The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Screening for malignant melanoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Increasing evidence suggests that screening for malignant melanoma is effective, but its cost-effectiveness has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the effectiveness and costs of a visual screen to diagnose malignant melanoma in high-risk persons. METHODS: We developed a decision analysis comparing no skin cancer screen with a single screen by a dermatologist. Clinical outcomes included malignant melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, or no skin cancer. Life expectancy and costs of care were projected on the basis of clinical findings. RESULTS: Skin cancer screening increased average discounted life expectancy from 15.0963 years to 15.0975 years. Based on the prevalence of malignant melanoma, however, this translates into an increased discounted life expectancy of 0.9231 years for each person with diagnosed melanoma. Using a cost of $30 per screen, total skin cancer-related costs for a cohort of 1 million people increased from $826 million with no screen to $861 million with screening, with an increase of 1200 years of life. This results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,170 per year of life saved (YLS) with screening. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness ratio for screening remained below $50,000/YLS if the prevalence of melanoma in the screened population was at least 0. 0009, the probability that a melanoma detected in screening was localized was at least 94.8%, or the cost of each screen was below $57. CONCLUSION: Skin cancer screening in high-risk patients is likely to be associated with a small increase in discounted life expectancy and is reasonably cost-effective compared with other cancer screening strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Automated Melanoma Recognition in Dermoscopy Images via Very Deep Residual Networks
Yu, L., Chen, H., Dou, Q., Qin, J., & Heng, P.-A. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2642839 · Cited by 1,140
Prevalence and Costs of Skin Cancer Treatment in the U.S., 2002−2006 and 2007−2011
Guy, G. P., Machlin, S. R., Ekwueme, D. U., & Yabroff, K. R. (2015) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.08.036 · Cited by 873
Survival Is Not the Only Valuable End Point in Melanoma Screening
Curiel-Lewandrowski, C., Kim, C. C., Swetter, S. M., Chen, S. C., Halpern, A. C., Kirkwood, J. M., Leachman, S. A., Marghoob, A. A., Ming, M. E., & Grichnik, J. M. (2012) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1038/jid.2012.3 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Freedberg, K. A., Geller, A. C., Miller, D. R., Lew, R. A., & Koh, H. K.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 738-745
- ISSN
- 0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016694769
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for malignant melanoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70010-1
- The paper
- Freedberg, K. A., Geller, A. C., Miller, D. R., Lew, R. A., & Koh, H. K. (1999). Screening for malignant melanoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70010-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.