Background
Evidence-based guidelines for follow-up treatment of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages 1B to 2C melanoma patients are lacking. The MELanoma FOllow-up study is an international phase 3 randomized trial, and the 3-year interim data were recently reported from the Netherlands. The study was undertaken concurrently with a British cohort for comparison and validation of the Dutch study.
Methods
The study enrolled and stratified 207 patients by AJCC stage. The conventional schedule group (CSG; n = 103) cohort was reviewed as per UK guidelines. The experimental schedule group (ESG; n = 104) cohort was reviewed in a reduced-frequency nurse-led, consultant-supervised clinic. Quality of life (QoL) was measured at baseline (T1), a 1 year (T2), and at 3 years (T3) using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Cancer Worry Scale, the Impact-of-Event Scale, and the Mental and Physical Component scales (PCS/MCS) of the RAND-36.
Results
Of the 207 QoL questionnaires, 170 (82.1%) were completed at T3. Both cohorts expressed high satisfaction (> 93%) with their regimens. At T3, no significant group effect was found on any patient-reported outcome measures scores, indicating no QoL difference between the follow-up protocols. Recurrence had developed in 33 patients Conventional follow-up (CFU), 16 [15.5%]; Experimental follow-up (EFU), 17 [16.3%]. Self-examination was the method of detection for 12 ESG patients (70.6%) and 11 CSG patients (68.8%). The melanoma-specific survival was identical.
Conclusion
The UK 3-year data were consistent with the previous Dutch report. The reduced follow-up strategy was shown to be safe, with significant resource usage benefits for national cancer services. Patient anxiety levels were not increased by a less-intensive follow-up regimen, and acceptance was high. The study data indicate that patient self-examination is very effective for recurrence detection.
Objectives and Design:
The MELFO (MELanoma FOllow-up) study is an international phase III randomized controlled trial comparing an experimental low-intensity schedule against current national guidelines.
Background:
Evidence-based guidelines for the follow-up of sentinel node–negative melanoma patients are lacking.
Methods:
Overall, 388 adult patients diagnosed with sentinel node–negative primary melanoma patients were randomized in cancer centers in the Netherlands and United Kingdom between 2006 and 2016. The conventional schedule group (control: n=196) was reviewed as per current national guidelines. The experimental schedule group (n=192) was reviewed in a reduced-frequency schedule. Quality of life was the primary outcome measurement. Detection rates and survival outcomes were recorded. Patient satisfaction rates and compliance with allocated schedules were compared.
Results:
At 5 years, both arms expressed high satisfaction with their regimens (>97%). This study found no significant group effect on any patient-reported outcome measure scores between the follow-up protocols. In total, 75/388 (19.4%) patients recurred, with no difference in incidence found between the 2 arms (hazard ratio=0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–1.39, P=0.57). Self-examination was the method of detection for 25 experimental patients and 32 control patients (75.8% vs. 76.2%; P=0.41). This study found no difference in any survival outcomes between the 2 study arms (disease-free survival: hazard ratio=1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.49–2.07, P=0.99).
Conclusions:
A reduced-intensity, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage-adjusted follow-up schedule for sentinel node–negative melanoma patients is a safe strategy, and patient self-examination is effective for recurrence detection with no evidence of diagnostic delay. Patients’ acceptance is very high.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.