General practice

Self screening for risk of melanoma: validity of self mole counting by patients in a single general practice

^a Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton SO16 5ST, ^b Department of Dermatology, Southampton University, Southampton

Health Centre, Thame, Oxfordshire OX9 3JZ Duncan Keeley, general practitioner. Correspondence to: Dr Little.

Abstract

Objective: To validate self screening by patients of high mole counts, assess the within family association of sun protection behaviour and mole counts, and estimate prevalence of risk factors for melanoma.
Setting and subjects: Systematic sample of families from a single affluent general practice population in Wessex.
Design: Subjects completed a questionnaire about risk factors for melanoma and counted their moles. Subsequently a mole count was done by a general practitioner trained at dermatology clinics.
Main outcome measures: Validation of self counts by observer's count. Within family association of sun protection behaviour and mole counts; self reported risk factors.
Results: 199/237 subjects (84%) returned the questionnaire; 212/237 (89%) were examined. High counts by patients on the front of the trunk (>7 moles of >/=2 mm) were reasonably sensitive (79%), predictive (75%), and specific (97%) of the observer's mole counts ((kappa)=0.74), unlike arm or total body counts. Sun protection behaviour correlated between individuals and other family members (Spearman's coefficient r=0.50, P<0.01). In the past three months 15/114 adults (13.2%, 95% confidence interval 7.0% to 19.4%) reported any change in a mole and 6/114 (5.3%, 2.0% to 11.1%) "major" changes; 6/109 adults (5.5%, 2.1% to 11.6%) had both high mole counts and freckling.
Conclusions: Asking patients to count trunk moles could be a feasible way of identifyng patients at high risk of melanoma. Concentrating on reported major changes in moles should avoid considerable workload in general practice. The generalisability of these findings and the adverse effects, net benefit in earlier diagnosis and prevention, and workload implications of such self screening need further research.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Screening for melanoma

Paul Little, Martin Keefe, and John White
BMJ 1995 311: 389-390. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Harrison, S. L., Buettner, P. G., MacLennan, R., Kelly, J. W., Rivers, J. K. (2002). How Good Are Parents at Assessing Melanocytic Nevi on Their Children? A Study Comparing Parental Counts, Dermatologist Counts, and Counts Obtained from Photographs. Am J Epidemiol 155: 1128-1136 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mikkilineni, R., Weinstock, M. A. (2000). Is the Self-counting of Moles a Valid Method of Assessing Melanoma Risk?. Arch Dermatol 136: 1550-1551 [Full text]  
• Rhodes, A. R. (2000). Common Acquired Nevomelanocytic Nevi and the Fourth Dimension. Arch Dermatol 136: 400-405 [Full text]  
• Jackson, A., Wilkinson, C., Ranger, M., Pill, R., August, P. (1998). Can primary prevention or selective screening for melanoma be more precisely targeted through general practice? A prospective study to validate a self administered risk score. BMJ 316: 34-38 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Whited, J. D., Hall, R. P. (1997). Diagnostic Accuracy and Precision in Assessing Dermatologic Disease: Problem or Promise?. Arch Dermatol 133: 1409-1415 [Abstract]