies and external factors (eg, patient risk). Facilitators included incentives, education, agreed and feasible indicators and support and guidance. CONCLUSIONS: To service a growing population of skin cancer patients in Australia, the role of primary care needs to be more clearly specified, and its care providers supported and more engaged in quality improvement processes. Structure, process and outcome quality measures, derived from detailed guidance for primary care settings, can be used to track practitioner performance and facilitate ongoing improvement.

Patient demographic characteristics and risk factors associated with sun protection behaviours in specialist melanoma clinics.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between sun protection behaviours and demographic and melanoma risk characteristics of patients attending Australian melanoma specialist clinics. This may assist in targeting and tailoring melanoma prevention patient education for people at high-risk and specific population subgroups. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected from participants attending the dermatology clinics at two major melanoma centres in Sydney, Australia between February 2021 and September 2023. The primary outcome was Sun Protection Habits (SPH) index (a summary score measured as habitual past month use of sunscreen, hats, sunglasses, a shirt with sleeves that covers the shoulders, limiting midday sun exposure and seeking shade, using a Likert scale). The primary analysis considered the SPH index and its component items scored as continuous. RESULTS: Data from 883 people were analysed. Factors associated with less frequent sun protection behaviours overall included male gender, no personal history of melanoma, lower perceived risk, lower calculated 10-year risk of developing melanoma, and no private health insurance. People aged >61 years reported lower use of sunscreen but higher use of hats and sleeved-shirts compared with people in the younger age group. There was no difference in overall sun protection behaviours according to family history of melanoma, country of birth or by lifetime melanoma risk among people without a personal history of melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential for targeting high-risk individuals with less frequent use of sun protection for patient education, public health messaging and ultimately improving sun protection behaviours.

Impact of an Online Risk Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity on Management of Patients with T1 and T2 Melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Predicting which patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T1-T2 melanomas will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) is challenging. Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed an internationally validated SLN metastatic risk calculator. This study evaluated the nomogram's impact on T1-T2 melanoma patient management at MIA. METHODS: SLN biopsy (SLNB) rates were compared for the pre- and post-nomogram periods of 1 July 2018-30 June 2019 and 1 August 2020-31 July 2021, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 850 patients were identified (pre-nomogram, 383; post-nomogram, 467). SLNB was performed in 29.0% of patients in the pre-nomogram group and 34.5% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.091). The overall positivity rate was 16.2% in the pre-nomogram group and 14.9% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.223). SLNB was performed less frequently in T1a melanoma patients in the pre-nomogram group (1.1%, n = 2/177) than in the post-nomogram group (8.6%, n = 17/198) [p ≤ 0.001]. This increase was particularly for melanomas with a risk score ≥ 5%, with an SLN positivity rate of 11.8% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.004) compared with zero. For T1b melanomas with a risk score of > 10%, the SLNB rate was 40.0% (8/20) pre-nomogram and 75.0% (12/16) post-nomogram (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this specialized center, the SLN risk calculator appears to influence practice for melanomas previously considered low risk for metastasis, with increased use of SLNB for T1a and higher-risk T1b melanomas. Further evaluation is required across broader practice settings. Melanoma management guidelines could be updated to incorporate the availability of nomograms to better select patients for SLNB than previous criteria.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Making the unbearable, bearable: Qualitative examination of patient, family and nurses' perspectives on the role and value of specialist metastatic breast care nurses.

PURPOSE: To examine the role and value of specialist metastatic breast care nurses in Australia from the perspective of metastatic breast care nurses, patients, and family members. Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is treatable yet incurable, with distinct supportive care needs, yet many of these needs are unmet. METHOD: Diverse sampling methods were used to recruit 10 people with mBC, 5 family members and 10 metastatic breast care nurses. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online or by telephone during August-December 2020, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The role of the specialist nurse was strongly valued within and across participant groups, with close alignment regarding what was highly valued. Three themes were identified. First, nurses played a vital role in giving voice and visibility to patients with mBC in a healthcare system in which they often felt invisible. Second, nurses combined their clinical and psychosocial skills with a sense of authentic engagement to create a safe space for those with mBC to discuss their feelings, experiences, and topics, especially those that were unlikely to be discussed in their other social and clinical interactions. Finally, nurses supported patients in living as well as possible while managing symptoms, ongoing treatment, and attendant psychosocial impacts of an incurable and life-limiting condition. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the central importance of metastatic breast care nurses in enhancing patient well-being, bridging gaps in care, and offering much-needed support. By addressing patients' emotional, clinical, and social needs, these specialist nurses contribute to a more holistic and compassionate approach to managing mBC.

Professionally led support groups for people living with advanced or metastatic cancer: a systematic scoping review of effectiveness and factors critical to implementation success within real-world healthcare and community settings.

PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of professionally led support groups for people with advanced or metastatic cancer, and identify factors critical to implementation success within real-world settings. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE; PsychINFO; CINAHL) and grey literature were searched for empirical publications and evaluations. Articles were screened for eligibility and data systematically extracted, charted and summarised using a modified scoping review methodology. Implementation factors were mapped using Proctor's implementation framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0. RESULTS: A total of 1691 publications were identified; 19 were eligible for inclusion (8 randomised controlled trials, 7 qualitative studies, 2 cohort studies, 2 mixed methods studies). Most (n=18) studies focused on tumour-specific support groups. Evidence supported professionally led support groups in reducing mood disturbances (n=5), distress (i.e. traumatic stress, depression) (n=4) and pain (n=2). Other benefits included social connectedness (n=6), addressing existential distress (n=5), information and knowledge (n=6), empowerment and sense of control (n=2), relationships with families (n=2) and communication with health professionals (n=2). Thirteen studies identified factors predicting successful adoption, implementation or sustainment, including acceptability (n=12; 63%), feasibility (n=6; 32%) and appropriateness (n=1; 5%). Key determinants of successful implementation included group leaders' skills/experience, mode of operation, travelling distance, group composition and membership and resourcing. CONCLUSIONS: Professionally led tumour-specific support groups demonstrate effectiveness in reducing mood disturbances, distress and pain among patients. Successful implementation hinges on factors such as leadership expertise, operational methods and resource allocation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Professionally led support groups may fill an important gap in supportive care for people with advanced or metastatic cancer.

Characteristics and post-metastasis survival of recurrent metastatic breast cancer over time - An Australian population-based record linkage study, 2001-2016.

AIM: To assess population-level characteristics and post-metastasis survival of people with recurrent metastatic breast cancer (rMBC) during a period when new publicly-subsidised adjuvant and metastatic systemic therapies became available. METHODS: Record linkage study of females in NSW Cancer Registry (NSWCR) diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) in 2001-2002 (C1) and 2006-2007 (C2). We identified first rMBC from NSWCR, administrative hospital records, dispensed medicines and radiotherapy services (2001-2016). We used death registrations to estimate cumulative incidence of BC death. RESULTS: The analysis included 2267 women with rMBC (C1:1210, C2:1057). Compared to C1, C2 had access to adjuvant HER2-targeted therapy and were more likely to have received adjuvant chemotherapy (C1:38%, C2:47%) and aromatase inhibitors (C1:52%, C2:73%, of those dispensed endocrine therapy). Five-year probability of BC death was 65% (95%CI:62-68%) in C1 and 63% (95%CI:60-66%) in C2. Regional disease (T4 or N + ) at initial BC diagnosis (C1:62%, C2:68%), and age ≥ 70 years at first metastasis (C1:27%, C2:31%) were more common in C2 and had poorer prognosis. Five-year probability of BC death was lower in C2 than C1 for treatment-defined HER2-positive BC (C1:72% 95%CI:63-79%; C2:52% 95%CI 45-60%) and those dispensed chemotherapy alone (C1:76% 95%CI:69-82, C2:67% 95%CI:59-74%, p = 0.01), but not treatment-defined hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative BC (C1:60% 95%CI 56-63%, C2:64% 95%CI 60-68%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite less favourable prognostic characteristics in C2, BC-related survival following rMBC was similar between the two cohorts; and improved for women with HER2-positive tumours. These findings support the real-world benefits of newer treatments for rMBC.

Decline in the Incidence of Distant Recurrence of Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Health Record Linkage Study, Australia 2001-2016.

BACKGROUND: We investigated differences in cumulative incidence of first distant recurrence (DR) following non-metastatic breast cancer over a time period when new adjuvant therapies became available in Australia. METHODS: We conducted a health record linkage study of females with localized (T1-3N0) or regional (T4 or N+) breast cancer in the New South Wales Cancer Registry in 2001 to 2002 and 2006 to 2007. We linked cancer registry records with administrative records from hospitals, dispensed medicines, radiotherapy services, and death registrations to estimate the 9-year cumulative incidence of DR and describe use of adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: The study included 13,170 women (2001-2002 n = 6,338, 2006-2007 n = 6,832). The 9-year cumulative incidence of DR was 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3%-4.9%] lower for 2006-2007 diagnoses (15.0%) than 2001-2002 (18.6%). Differences in the annual hazard of DR between cohorts were largest in year two. DR incidence declined for localized and regional disease. Decline was largest for ages <40 years (absolute difference, 14.4%; 95% CI, 8.3%-20.6%), whereas their use of adjuvant chemotherapy (2001-2002 49%, 2006-2007 75%) and HER2-targeted therapy (2001-2002 0%, 2006-2007 16%) increased. DR did not decline for ages ≥70 years (absolute difference, 0.9%; 95% CI, -3.6%-1.8%) who had low use of adjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This whole-of-population study suggests that DR incidence declined over time. Decline was largest for younger ages, coinciding with changes to adjuvant breast cancer therapy. IMPACT: Study findings support the need for trials addressing questions relevant to older people and cancer registry surveillance of DR to inform cancer control programs.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. CONCLUSION: Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Measuring the quality of skin cancer management in primary care: A scoping review.

Skin cancer is a growing global problem and a significant health and economic burden. Despite the practical necessity for skin cancer to be managed in primary care settings, little is known about how quality of care is or should be measured in this setting. This scoping review aimed to capture the breadth and range of contemporary evidence related to the measurement of quality in skin cancer management in primary care settings. Six databases were searched for relevant texts reporting on quality measurement in primary care skin cancer management. Data from 46 texts published since 2011 were extracted, and quality measures were catalogued according to the three domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process and outcome). Quality measures within each domain were inductively analysed into 13 key emergent groups. These represented what were deemed to be the most relevant components of skin cancer management as related to structure, process or outcomes measurement. Four groups related to the structural elements of care provision (e.g. diagnostic tools and equipment), five related to the process of care delivery (e.g. diagnostic processes) and four related to the outcomes of care (e.g. poor treatment outcomes). A broad range of quality measures have been documented, based predominantly on articles using retrospective cohort designs; systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were limited.

Optimising implementation of telehealth in oncology: A systematic review examining barriers and enablers using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework.

Telehealth facilitates access to cancer care for patients unable to attend in-person consultations, as in COVID-19. This systematic review used the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate telehealth implementation and examine enablers and barriers to optimal implementation in oncology. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched between January 2011-June 2022. Eighty-two articles representing 73 studies were included. One study explicitly used the RE-AIM framework to guide study design, conduct, or reporting. Reach (44%) and implementation (38%) were most commonly reported, maintenance (5%) least commonly. Key telehealth implementation enablers included professional-led delivery, patient-centred approaches, and positive patient perceptions. Key barriers included patient discomfort with technology, limited supporting clinic infrastructure, and poor access to reliable internet connection and videoconferencing. While a patient-centred and professional-supported approach enables telehealth implementation, technology and infrastructure constraints need surmounting for sustained implementation beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors influencing acceptance, adoption and adherence to sentinel node biopsy recommendations in the Australian Melanoma Management Guidelines: a qualitative study using an implementation science framework.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel node biopsy (SN biopsy) is a surgical procedure used to accurately stage patients with primary melanoma at high risk of recurrence. Although Australian Melanoma Management Guidelines recommend SN biopsy be considered in patients with melanomas > 1 mm thick, SN biopsy rates in Australia are reportedly low. Our objective was to identify factors impacting the acceptance, adoption and adherence to the Australian SN biopsy guideline recommendations. METHODS: Opinions of Australian key informants including clinicians, representatives from melanoma education and training providers, professional associations and colleges, and melanoma advocacy organisations were collected through semi-structured interviews (n = 29) and from publicly released statements (n = 14 news articles). Data analysis involved inductive and deductive thematic analysis using Flottorp's determinants framework. RESULTS: A complex interplay of contemporary and historical factors was identified as influencing acceptance, adoption and adherence to the SN biopsy guideline recommendations at the individual, guideline, patient, organisational and social levels. Expert and peer opinion leaders have played an important role in facilitating or inhibiting adoption of guideline recommendations, as have financial incentives driven by healthcare-funding policies and non-financial incentives including professional identity and standing. Of critical importance have been the social and knowledge boundaries that exist between different professional groups to whom the guidelines apply (surgeons, dermatologists and primary care practitioners) with adherence to the guideline recommendations having the potential to shift work across professional boundaries, altering a clinician's workflow and revenue. More recently, the emergence of effective immunotherapies and targeted therapies for patients at high risk of recurrence, the emergence of new opinion leaders on the topic (in medical oncology), and patient demands for accurate staging are playing crucial roles in overcoming the resistance to change created by these social and knowledge boundaries. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance and adherence to SN biopsy guideline recommendations in Australia over the past 20 years has involved a process of renegotiation and reframing of the evidence for SN biopsy in melanoma by clinicians from different professional groups and networks. This process has helped to refine the evidence for SN biopsy and our understanding of appropriate adoption. New effective systemic therapies have changed the balance towards accepting guideline recommendations.

Potential inequities in availability of care from breast care nurses: a qualitative study reporting the experiences and perspectives of women with metastatic breast cancer in Australia.

BACKGROUND: International consensus guidelines recommend patients with metastatic breast cancer have access to a nurse experienced in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. This study aimed to explore women's experiences of supportive care from breast care nurses, including their perspectives on the role breast care nurses currently play in providing support to people with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Multiple semi-structured qualitative interviews with 38 women with metastatic breast cancer in Australia. Data relating to nursing care were extracted and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) feeling that supportive care needs are unrecognised; (2) confusion about role and relevance of breast care nurse to those with metastatic breast cancer; (3) care from metastatic breast care nurses (when available) was appreciated, valued and beneficial. Participants' experiences differed in relation to ease of access to, amount of contact with, and level of care provided by breast care nurses. Contact and care ranged from little or none to comprehensive and ongoing. A key system-level challenge was that the diversity of diagnostic and treatment pathways for metastatic breast cancer meant that no systematic means existed to support routine or regular contact between breast care nurses and participants. Participants who did report having access to a specialised metastatic breast care nurse placed considerable value on the care received. For these participants, care from the breast care nurse extended and complemented care from the oncologist and included much needed psychosocial and practical support. For these participants, the breast care nurse assumed the role of key contact and care coordinator and was valued for their availability, accessibility and responsiveness. High levels of trust developed between patient and breast care nurse. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that there may be gaps and inequities in supportive care in Australia for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, a finding that supports earlier reports of limited access to breast care nurses for people with metastatic breast cancer in Australia. The specialised metastatic breast care nurse could potentially play a key role in addressing the high level of unmet supportive care needs and improve continuity of care for these patients.

Protocol for the implementation of a stepped-care model to address fear of cancer recurrence in patients previously diagnosed with early-stage (0-II) melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is commonly reported by patients diagnosed with early-stage (0-II) melanoma and can have a significant impact on daily functioning. This study will pilot the implementation of the Melanoma Care Program, an evidence-based, psychological intervention to reduce FCR, into routine practice, using a stepped-care model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Intervention effectiveness and level of implementation will be investigated using a hybrid type I design. Between 4 weeks before and 1 week after their next dermatological appointment, patients with melanoma will be invited to complete the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory Short-Form, measuring self-reported FCR severity. Using a stepped-care model, clinical cut-off points will guide the level of support offered to patients. This includes: (1) usual care, (2) Melanoma: Questions and Answers psychoeducational booklet, and (3) three or five psychotherapeutic telehealth sessions. This longitudinal, mixed-methods pilot implementation study aims to recruit 108 patients previously diagnosed with stage 0-II melanoma. The primary effectiveness outcome is change in FCR severity over time. Secondary effectiveness outcomes include change in anxiety, depression, stress, health-related quality of life and melanoma-related knowledge over time. All outcomes are measured at baseline, within 1 week of the final telehealth session, and 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Implementation stakeholders at each study site and interested patients will provide feedback on intervention acceptability and appropriateness. Implementation stakeholders will also provide feedback on intervention cost, feasibility, fidelity and sustainability. These outcomes will be measured throughout implementation, using questionnaires and semistructured interviews/expert group discussions. Descriptive statistics, linear mixed-effects regression and thematic analysis will be used to analyse study data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by the Sydney Local Health District-Royal Prince Alfred Zone (2020/ETH02518), protocol number: X20-0495. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, social media and result summaries distributed to interested participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: (ACTRN12621000145808).