Dataset Information

Characteristics, treatment and outcomes of 589 melanoma patients documented by 27 general practitioners on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

General practitioners manage more melanomas than dermatologists or surgeons in Australia. Previously undescribed, the management and outcomes of melanoma patients treated by multiple Australasian general practitioners are examined.

Methods

The characteristics, management and outcomes of 589 melanoma patients, managed by 27 Australasian general practitioners and documented on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database (SCARD), were analysed.

Results

Most patients (58.9%) were males with mean age at diagnosis of 62.7 years (range 18-96), and most melanomas were in situ or thin-invasive. Patients aged under 40 years had fewer melanomas, but a higher proportion (the majority) were invasive, compared with older patients (P < 0.0001). Most (55.9%) melanomas were diagnosed following elliptical excision biopsy, the rate of unintended involved margins being eightfold higher for shave biopsies. Wide re-excision was performed by the treating general practitioner for most (74.9%) melanomas, with thick melanomas preferentially referred to surgeons. The average Breslow thickness of invasive melanomas re-excised by general practitioners was 0.67 mm compared with 1.99 mm for those referred to other specialists (P < 0.0001). Of 205 patients with invasive melanoma, 14 progressed to metastatic disease, 50% of these being associated with nodular melanoma. Nine patients progressed to melanoma-specific death. The 5-year survival rate for patients with invasive melanoma was 95.2% (95% CI: 91.2-98.5%).

Conclusions

Diagnostic and therapeutic management of a series of melanoma patients by Australasian general practitioners were closely aligned with current guidelines and 5-year survival with respect to invasive melanoma was at least as favourable as national population-based metrics.

SUBMITTER: Hay J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9320831 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of early palliative care within a primary care setting is a recent academic topic. Recruiting General Practitioners (GPs) to participate in a palliative care study can be challenging. The pro-Spinoza project implemented a Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care in 5 areas in Belgium. During this project, the feasibility of the recruitment of GPs and palliative care patients was evaluated. METHODS:The recruitment process was recorded in detail via an electronic logbook combining quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative recordings included the contact types and the number of contacts with eligible GPs and were analysed descriptively. Qualitative recordings included field notes with feedback from the GPs and other stakeholders and were thematically analysed starting from the Grol and Wensing framework for professional behaviour change. RESULTS:Of 4065 eligible GPs working in 5 areas under research, 787 GPs (19%) were contacted individually, 398 GPs (9,8%) were contacted face-to-face and most of these 398 GPs showed high interest in the topic. 112 GPs (2,8%) signed the collaboration agreement, but finally only 65 GPs (1,6%) delivered at least a completed baseline-questionnaire. Despite the initial interest in participating, the unpredictable and busy daily workloads of the GPs, as well as inexperience with research protocols, impeded the ability of the GPs to fully engage in the study. This resulted in the high dropout rate. Participating GPs reported that they had underestimated the effort required to effectively participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment of GPs to palliative care research is challenging. Primary care is a vital service to engage in palliative care research however the practical limitations reduce the ability of the service to effectively engage in the research. More research is needed to determine how GPs might be better supported in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02266069 , Registered 16th October 2014, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundParticipation of general practitioners is crucial for health care studies. However, recruiting them is an ongoing challenge and participation rates of general practitioners around the globe are often low. One feasible and cost-efficient approach to potentially enhance participation rates among general practitioners are personalized invitation letters, since they may increase one's attention to and appreciation of a study. Still, evidence whether this method actually affects participation is scarce and ambiguous in relation to physicians.MethodsWe undertook a randomized trial in a sample of general practitioners from three German states in the context of a large, observational study on physicians' coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular ambulatory care. An intervention group (n = 757 general practitioners) received a personalized invitation to participate in the observational study, the control group (n = 754 general practitioners) received a generic invitation. Both groups were blinded to group assignment. Eventual participation rates as well as the number and types of responses overall were compared between arms. Besides the main intervention, sociodemographic and geographical context factors were considered as well.ResultsThe overall participation rate among physicians was 2.6% (2.8% in the intervention group and 2.4% in the control group). No statistically significant effect of personalization on participation of physicians was found (relative risk to participate when receiving a personalized invitation of 1.17 [95%-CI: 0.62, 2.21]). However, the number of responses to the invitation varied significantly between the geographical regions.ConclusionsPersonalization of first written contact alone did not improve research participation among general practitioners, which was overall very low.Trial registrationThe study in which the trial was embedded has been registered prospectively at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under registration number DRKS00019219 .

Project description:BackgroundMuch research worldwide is focussed on cost containment and better adherence to guidelines in healthcare. The research focussing on professional behaviour is often performed in a well-controlled research setting. In this study a large-scale implementation of a peer review strategy was tested on both test ordering and prescribing behaviour in primary care in the normal quality improvement setting.MethodsWe planned a cluster-RCT in existing local quality improvement collaboratives (LQICs) in primary care. The study ran from January 2008 to January 2011. LQICs were randomly assigned to one of two trial arms, with each arm receiving the same intervention of audit and feedback combined with peer review. Both arms were offered five different clinical topics and acted as blind controls for the other arm. The differences in test ordering rates and prescribing rates between both arms were analysed in an intention-to-treat pre-post analysis and a per-protocol analysis.ResultsTwenty-one LQIC groups, including 197 GPs working in 88 practices, entered the trial. The intention-to-treat analysis did not show a difference in the changes in test ordering or prescribing performance between intervention and control groups. The per-protocol analysis showed positive results for half of the clinical topics. The increase in total tests ordered was 3% in the intervention arm and 15% in the control arm. For prescribing the increase in prescriptions was 20% in the intervention arm and 66% in the control group. It was observed that the groups with the highest baseline test ordering and prescription volumes showed the largest improvements.ConclusionsOur study shows that the results from earlier work could not be confirmed by our attempt to implement the strategy in the field. We did not see a decrease in the volumes of tests ordered or of the drugs prescribed but were able to show a lesser increase instead. Implementing the peer review with audit and feedback proved to be not feasible in primary care in the Netherlands.Trial registrationThis trial was registered at the Dutch trial register under number ISRCTN40008171 on August 7th 2007.