U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Screening for Skin Cancer

Screening for Skin Cancer

Systematic Evidence Reviews, No. 2

, MD, MPH, , MPH, and , PhD.

Author Information and Affiliations
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 01-S002

Structured Abstract

Context:

Malignant melanoma is often lethal, and its incidence in the United States has increased rapidly over the past 2 decades. Nonmelanoma skin cancer is seldom lethal, but, if advanced, can cause severe disfigurement and morbidity. Early detection and treatment of melanoma might reduce mortality, whereas early detection and treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer might prevent major disfigurement and, to a lesser extent, prevent mortality. Current recommendations from professional societies regarding screening for skin cancer vary.

Objective:

To examine published data on the effectiveness of screening for skin cancer by a primary care provider.

Data Sources:

We searched the MEDLINE database for papers published from January 1994 to June 1999, using search terms for screening, physical examination, morbidity, and skin neoplasms. For information on accuracy of screening tests, we used the search terms sensitivity and specificity. We identified the most important studies from before 1994 from the Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, second edition, and from high-quality reviews. We used reference lists and expert recommendations to locate additional articles.

Study Selection:

Two reviewers independently reviewed a subset of 500 abstracts. After consistency was established, 1 reviewer reviewed the remaining abstracts. We included studies if they contained data on yield of screening, screening tests, risk factors, risk assessment, effectiveness of early detection, or cost effectiveness.

Data Extraction:

We abstracted the following descriptive information from full-text published studies of screening and recorded it in an electronic database: type of screening study, study design, setting, population, patient recruitment, screening test description, examiner, advertising targeted at high-risk groups or not targeted, reported risk factors of participants, and procedure for referrals. We also abstracted the yield-of-screening data, including probabilities and numbers of referrals, types of suspected skin cancers, biopsies, confirmed skin cancers, stages, and thickness of skin cancers. For studies that reported test performance, we recorded the definition of a suspicious lesion; the gold standard determination of disease; and the number of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative test results. When possible, we recorded positive predictive values, likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity.

Data Synthesis:

No randomized or case-control studies demonstrate that screening for melanoma reduces morbidity or mortality. Basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are common, but detection and treatment in the absence of formal screening is almost always curative. No controlled studies have shown that formal screening programs improve this already high cure rate.

Although the efficacy of screening has not been established, the screening procedures themselves are noninvasive, and the follow-up test—skin biopsy—has low morbidity. Estimates of accuracy of screening are based on cross-sectional studies that suffer from workup bias. One prospective study tracked patients who had negative results to determine the number of patients who had false-negative results. In this study, the sensitivity of screening for skin cancer was 0.94 and specificity was 0.975.

Several recent case-control studies confirm earlier evidence that patients who have atypical moles, many (>50) common moles, or both are at increased risk for melanoma. One well-done prospective study demonstrated that risk assessment by limited physical examination identified a relatively small (<10%) group of primary care patients for more thorough evaluation.

Conclusions:

The quality of the evidence for routine screening by primary care providers for early detection of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer ranged from poor to fair. Despite the lack of evidence, skin cancer screening, perhaps by means of a risk-assessment technique to identify high-risk patients who are seeing a physician for other reasons, is the most promising strategy for addressing the excess burden of disease in older adults.

Keywords:

Skin Cancer, skin neoplasms, mass screening, physical examination

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 Contract No. 290-97-0018, Task Order No. 2, Technical Support of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Prepared by: Oregon Health Sciences University Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, Oregon.

Suggested citation:

Helfand M, Mahon S, Eden K. Screening for Skin Cancer. Systematic Evidence Review No. 2 (Prepared by the Oregon Health Sciences University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0018). AHRQ Publication No. AHRQ01-S002. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2001.

On December 6, 1999, under Public Law 106-129, the Agency for Health Care Policy Research (AHCPR) was reauthorized and renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(AHRQ). The law authorizes AHRQ to continue its research on the cost, quality, and outcomes of health care, and expands its role to improve patient safety and address medical errors.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of a particular drug, device, test, treatment, or other clinical service.

1

2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852. www​.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK42669PMID: 20722115

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...