Understanding how individuals at high-risk of primary cutaneous melanoma are best identified, screened and followed up will help optimize melanoma prevention strategies and clinical management. We conducted a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines and documented the quality of supporting evidence for recommendations for clinical management of individuals at high risk of melanoma. Guidelines published between January 2000 and July 2014 were identified from a systematic search of Medline, Embase and four guideline databases; 34 guidelines from 20 countries were included. High-risk characteristics that were consistently reported included many melanocytic naevi, dysplastic naevi, family history, large congenital naevi, and Fitzpatrick Type I and II skin types. Most guidelines identify risk factors and recommend that individuals at high risk of cutaneous melanoma be monitored, but only half of the guidelines provide recommendations for screening based on level of risk. There is disagreement in screening and follow-up recommendations for those with an increased risk of future melanoma. High-level evidence supports long-term screening of individuals at high risk and monitoring using dermoscopy. Evidence is low for defining screening intervals and duration of follow-up, and for skin self-examination, although education about skin self-examination is widely encouraged. Clinical practice guidelines would benefit from a dedicated section for identification, screening and follow-up of individuals at high risk of melanoma. Guidelines could be improved with clear definitions of multiple naevi, family history and frequency of follow-up. Research examining the benefits and costs of alternative management strategies for groups at high risk will enhance the quality of recommendations.

Purpose Clinical guidelines recommend that people at high risk of melanoma receive regular surveillance to improve survival through early detection. A specialized High Risk Clinic in Sydney, Australia was found to be effective for this purpose; however, wider implementation of this clinical service requires evidence of cost-effectiveness and data addressing potential overtreatment of suspicious skin lesions. Patients and Methods A decision-analytic model was built to compare the costs and benefits of specialized surveillance compared with standard care over a 10-year period, from a health system perspective. A high-risk standard care cohort was obtained using linked population data, comprising the Sax Institute's 45 and Up cohort study, linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule claims data, the cancer registry, and hospital admissions data. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for all model parameters. Results Specialized surveillance through the High Risk Clinic was both less expensive and more effective than standard care. The mean saving was A$6,828 (95% CI, $5,564 to $8,092) per patient, and the mean quality-adjusted life-year gain was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.35). The main drivers of the differences were detection of melanoma at an earlier stage resulting in less extensive treatment and a lower annual mean excision rate for suspicious lesions in specialized surveillance (0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91) compared with standard care (2.55; 95% CI, 2.34 to 2.76). The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Specialized surveillance was a cost-effective strategy for the management of individuals at high risk of melanoma. There were also fewer invasive procedures in specialized surveillance compared with standard care in the community.

The COVID-19 pandemic is growing rapidly, with over 37 million cases and more than 1 million deaths reported by mid-October, 2020, with true numbers likely to be much higher in the many countries with low testing rates. Many communities are highly vulnerable to the devastating effects of COVID-19 because of overcrowding in domestic settings, high burden of comorbidities, and scarce access to health care. Access to testing is crucial to globally recommended control strategies, but many communities do not have adequate access to timely laboratory services. Geographic dispersion of small populations across islands and other rural and remote settings presents a key barrier to testing access. In this Personal View, we describe a model for the implementation of decentralised COVID-19 point-of-care testing in remote locations by use of the GeneXpert platform, which has been successfully scaled up in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. Implementation of the decentralised point-of-care testing model should be considered for communities in need, especially those that are undertested and socially vulnerable. The decentralised testing model should be part of the core global response towards suppressing COVID-19.