Current practice of patient follow-up after potentially curative resectionof cutaneous melanoma

Citation
Ks. Virgo et al., Current practice of patient follow-up after potentially curative resectionof cutaneous melanoma, PLAS R SURG, 106(3), 2000, pp. 590-597
Citations number
39
Categorie Soggetti
Surgery,"Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Journal title
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
ISSN journal
00321052 → ACNP
Volume
106
Issue
3
Year of publication
2000
Pages
590 - 597
Database
ISI
SICI code
0032-1052(200009)106:3<590:CPOPFA>2.0.ZU;2-F
Abstract
Follow-up care for patients who have undergone potentially curative resecti on of cutaneous melanoma Varies widely among physicians, and the underlying rationale has not been assessed. To quantify current practice patterns and to discern motivation, a custom-designed questionnaire was mailed to U.S. and non-U.S. surgeons, all of whom were members of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ASPRS). Surveys were mailed to 3032 AS PRS members, chosen randomly from a total of 4320 members. Of the 1142 ques tionnaires that were returned, 395 were evaluable. Nonevaluability was usua lly due to lack of melanoma patients receiving follow-up, in the surgeons' practices. Surveillance of patients after resection of melanoma relies most heavily on office visit, chest x-ray, complete blood count, and liver func tion tests. There was surprisingly little influence of elective node dissec tion on follow-up practices, imaging tests such as computed tomography, mag netic resonance imaging, and position emission tomography scan were rarely employed. Surveillance is motivated by many factors, particularly early det ection of recurrence of the index melanoma and second primary melanomas. Th is survey provides information regarding current follow-up strategies recom mended by ASPRS surgeons after potentially curative resection of cutaneous melanoma. There is considerable variation in surveillance intensity and in motivation among practitioners, thus representing a lack of consensus.