Author
Listed:
- Nevio Dubbini
(Miningful Studio s.r.l.s, 56127 Pisa, Italy)
- Antonella Puddu
(Plastic Surgery Department, San Rossore Clinic, 56122 Pisa, Italy)
- Grazia Salimbeni
(Plastic Surgery Department, San Rossore Clinic, 56122 Pisa, Italy)
- Stefano Malloggi
(Plastic Surgery Department, San Rossore Clinic, 56122 Pisa, Italy)
- Daniele Gandini
(Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Specialist, 56122 Pisa, Italy)
- Pietro Massei
(Private Plastic Surgeon, Check-Up Medical Center, 55100 Lucca, Italy)
- Giuseppe Ferraùto
(Private Dermatologist, San Rossore Clinic, 56122 Pisa, Italy)
- Tommaso Rubino
(Private Dermatologist, 56127 Pisa, Italy)
- Laura Ricci
(Dermatology Department, Azienda USL Toscana Nord Ovest, 57025 Piombino, Italy)
- Giovanni Menchini
(Private Dermatologist, 56127 Pisa, Italy)
- Marco Celli
(Dermatology Department, Ospedale Unico Della Versilia, Lido di Camaiore, 55041 Lucca, Italy)
- Maurizia Ghilardi
(Private Dermatologist, 56127 Pisa, Italy)
- Roberto Gianfaldoni
(Dermatology Department, University “G. Marconi of Rome”, 00193 Roma, Italy)
- Serena Gianfaldoni
(Dermatology Department, University “G. Marconi of Rome”, 00193 Roma, Italy)
- Andrea Nannipieri
(Dermatology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, 56126 Pisa, Italy)
- Antonella Romanini
(Medical Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, 56126 Pisa, Italy)
Abstract
Background: Guidelines recommend limiting melanoma screening in a population with known risk factors, but none indicates methods for efficient recruitment. The purpose of this study is to compare three different methods of recruiting subjects to be screened for melanoma to detect which, if any, is the most efficient. Methods: From 2010 to 2019, subjects were recruited as follows: (1) regular skin examinations (RS), mainly conducted through the Associazione Contro il Melanoma network; (2) occasional melanoma screening (OS), during annual public campaigns; (3) and selective screening (SS), where people were invited to undergo a skin check after filling in a risk evaluation questionnaire, in cases where the assigned outcome was intermediate/high risk. Melanoma risk factors were compared across different screening methods. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were used for multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 2238 subjects (62.7% women) were recruited, median age 44 years (2–85), and 1094 (48.9 %) records were collected through RS, 826 (36.9 %) through OS, and 318 (14.2 %) through SS. A total of 131 suspicious non-melanoma skin cancers were clinically diagnosed, 20 pathologically confirmed, and 2 melanomas detected. SS performed significantly better at selecting subjects with a family history of melanoma and I-II phototypes compared to OS. Conclusions: Prior evaluation of melanoma known risk factors allowed for effective selection of a population to screen at higher risk of developing a melanoma.
Suggested Citation
Nevio Dubbini & Antonella Puddu & Grazia Salimbeni & Stefano Malloggi & Daniele Gandini & Pietro Massei & Giuseppe Ferraùto & Tommaso Rubino & Laura Ricci & Giovanni Menchini & Marco Celli & Maurizia , 2021.
"Melanoma Prevention: Comparison of Different Screening Methods for the Selection of a High Risk Population,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-10, February.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1953-:d:500940
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- Prisco Piscitelli & Cosimo Neglia & Andrea Falco & Matteo Rivezzi & Nadia Agnello & Alberto Argentiero & Giovanna Chitano & Chiara Distante & Giulia Della Rosa & Giorgia Vinci & Antonella De Donno & A, 2015.
"Melanoma in the Italian Population and Regional Environmental Influences: A National Retrospective Survey on 2001–2008 Hospitalization Records,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
- Susan M. Swetter & Alan C. Geller, 2014.
"Perspective: Catch melanoma early,"
Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7527), pages 117-117, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1953-:d:500940. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.