Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39969595›Full record

ArticleArchives of dermatological research2025

The potential impact of ACOG guideline changes on genital melanoma detection rates in females: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis and implications for clinical practice.

Kritin K Verma, Danita Mathew, Mary Fitzgibbon, Daniel P Friedmann, Ethan Matthew, Michelle B Tarbox, Theodore Rosen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Kritin K VermaSchool of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th St, Lubbock, TX, 79430, USA. kritin.k.verma@ttuhsc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0548-3526
Danita MathewSchool of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th St, Lubbock, TX, 79430, USA.
Mary FitzgibbonDepartment of Pediatrics, WashU Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Daniel P FriedmannWestlake Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Westlake Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery, Austin, TX, USA.
Ethan MatthewDepartment of Dermatology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Michelle B TarboxDepartment of Dermatology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Theodore RosenDepartment of Dermatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genital melanoma (GM) is a rare but aggressive cancer that accounts for less than 5% of vaginal cancers and 0.2-0.8% of all melanomas in the United States. The 2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines reduced routine pelvic exams for women aged 65 and older, raising concerns about later-stage GM diagnosis, worse survival rates, and potential underreporting. This study investigated the impact of these guideline changes on female GM detection rates through a cross-sectional analysis of female patients aged 18 and older in the All of Us database from 2012 to 2023. The analysis focused on melanoma in-situ (MIS) of the vulva using ICD-10-CM code D03.8 to calculate prevalence and incidence. The study identified 16 cases of vulvar MIS (0.006%, 95% CI [0.004-0.010%]) with a mean age of 64.6 ± 12.4 years at diagnosis. Prevalence peaked in the 61-70 age group (0.014%, 95% CI [0.000-0.029%]), with white patients showing the highest prevalence (0.009%, 95% CI [0.004-0.015%]). The overall incidence was 5.37 cases per million women per year. However, a decreasing trend was observed, with no cases reported between 2021 and 2023. This decline in reported cases may be linked to the 2018 ACOG guideline changes, potentially leading to later-stage diagnoses and poor outcomes. The study's limitations include the inability to calculate yearly incidence due to lack of annual enrollment data and the absence of staging information. The findings suggest a potential connection between the ACOG guideline modifications and GM detection rates. While current incidence rates are similar to or higher than those before the 2018 changes, the decline in routine pelvic exams may contribute to later-stage diagnoses and poor outcomes. The absence of diagnosed GM cases in the past three years is particularly concerning and may reflect delayed effects of infrequent screening. Increased awareness, improved screening practices, and additional research are necessary to fully understand the impact of the 2018 ACOG guideline changes on GM diagnosis and treatment. Healthcare providers should consider performing yearly pelvic examinations, especially for patients over 65, while educating patients on early self-detection of GM.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMelanomaPractice Guidelines as TopicSkin NeoplasmsVulvar NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesACOG guidelinesEarly detectionFemale populationsGenital melanomaIncidencePrevalenceScreening practicesVulvar cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.