Performing this targeted screening in a high-risk population resulted in a high melanoma detection rate, despite moderate compliance. Observations suggest that naming a dermatologist is a simple, inexpensive means of increasing patient compliance with the screening.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess general practitioner (GP) management practices related to skin cancer prevention and screening during standard medical encounters.SettingData on medical encounters addressing skin cancer issues were obtained from a French database containing information from 17 019 standard primary care consultations.ParticipantsData were collected between December 2011 and April 2012 by 54 trainees who reported the regular practice of 128 GPs using the International Classification of Primary Care.Outcome measuresReasons for encounters and the following care processes were recorded: counselling, clinical examinations and referral to a specialist. Medical encounters addressing skin cancer issues were compared with medical encounters that addressed other health problems using a multivariate analysis.ResultsOnly 0.7% of medical encounters addressed skin cancer issues. When patients did require management of a skin cancer-related issue, this was more likely initiated by the doctor than the patient (70.7% vs 29.3%; p<0.001). Compared with medical encounters addressing other health problems, encounters that addressed skin cancer problems required more tasks (3.7 vs 2.5; p<0.001) and lasted 1 min and 20 s longer (p=0.003). GPs were less involved in clinical examinations (67.5% vs 97.1%; p<0.001), both complete (7.3% vs 22.3%, p<0.001) and partial examinations (60.2% vs 74.9%), and were less involved in counselling (5.7% vs 16.9%; p<0.001). Patients presenting skin cancer issues were referred to a specialist more often than patients consulting for other health problems (39.0% vs 12.1%; p<0.001). GPs performed a biopsy in 6.7% of all skin cancer-related encounters.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates discrepancies between the high prevalence of skin cancer and the low rate of medical encounters addressing these issues in general practice. Our findings should be followed by qualitative interviews to better understand the observed practices in this field.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of a targeted screening for melanoma in high-risk patients following the receipt of a mailed invitation to an annual skin examination by a general practitioner (GP).MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted in a primary care setting in western France. A total of 3897 patients at elevated risk of melanoma (identified using the Self-Assessment of Melanoma Risk Score) consented to participate in a targeted melanoma screening project in 2011. One year later, the participants were invited by mail to consult their GP for an annual skin examination. Efficacy of the procedure was evaluated according to patient participation and the number of melanomas detected. The consultation dates and results were collected during the 12 months postreminder and were analysed using SAS. Analyses of whether participation decreased compared with that during the year of inclusion and whether populations at risk for thick melanoma showed reduced participation in the screening were performed.ResultsOf the 3745 patients who received the mailed invitation, 61% underwent a skin examination. The participation of patients at risk for thick melanoma (any patient over 60 years of age and men over 50 years of age) was significantly greater than that of the patients in the other subgroups (72.4% vs 49.6%, p<0.001; and 66% vs 52.4%, p<0.001, respectively). The patients referred to the dermatologist after 1 year were more compliant compared with those referred during the first year (68.8% vs 59.1%, p=0.003). Six melanomas were detected within 1 year postreminder; therefore, the incidence of melanoma in the study population was 160/100 000.ConclusionsThis study confirms the benefits of developing a targeted screening strategy in primary care. In particular, after the annual reminder, patient participation and the diagnosis of melanoma remained high in the patients at elevated risk of thick melanomas.Trial registration numberNCT01610531.

ObjectiveThe study objective was to measure the rates of inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in a pilot targeted screening project involving general practitioners.DesignThis cross-sectional database study compared the inclusion rates of patients who signed inclusion in a targeted screening project with those of patients who did not, during a period in which both groups of patients consulted investigators.SettingData were extracted from the national healthcare insurance records in western France from 11 April to 30 October 2011.PatientsPatients, older than 18, considered for the data extraction had consulted one of the 78 participating GPs during the study period, and were affiliated with the national healthcare insurance.Main outcome measuresInclusion in the screening was the main outcome measure. Patients at risk of advanced melanoma were characterized by male gender, age over 50, low income, rural residence, farmer, and presence of chronic disease.ResultsA total of 57,279 patients consulted GPs during the inclusion period and 2711 (4.73%) were included in the targeted screening. Populations at risk of advanced melanoma were less included: men (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.61–0.73]; p < 0.001), older than 50 (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.60–0.74]; p < 0.001), low income (OR = 0.65; 95%CI [0.55–0.77]; p < 0.001), farmer (OR = 0.23; 95%CI [0.17–0.30]; p < 0.001) and presence of a chronic disease (OR = 0.87; 95%CI [0.77–0.98]; p < 0.028).ConclusionThis study demonstrated inequalities in the inclusion of patients in a melanoma screening. Patients at risk of advanced cancer were screened less often. Further studies should focus on GPs ability to identify and screen these patients.Key Points Advanced melanoma is more frequently diagnosed in men, older patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, which leads to survival inequalities.• Despite the involvement of general practitioners, the implementation of targeted melanoma screening did not avoid inclusion inequalities.• Men, older patients, patients suffering from chronic diseases, and low-income patients were less likely to benefit from screening.• The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

IntroductionCervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most common cancer among women. It can be cured if diagnosed at an early stage and treated promptly. The World Health Organization suggests that 70% of women should be screened with a high-performance test by the age of 35. This paper reports a protocol to assess the effect of two modalities of organized CC screening programmes on CC screening uptake.Methods and analysisDesign and setting: The design involves a 3-arm randomized controlled study performed in a French geographic area on the west coast. A total of 1,395 general practitioners will be randomized, depending on their general practice surgeries. Participants: The design is based on a total of 94,393 women aged 40 to 65 years who are eligible for CC screening. Intervention: In the “optimized cancer screening” group, the intervention will combine sending invitation letters to non-adherent women with sending general practitioners (GPs) a list of their non-adherent patients. In the “standard cancer screening” group, the intervention will be limited to sending invitation letters to non-adherent women. In the “usual care” group, no letter will be sent either to women or to their GPs. Primary endpoint: CC screening test uptake will be assessed after a 6-month follow-up period. Statistical analysis: The percentage of women who are up-to-date with their screening at 6 months after the intervention will be compared across arms using a generalized mixed linear model.DiscussionA large-scale randomized trial of this nature is unprecedented. The study will enable us to assess a strategy relying on GPs, identified as the coordinators in this screening strategy. The study results should help policy makers to implement organized CC screening programs in the future.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National College of Teaching General practitioners (IRB00010804). It was recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov on the number NCT04689178 (28 December 2020). The study findings will be used for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations in scientific meetings.