Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33947444›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow-up? A protocol for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial.

Deonna M Ackermann, Amelia K Smit, Monika Janda, Cathelijne H van Kemenade, Mbathio Dieng, Rachael L Morton, Robin M Turner, Anne E Cust, Les Irwig, Jolyn K Hersch and 15 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Deonna M Ackermann *Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Amelia K Smit *Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Monika JandaCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Cathelijne H van KemenadeSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Mbathio DiengNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rachael L MortonMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Robin M TurnerBiostatistics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Anne E CustCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Les IrwigSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jolyn K HerschSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Pascale GuiteraMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
H Peter SoyerDermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Victoria MarVictorian Melanoma Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Robyn P M SawMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Donald LowCancer Voices NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Cynthia LowCancer Voices NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Dorothy DrabarekSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
David EspinozaNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter MurchieInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
John F ThompsonMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Anthony AzziNewcastle Skin Check, Newcastle, Australia.
Alister LilleymanNewcastle Skin Check, Newcastle, Australia.
Katy J L BellSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. katy.bell@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0137-3218

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1163054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma.

methodsStage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised). DISCUSSION: The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsAustraliaFollow-Up StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf-ExaminationCancer surveillanceEarly detection of cancerHealth services researchMelanomaRandomised controlled trialSelf-examinationTeledermoscopyTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID33947444
PMCPMC8096155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.