Patients poorly recognize lesions of concern that are malignant melanomas: is self-screening the correct advice?

Background: Australia is known for its outdoor culture, with a large percentage of its population engaging in outdoor recreational activities, aquatic, non-aquatic and outdoor occupational activities. However, these outdoor enthusiasts face increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), leading to a higher risk of skin cancer, including malignant melanoma (MM). Over the past 40 years, there has been a significant rise in skin cancer rates in Australia, with two out of three Australians expected to develop some form of skin cancer by age 70. Currently, skin cancer examinations are not endorsed in asymptomatic or low-risk individuals in Australia, with only high-risk individuals recommended to undergo regular skin examinations. Notably, the Melanoma Institute Australia suggests that one-half of patients identify MMs themselves, although this claim appears to be based on limited Australian data which may not reflect contemporary practice. Therefore this study sought to determine the percentage of patients who were able to self-identify MMs as lesions of concern when presenting for a skin cancer examination. Methods: Multi-site, cross-sectional study design incorporating a descriptive survey and total body skin cancer screening, including artificial intelligence by a skin cancer doctor. Results: A total of 260 participants with suspect MM lesions were biopsied, with 83 (31.9%) found to be melanomas. Of the true positive MMs only a small percentage of participants (21.7% specificity) correctly had concerns about the suspect lesion being a MM. These MMs were located primarily on the back (44.4%), shoulder (11.1%) and upper leg (11.1%). There was no significant difference in the size between those participants aware of a MM versus those who were not (P = 0.824, 24.6 vs 23.4 mm²). Significantly more males identified lesions of concern that were MMs as compared to females (P = 0.008, 61.1% vs 38.9%, respectively). With regard to true negatives males and females were similar (52.1% vs 47.9%, respectively). With regard to false negatives (n = 65), a greater percentage of males than females did not recognize the MM as a lesion of concern (66.2% vs 33.8%, respectively). Participants were more likely to correctly identify an invasive MM as opposed to an in situ MM (27.3% versus 21.3%). Conclusions: Only a small percentage of participants in this study were able to self-identify either in situ or invasive MM as a lesion of concern with a tendency to identify the more advanced, thicker MMs. Given that MM is associated with a high mortality and cost of treatment, particularly when invasive, the inability of lay persons to identify these cancerous lesions will likely lead to delayed treatment and a possible adverse outcome. We believe the current melanoma screening practices in Australian general practice should be revisited to improve patient outcomes with regard to MM. Additionally, prevention campaigns should include images and primary risk factors for MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]