Are patients benefiting from participation in the German skin cancer screening programme? A large cohort study based on administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The German programme for skin cancer screening was established in 2008 with the aim of reducing skin cancer mortality. However, the effectiveness and risk-benefit ratio of the programme remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the mortality rates of patients with melanoma who participate in a screening programme to those who do not. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, based on pseudonymized health insurance data of 1 431 327 individuals from Saxony, Germany, was conducted for the period 2010-2016. Patients with prevalent and incident melanoma were defined based on diagnosis, medical procedures and prescriptions. Patients who underwent screening and had a first diagnosis of melanoma within 2 years of screening were assigned to the intervention group. Relative survival and Cox regression were used to assess potential differences in mortality. RESULTS: We identified 4552 individuals with prevalent and 2475 individuals with incident melanoma. The percentage of screening participants (n = 1801) who had locoregional (4·2% vs. 13·5%) and/or distant metastases (4·3% vs. 8·0%), or who were treated with systemic anticancer therapies (11·6% vs. 21·8%) was lower vs. nonparticipants (n = 674). Screening participants had significantly better survival rates. The unadjusted Cox model gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·30-0·46]. After adjusting for named confounders, the effect remained (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·48-0·80). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who participated in the screening programme had lower mortality than those who had not undergone screening. However, these findings may result from a healthy screen bias and/or overdiagnosis associated with screening, and not from the screening itself.

eCross-cultural adaptation of the spine oncology-specific SOSGOQ2.0 questionnaire to German language and the assessment of its validity and reliability in the clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: The recently developed Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) was proven a valid and reliable instrument measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients with spinal malignancies. A German version was not available. OBJECTIVE: A cross-cultural adaptation of the SOSGOQ2.0 to the German language and its multicenter evaluation. METHODS: In a multistep process, a cross-cultural adaptation of the SOSGOQ2.0 was conducted. Subsequently, a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study was initiated to assess the reliability and validity of the German adaptation. To assess external construct validity of the cross-cultural adapted questionnaire, a comparison to the established questionnaire QLQ-C30 from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer was conducted. Mean-difference plots were used to measure the agreement between the questionnaires in total score and by domain (deviation from mean up to 10% allowed). Further reliability and validity tests were carried out. Change to baseline was analysed 3-16 weeks later after different interventions occurred. Clinically relevant thresholds in comparison to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were evaluated by ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: We could enroll 113 patients from four different university hospitals (58 females, 55 males). Mean age was 64.11 years (sd 11.9). 80 patients had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher at baseline. External construct validity in comparison to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in total score and by domain was confirmed (range of deviation 4.4 to 9.0%). Good responsiveness for the domains Physical Functioning (P < .001) and Pain (P < .001) could be shown. The group mean values also displayed a difference in the domains of Social Functioning (P = .331) and Mental Health (P = .130), but not significant. The minimum clinically relevant threshold values for the questionnaire ranged from 4.0 to 7.5 points. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the cross-cultural adapted questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to measure HRQOL in German speaking patients with spinal malignancies. Especially the domains Physical Functioning and Pain showed overall good psychometric characteristics. In this way, a generic questionnaire, such as the EORTC QLQ-C30, can be usefully supplemented by spine-specific questions to increase the overall accuracy measuring HRQOL in patients with spinal malignancies.

Outcome assessment in dermatology clinical trials and cochrane reviews: call for a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy.

BACKGROUND: Standardized outcome reporting is crucial for trial evidence synthesis and translation of findings into clinical decision-making. The OMERACT 2.0 Filter and COMET outcome domain taxonomy propose frameworks for consistent reporting of outcomes. There is an absence of a uniform dermatology-specific reporting strategy that uses precise and consistent outcome definitions. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to map efficacy/effectiveness outcomes assessed in dermatological trials to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter as a starting point for developing an outcome taxonomy in dermatology. METHODS: We critically appraised 10 Cochrane Skin Reviews randomly selected from all 69 Cochrane Skin Reviews published until 01/2015 and the 220 trials included covering a broad spectrum of dermatological conditions and interventions. Efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were mapped to core areas and domains according to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter. The extracted trial outcomes were used for critical appraisal of outcome reporting in dermatology trials and for the preliminary development of a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy. RESULTS: The allocation of 1086 extracted efficacy/effectiveness outcomes to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter resulted in a hierarchically structured dermatology-specific outcome classification. In 506 outcomes (47%), the outcome concept to be measured was insufficiently described, hindering meaningful evidence synthesis. Although the core areas assessed in different dermatology trials of the same condition overlap considerably, quantitative evidence synthesis usually failed due to imprecise outcome definitions, non-comparable outcome measurement instruments, metrics and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We present an efficacy/effectiveness outcome classification as a starting point for a dermatology-specific taxonomy to provide trialists and reviewers with the opportunity to better synthesize and compare evidence.