Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Screening for malignant melanoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Open access
Freedberg, Kenneth A., Geller, Alan C., Miller, Donald R., Lew, Robert A., Koh, Howard K.·1999·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70010-1

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 173

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.