Melanoma Outcomes for Medicare Patients: Association of Stage and Survival With Detection by a Dermatologist vs a Nondermatologist
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a difference in melanoma outcomes exists in the United States between tumors detected by dermatologists vs those detected by nondermatologists. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of linked data from the Medicare enrollment and claims files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database from 1991 to 1996. The registries are from 12 US sites. PATIENTS: A study sample comprised of 2020 subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Tumor characteristics (Breslow thickness and histologic ulceration), stage at diagnosis, and survival and mortality rates. RESULTS: Tumor detection by a dermatologist vs nondermatologist was associated with an earlier stage melanoma (stage 0, stage I, and stage II vs stage III and stage IV; chi(2) test, P<.01) and a thinner tumor (Breslow thickness, 0.86 mm vs 1.00 mm; P<.05). At all time points (6 months, 2 years, and 5 years), patients whose melanoma was detected by dermatologists had better survival rates (98%, 87%, and 74%, respectively, for those whose melanoma was detected by dermatologists vs 95%, 79%, and 69%, respectively, for nondermatologists; P<.05). Non-cancer-related mortality was similar for the 2 groups, but the patients whose tumors were detected by dermatologists had lower cancer-related mortality (13% vs 21%; P<.01) and overall mortality (29% vs 37%; P<.01). Multivariate analysis showed that age, sex, stage at diagnosis, and melanoma detection by a dermatologist were all significantly predictive of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier stage melanoma and improved survival are associated with detection by a dermatologist rather than by a nondermatologist. Increasing access to dermatologists, particularly for older patients, may represent one approach to improving melanoma-related health outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Examination of some skin conditions by dermatologists results in significantly higher diagnostic accuracy and is associated with better clinical outcomes than nondermatologist examination.
“The examination of some skin conditions by dermatologists results in significantly higher diagnostic accuracy2,3,4 and is associated with better clinical outcomes5 than nondermatologist examination.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Pennie, M. L., Soon, S. L., Risser, J. B., Veledar, E., Culler, S. D., & Chen, S. C.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Venue
- Archives of Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2007-04-01
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 488-94
- ISSN
- 0003-987X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115328641
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23AR02185-01A1, K23AR002185)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- melanoma, stage at diagnosis, Breslow thickness, survival, cancer mortality, Medicare beneficiaries, elderly patients
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Dermatology, Female, Medicare, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Skin Neoplasms, United States, Survival Rate
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review