Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2007
Risk factors for presumptive melanoma in skin cancer screening: American Academy of Dermatology National Melanoma/Skin Cancer Screening Program experience 2001-2005.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goldberg Matthew S, Doucette John T, Lim Henry W, Spencer James, Carucci John A, Rigel Darrell S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Since its inception in 1985, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) National Melanoma/Skin Cancer Screening Program has strived to enhance early detection of cutaneous malignant melanoma (MM) by providing nationwide skin cancer education campaigns in combination with free skin cancer screenings.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the AAD screening data from 2001 to 2005 in order to identify factors associated with MM detection, and thereby derive a model of increased likelihood for MM detection through visual skin examinations at screenings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients completed a standardized AAD pre-screening form with historical and phenotypic information. Clinicians then recorded suspected clinical findings noted at visual skin examination. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 14 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill).
RESULTS: Five factors, which can be remembered with the acronym HARMM, independently increased the likelihood of suspected MM being found in the 362,804 persons screened: History of previous melanoma (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-3.8); Age over 50 (OR = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3); Regular dermatologist absent (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.5); Mole changing (OR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.9-2.2); and Male gender (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.5). Individuals at highest risk (4 or 5 factors) comprised only 5.8% of the total population, yet accounted for 13.6% of presumptive MM findings, and were 4.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-5.1) more likely to be diagnosed with suspected MM than individuals at lowest risk (0 or 1 factor). Receipt of a total skin examination at screening independently increased the likelihood for identifying suspected MM (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6). However, significantly fewer screenees in the highest risk group versus those in the lowest risk group underwent total skin examinations (53.7% vs 62.5%).
LIMITATIONS: Risk factors studied limited to variables collected in screenee enrollment form.
CONCLUSIONS: A higher-risk subgroup of the skin cancer screening population can be identified through assessment of MM risk factors using the HARMM criteria. Refocusing efforts to provide a total skin examination to those individuals with multiple risk factors has the potential to both reduce costs and increase yields for suspected MM in future mass screening initiatives.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the AAD screening data from 2001 to 2005 in order to identify factors associated with MM detection, and thereby derive a model of increased likelihood for MM detection through visual skin examinations at screenings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients completed a standardized AAD pre-screening form with historical and phenotypic information. Clinicians then recorded suspected clinical findings noted at visual skin examination. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 14 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill).
RESULTS: Five factors, which can be remembered with the acronym HARMM, independently increased the likelihood of suspected MM being found in the 362,804 persons screened: History of previous melanoma (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-3.8); Age over 50 (OR = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3); Regular dermatologist absent (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.5); Mole changing (OR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.9-2.2); and Male gender (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.5). Individuals at highest risk (4 or 5 factors) comprised only 5.8% of the total population, yet accounted for 13.6% of presumptive MM findings, and were 4.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-5.1) more likely to be diagnosed with suspected MM than individuals at lowest risk (0 or 1 factor). Receipt of a total skin examination at screening independently increased the likelihood for identifying suspected MM (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6). However, significantly fewer screenees in the highest risk group versus those in the lowest risk group underwent total skin examinations (53.7% vs 62.5%).
LIMITATIONS: Risk factors studied limited to variables collected in screenee enrollment form.
CONCLUSIONS: A higher-risk subgroup of the skin cancer screening population can be identified through assessment of MM risk factors using the HARMM criteria. Refocusing efforts to provide a total skin examination to those individuals with multiple risk factors has the potential to both reduce costs and increase yields for suspected MM in future mass screening initiatives.