Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTurner, Robin M
dc.contributor.authorBell, Katy J.L.
dc.contributor.authorMorton, Rachael L
dc.contributor.authorHayen, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorFrancken, Anne B
dc.contributor.authorHoward, Kirsten
dc.contributor.authorArmstrong, Bruce
dc.contributor.authorThompson, John F
dc.contributor.authorIrwig, Les
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-11T05:41:36Z
dc.date.available2021-02-11T05:41:36Z
dc.date.issued2011en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/24509
dc.description.abstractTo develop more evidence-based guidelines for the frequency of patient follow-up after treatment of localized (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage I or II) melanoma. Methods: We used data from Melanoma Institute Australia on an inception cohort of 3,081 consecutive patients first diagnosed with stage I or II melanoma between January 1985 and December 2009. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models were used to characterize the time course and predictors for recurrence and new primaries. We modeled the delay in diagnosis of recurrence or new primary as well as the number of monitoring visits required using two monitoring schedules: first, according to 2008 Australian and New Zealand guidelines and, second, with fewer visits, especially for those at lowest risk of recurrence. Results: For every 1,000 patients beginning follow-up, 229 developed recurrence and 61 developed new primary within 10 years. There was only a small difference in modeled delay in diagnosis (extra 44.9 and 9.6 patients per 1,000 for recurrence and new primary, respectively, with delay greater than 2 months) using a schedule that requires far fewer visits (3,000 fewer visits per 1,000 patients) than recommended by current guidelines. AJCC substage was the most important predictor of recurrence, whereas age and date of primary diagnosis were important predictors of developing new primary. Conclusion: By providing less intensive monitoring, more efficient follow-up strategies are possible. Fewer visits with a more focused approach may address the needs of patients and clinicians to detect recurrent or new melanoma.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Clinical Oncologyen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Oncologyen_AU
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0en_AU
dc.subjectmonitoringen_AU
dc.subjectmelanomaen_AU
dc.subjectskin neoplasmsen_AU
dc.subjectneoplasm recurrenceen_AU
dc.subjectrisk factorsen_AU
dc.subjectfollow-up studiesen_AU
dc.titleOptimizing the frequency of follow-up visits for patients treated for localized primary cutaneous melanomaen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.subject.asrc1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesisen_AU
dc.subject.asrc1117 Public Health and Health Servicesen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2956
dc.relation.nhmrc402764
dc.relation.nhmrc633003
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Sydney School of Public Healthen_AU
usyd.citation.volume29en_AU
usyd.citation.issue35en_AU
usyd.citation.spage4641en_AU
usyd.citation.epage4646en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.