Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model

Background: Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luke Vale, Patience Kunonga, Diarmuid Coughlan, Vasileios Kontogiannis, Margaret Astin, Fiona Beyer, Catherine Richmond, Dor Wilson, Dalvir Bajwa, Mehdi Javanbakht, Andrew Bryant, Wanwuri Akor, Dawn Craig, Penny Lovat, Marie Labus, Batoul Nasr, Timothy Cunliffe, Helena Hinde, Mohamed Shawgi, Daniel Saleh, Pam Royle, Paul Steward, Rachel Lucas, Robert Ellis
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: NIHR Journals Library 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/21247debab3e4d9bb4ce2c282c8aa36f
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:21247debab3e4d9bb4ce2c282c8aa36f
record_format dspace
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic cutaneous melanoma
surveillance
systematic review
evidence synthesis
cost-effectiveness analysis
Medical technology
R855-855.5
spellingShingle cutaneous melanoma
surveillance
systematic review
evidence synthesis
cost-effectiveness analysis
Medical technology
R855-855.5
Luke Vale
Patience Kunonga
Diarmuid Coughlan
Vasileios Kontogiannis
Margaret Astin
Fiona Beyer
Catherine Richmond
Dor Wilson
Dalvir Bajwa
Mehdi Javanbakht
Andrew Bryant
Wanwuri Akor
Dawn Craig
Penny Lovat
Marie Labus
Batoul Nasr
Timothy Cunliffe
Helena Hinde
Mohamed Shawgi
Daniel Saleh
Pam Royle
Paul Steward
Rachel Lucas
Robert Ellis
Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
description Background: Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for stage IA and IB melanoma. Review methods: Three systematic reviews were conducted. (1) The effectiveness of surveillance strategies. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. (2) Prediction models to stratify by risk of recurrence, metastases and survival. Model performance was assessed by study-reported measures of discrimination (e.g. D-statistic, Harrel’s c-statistic), calibration (e.g. the Hosmer–Lemeshow ‘goodness-of-fit’ test) or overall performance (e.g. Brier score, R2). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). (3) Diagnostic test accuracy of fine-needle biopsy and ultrasonography. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and overall survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 (QUADAS–2) tool. Review data and data from elsewhere were used to model the cost-effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies and the value of further research. Results: (1) The surveillance review included one randomised controlled trial. There was no evidence of a difference in new primary or recurrence detected (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.31). Risk of bias was considered to be of some concern. Certainty of the evidence was low. (2) Eleven risk prediction models were identified. Discrimination measures were reported for six models, with the area under the operating curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. Three models reported calibration measures, with coefficients of ≥ 0.88. Overall performance was reported by two models. In one, the Brier score was slightly better than the American Joint Committee on Cancer scheme score. The other reported an R2 of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.49). All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. (3) The diagnostic test accuracy review identified two studies. One study considered fine-needle biopsy and the other considered ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity for fine-needle biopsy were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97), respectively. For ultrasonography, sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the reference standards and flow and timing domains, the risk of bias was rated as being high for both studies. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, less intensive surveillance than recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be worthwhile. There was considerable uncertainty. Improving the diagnostic performance of cancer nurse specialists and introducing a risk prediction tool could be promising. Further research on transition probabilities between different stages of melanoma and on improving diagnostic accuracy would be of most value. Limitations: Overall, few data of limited quality were available, and these related to earlier versions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Consequently, there was considerable uncertainty in the economic evaluation. Conclusions: Despite adoption of rigorous methods, too few data are available to justify changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations on surveillance. However, alternative strategies warrant further research, specifically on improving estimates of incidence, progression of recurrent disease; diagnostic accuracy and health-related quality of life; developing and evaluating risk stratification tools; and understanding patient preferences. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086784. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol 25, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
format article
author Luke Vale
Patience Kunonga
Diarmuid Coughlan
Vasileios Kontogiannis
Margaret Astin
Fiona Beyer
Catherine Richmond
Dor Wilson
Dalvir Bajwa
Mehdi Javanbakht
Andrew Bryant
Wanwuri Akor
Dawn Craig
Penny Lovat
Marie Labus
Batoul Nasr
Timothy Cunliffe
Helena Hinde
Mohamed Shawgi
Daniel Saleh
Pam Royle
Paul Steward
Rachel Lucas
Robert Ellis
author_facet Luke Vale
Patience Kunonga
Diarmuid Coughlan
Vasileios Kontogiannis
Margaret Astin
Fiona Beyer
Catherine Richmond
Dor Wilson
Dalvir Bajwa
Mehdi Javanbakht
Andrew Bryant
Wanwuri Akor
Dawn Craig
Penny Lovat
Marie Labus
Batoul Nasr
Timothy Cunliffe
Helena Hinde
Mohamed Shawgi
Daniel Saleh
Pam Royle
Paul Steward
Rachel Lucas
Robert Ellis
author_sort Luke Vale
title Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
title_short Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
title_full Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
title_fullStr Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
title_full_unstemmed Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
title_sort optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model
publisher NIHR Journals Library
publishDate 2021
url https://doaj.org/article/21247debab3e4d9bb4ce2c282c8aa36f
work_keys_str_mv AT lukevale optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT patiencekunonga optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT diarmuidcoughlan optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT vasileioskontogiannis optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT margaretastin optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT fionabeyer optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT catherinerichmond optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT dorwilson optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT dalvirbajwa optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT mehdijavanbakht optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT andrewbryant optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT wanwuriakor optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT dawncraig optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT pennylovat optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT marielabus optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT batoulnasr optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT timothycunliffe optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT helenahinde optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT mohamedshawgi optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT danielsaleh optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT pamroyle optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT paulsteward optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT rachellucas optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
AT robertellis optimalsurveillancestrategiesforpatientswithstage1cutaneousmelanomapostprimarytumourexcisionthreesystematicreviewsandaneconomicmodel
_version_ 1718420831979175936
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:21247debab3e4d9bb4ce2c282c8aa36f2021-11-18T11:10:45ZOptimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model1366-52782046-492410.3310/hta25640https://doaj.org/article/21247debab3e4d9bb4ce2c282c8aa36f2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.3310/hta25640https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924Background: Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for stage IA and IB melanoma. Review methods: Three systematic reviews were conducted. (1) The effectiveness of surveillance strategies. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. (2) Prediction models to stratify by risk of recurrence, metastases and survival. Model performance was assessed by study-reported measures of discrimination (e.g. D-statistic, Harrel’s c-statistic), calibration (e.g. the Hosmer–Lemeshow ‘goodness-of-fit’ test) or overall performance (e.g. Brier score, R2). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). (3) Diagnostic test accuracy of fine-needle biopsy and ultrasonography. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and overall survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 (QUADAS–2) tool. Review data and data from elsewhere were used to model the cost-effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies and the value of further research. Results: (1) The surveillance review included one randomised controlled trial. There was no evidence of a difference in new primary or recurrence detected (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.31). Risk of bias was considered to be of some concern. Certainty of the evidence was low. (2) Eleven risk prediction models were identified. Discrimination measures were reported for six models, with the area under the operating curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. Three models reported calibration measures, with coefficients of ≥ 0.88. Overall performance was reported by two models. In one, the Brier score was slightly better than the American Joint Committee on Cancer scheme score. The other reported an R2 of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.49). All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. (3) The diagnostic test accuracy review identified two studies. One study considered fine-needle biopsy and the other considered ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity for fine-needle biopsy were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97), respectively. For ultrasonography, sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the reference standards and flow and timing domains, the risk of bias was rated as being high for both studies. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, less intensive surveillance than recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be worthwhile. There was considerable uncertainty. Improving the diagnostic performance of cancer nurse specialists and introducing a risk prediction tool could be promising. Further research on transition probabilities between different stages of melanoma and on improving diagnostic accuracy would be of most value. Limitations: Overall, few data of limited quality were available, and these related to earlier versions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Consequently, there was considerable uncertainty in the economic evaluation. Conclusions: Despite adoption of rigorous methods, too few data are available to justify changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations on surveillance. However, alternative strategies warrant further research, specifically on improving estimates of incidence, progression of recurrent disease; diagnostic accuracy and health-related quality of life; developing and evaluating risk stratification tools; and understanding patient preferences. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086784. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol 25, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.Luke ValePatience KunongaDiarmuid CoughlanVasileios KontogiannisMargaret AstinFiona BeyerCatherine RichmondDor WilsonDalvir BajwaMehdi JavanbakhtAndrew BryantWanwuri AkorDawn CraigPenny LovatMarie LabusBatoul NasrTimothy CunliffeHelena HindeMohamed ShawgiDaniel SalehPam RoylePaul StewardRachel LucasRobert EllisNIHR Journals Libraryarticlecutaneous melanomasurveillancesystematic reviewevidence synthesiscost-effectiveness analysisMedical technologyR855-855.5ENHealth Technology Assessment, Vol 25, Iss 64 (2021)