P atients with symptoms suggestive of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) account for ≈10% of all emergency department (ED) presentations. 1 The majority of patients are finally found to have diagnoses other than AMI. 2 Thus, the expeditious evaluation of such patients is important because delays in ruling out AMI may interfere with the detection of other underlying diseases. The 0/1 hour (0/1h) algorithm and the 0/3 hour (0/3h) algorithm are both recommended by the European Society of Cardiology with a Class I recommendation for the early rule-out of AMI. 1 The 0/1h algorithm and 0/3h algorithm are completely different protocols. Whereas the 0/1h algorithm uses high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) concentrations at presentation and absolute changes within the first hour and hence takes optimal advantage of the increased diagnostic accuracy and precision of hs-cTn assays, the 0/3h algorithm uses a fixed threshold protocol based on the 99th percentile at presentation and 3 hours in conjunction with clinical criteria (GRACE [Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events] score <140 and the need to be pain free). It is currently unknown whether 1 algorithm is preferable to the other. The aim of this study was to directly compare safety, quantified by the negative predictive value (NPV) and the negative likelihood ratio (LR) for the presence of AMI, and efficacy, quantified by the proportion of patients triaged toward rule-out in a large diagnostic multicenter study enrolling patients presenting with suspected AMI to the ED (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00470587). The study was carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethics committees. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation MI were excluded. Triage toward rule-out by the 0/1h or the 0/3h algorithm was compared against the final adjudication performed by 2 independent cardiologists using all information, including cardiac imaging and serial hs-cTnT measurements. Analyses were performed with hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI. NPV and efficacy were compared by the McNemar test and Pearson χ 2 test, respectively. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Among 2547 patients eligible for analysis with hs-cTnT, AMI was the final adjudicated diagnosis in 387 patients (15%). The 0/1h algorithm provided safety similar to that of the 0/3h algorithm (NPV, 99.8% [95% CI, 99.4-99.9] and negative LR, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00-0.03] versus NPV, 99.7% [95% CI, 99.2-99.9] and negative LR, 0.02 [95% CI, 0.00-0.05]) but allowed the rule-out of significantly more patients compared with the 0/3h algorithm (60% versus 44%; P<0.001). Among 2197 patients eligible for analysis with hs-cTnI, AMI was the final diagnosis in 327 patients (15%). The 0/1h algorithm provided higher safety compared with the 0/3h algorithm (NPV, 99.6% [95% CI, 99.1-99.9%] and negative LR, 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01-0.05] versus NP...

The exponential increase in algorithm-based mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for melanoma screening is a reaction to a growing market. However, the performance of available apps remains to be investigated. In this prospective study, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a class 1 CE-certified smartphone app in melanoma risk stratification and its patient and dermatologist satisfaction. Pigmented skin lesions ≥3 mm and any suspicious smaller lesions were assessed by the smartphone app SkinVision® (SkinVision® B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands, App-Version 6.8.1), 2D FotoFinder ATBM® master (FotoFinder ATBM® Systems GmbH, Bad Birnbach, Germany, Version 3.3.1.0), 3D Vectra® WB360 (Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, New Jersey, USA, Version 4.7.1) total body photography (TBP) devices, and dermatologists. The high-risk score of the smartphone app was compared with the two gold standards: histological diagnosis, or if not available, the combination of dermatologists’, 2D and 3D risk assessments. A total of 1204 lesions among 114 patients (mean age 59 years; 51% females (55 patients at high-risk for developing a melanoma, 59 melanoma patients)) were included. The smartphone app’s sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) varied between 41.3–83.3%, 60.0–82.9%, and 0.62–0.72 according to two study-defined reference standards. Additionally, all patients and dermatologists completed a newly created questionnaire for preference and trust of screening type. The smartphone app was rated as trustworthy by 36% (20/55) of patients at high-risk for melanoma, 49% (29/59) of melanoma patients, and 8.8% (10/114) of dermatologists. Most of the patients rated the 2D TBP imaging (93% (51/55) resp. 88% (52/59)) and the 3D TBP imaging (91% (50/55) resp. 90% (53/59)) as trustworthy. A skin cancer screening by combination of dermatologist and smartphone app was favored by only 1.8% (1/55) resp. 3.4% (2/59) of the patients; no patient preferred an assessment by a smartphone app alone. The diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice was not as reliable as previously advertised and the satisfaction with smartphone apps for melanoma risk stratification was scarce. MHealth apps might be a potential medium to increase awareness for melanoma screening in the lay population, but healthcare professionals and users should be alerted to the potential harm of over-detection and poor performance. In conclusion, we suggest further robust evidence-based evaluation before including market-approved apps in self-examination for public health benefits.

At the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, Switzerland was among the countries with the highest number of SARS-CoV2-infections per capita in the world. Lockdowns had a remarkable impact on primary care access and resulted in postponed cancer screenings. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on the diagnosis of melanomas and stage of melanomas at diagnosis. In this retrospective, exploratory cohort study, 1240 patients with a new diagnosis of melanoma were analyzed at five tertiary care hospitals in German-speaking Switzerland over a period of two years and three months. We compared the pre-lockdown (01/FEB/19–15/MAR/20, n = 655) with the lockdown (16/MAR/20–22/JUN/20, n = 148) and post-lockdown period (23/JUN/20–30/APR/21, n = 437) by evaluating patients’ demographics and prognostic features using Breslow thickness, ulceration, subtype, and stages. We observed a short-term, two-week rise in melanoma diagnoses after the major lift of social lockdown restrictions. The difference of mean Breslow thicknesses was significantly greater in older females during the lockdown compared to the pre-lockdown (1.9 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.03) and post-lockdown period (1.9 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.048). Thickness increase was driven by nodular melanomas (2.9 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.0021; resp. 2.6 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.008). A proportional rise of advanced melanomas was observed during lockdown (p = 0.047). The findings provide clinically relevant insights into lockdown-related gender- and age-dependent effects on melanoma diagnosis. Our data highlight a stable course in new melanomas with a lower-than-expected increase in the post-lockdown period. The lockdown period led to a greater thickness in elderly women driven by nodular melanomas and a proportional shift towards stage IV melanoma. We intend to raise awareness for individual cancer care in future pandemic management strategies.

IntroductionThe worldwide incidence of melanoma has been increasing rapidly in recent decades with Switzerland having one of the highest rates in Europe. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is one of the main risk factors for skin cancer. Our objective was to investigate UV protective behavior and melanoma awareness in a high-risk cohort for melanoma.MethodsIn this prospective monocentric study, we assessed general melanoma awareness and UV protection habits in at-risk patients (≥100 nevi, ≥5 dysplastic nevi, known CDKN2A mutation, and/or positive family history) and melanoma patients using questionnaires. ResultsBetween 01/2021 and 03/ 2022, a total of 269 patients (53.5% at-risk patients, 46.5% melanoma patients) were included. We observed a significant trend toward using a higher sun protection factor (SPF) in melanoma patients compared with at-risk patients (SPF 50+: 48% [n=60] vs. 26% [n=37]; p=0.0016). Those with a college or university degree used a high SPF significantly more often than patients with lower education levels (p=0.0007). However, higher educational levels correlated with increased annual sun exposure (p=0.041). Neither a positive family history for melanoma, nor gender or Fitzpatrick skin type influenced sun protection behavior. An age of ≥ 50 years presented as a significant risk factor for melanoma development with an odd’s ratio of 2.32. Study participation resulted in improved sun protection behavior with 51% reporting more frequent sunscreen use after study inclusion. DiscussionUV protection remains a critical factor in melanoma prevention. We suggest that melanoma awareness should continue to be raised through public skin cancer prevention campaigns with a particular focus on individuals with low levels of education.